Certain terms are too generalized, and sometimes the generalizations within certain groups become "bad words". It becomes a problem in Anthropology that people outside science generalize terms without fully understanding them. Missing Link, Caveman, Theory, Witch, and so on and so on. So sometimes we are talking about a Form (as in Platonic Forms) and some people will automatically see the Form only in the extremes with no in betweens. Take the Form: Chair all chairs are different, but some people may only recognize Dinner Chair and Recliner as a proper chairs with all the less being less than chairs. But if the Form is Human, things get complicated. The same applies to art, inside the art world the definitioning things like form, movement, contrast, texture, color outside in the general populace its either art or not art, and hence if its not art what is it? I remember in art class there was in the artworld and the general populace a debate long ago whether photography was a legitimate art, in the end the artworld said yes it is. I think the debate is still out in the public though, because the real answer is yeah its art but there are a whole range of degrees from High art to really cruddy art.