The Institutional Theory of Art

I really enjoyed "The Institutional Theory of Art" by Robert Yanal. I found the mathematical like approaches to defining art or art institutions easy to understand, making logical sense (in supporting the arguments made).
I agree with Danto in his early claims when he says,
"namely the possibility that something is art not by virtue of any properties of it but rather virtue of a relation it bears to some larger context" (page 1)
Here he is saying that although objects may look the same - "materially identical" (as he puts) but it is depending on the context into which these objects may determine an artwork.
Danto explains this theory/concept with alphas & betas, saying it alpha & beta are aesthetically equivialent but if alpha is not a work of art then it must lie in the context. For me this is obviously true, because if my toilet in my bathroom isn't an artwork, and Duchamp's urinal is an artwork it has to be the context that the object is in to determine its values as an artwork.
And i guess here is also where the artist's intentions are involved as well, Danto talks about "artreleveant predicates" and that his example "H" becomes an artrelevant predicate when the artist "determines" that it is so (page 1)
He draws upon this relation to context, definately making me think of relational aesthetics that we have learnt so much about recently.
At the beginning I found it so simple to understand, (to which I was surprised) but then as i read deeper it got much more complicated!
Dickie talks about appreciation, and i found that the part when he says "every person who sees himself as a member of the artworkd is thereby a member" i interpreted this as similar to Danto's 'if the artist is determined it is art, then it is art', 'if i see myself as a member of the artworld i am'
Dickie then says "the fountain must come from some institutional status it has to come to have... and institutional status is not a material but a relational property. This brings me back to the context that Danto was theorising in being crucial to the artwork, does this draw upon or relate to Danto's relations the object must have with context? Or does this relate to relational aesthetics? Does everything relate to relational aesthetics?
I began to get confused with the relations things had to one another as the essay seemed to get more complicated.
I keep agreeing with this and that, bits and pieces until i read about Ted Cohen's theory- to which i completely disagreed. Cohen "points out that something can be appreciated only if it is appreciable" I disagree so strongly because here the context is not being taken into account and Cohen is merely looking at the object aesthetically. And IF art was determined upon appreciation as he states, who is to say what is worth appreciating and what is not? If everybody has different definitions of the word "appreciate" how are we all to agree upon one single definition of that, and then from that i would question the obvious how do we all agree upon a single definition of art?
It was interesting then to see later on when Yanal brings up that Carroll does not say what a work of art is in terms of the qualities or functions such works have, therefore she has not actually given a definition as such like theories should.
"For a definition of F can be, minimally, a finite and statable set of conditions that something must meet in order to qualify as F"
And then i am brought back to again, the definition of art.