How does Amie Thomasson think we should respond when we have a revolutionary ontology of art that heavily conflicts with our ordinary artistic practice?

We must ask the artworld if they are open to changing our ontological theory

We must come up with a new category of art $($like ur$-$arts$)$ that can help us make sense of these new cases that defy our old ontology of art

We must either have very compelling reasons to accept this revolutionary ontology, or else reject that ontology