Personally I think that I included the context...
I said "So, unless we can define what art is" in your quote, so IDK how that is taking you out of context but whatever, I'm not being too serious in this thread i was just answering your question on why nobody else was participating. It's seen as a pointless waste of time by me, even if you define art.
I mean, aren't all discussions of semantics pointless? Any time you don't have a factual or scientific basis for a point of argument, it's basically bullshit. Is a tree "beautiful"? Some would say all trees are beautiful, some would say they are an eyesore that's crashing the neighborhood property value, and some would say that only some trees are beautiful, like the weeping willows in Savannah, or the Redwoods in NorCal. If I assign myself with the role of "hero of the trees" and start badgering anyone who says anything negative about any tree, isn't that conversation also pointless? It's all in the eye of the beholder, so there is no clear end point for logic.
My point is really that almost all conversations are pointless, so why single this one out, and label it as repulsive? I don't think there is a person alive who hasn't questioned the meaning of the word artist, considering how nebulous and subjective it is at the same time. Keep in mind that people also get really serious about it, while not being able to actually define it without referencing opinion or hearsay.
I don't know if I'm an artist or not, nobody does, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. If I can provide entertainment for someone, and they can enjoy it, then I've accomplished something real.
What is an artist? It's any creator who YOU FEEL respect for. It's meaning changes from each person to the next, so I'd answer it as "what shape is sand?" It's bucket shaped, it's castle shaped, it's beach shaped. It's relative.