The comment I posted over there:Part of me feels like you're arguing for the revival of the distinct definitions of High Art (fine art) vs. "non-art," by which most folks mean low art. If the only art one can acknowledge is Art, then of course it follows that only fine art is Art. That's problematic on many levels, not just the definitional, because it recycles some very old cultural stereotypes. Frank is correct to point out the root-word of "art," which also means "artifice." Art is always made, always artifice, always artificial. The word nobody's mentioned here, since we're getting hung up on linguistics, which lies at the root of the confusion is "creativity." You can argue that cooking is not an Art, but I don't think you can argue that cooking is not creative. There's an entire industry of cookbook publishing, not to mention the recipes themselves, that is intensely creative. Contrary to popular belief, creativity is not a scarce resource; it pops up everywhere. Lots of people who don't think of themselves as artists, such as most chefs, still exhibit high levels of creativity.So we can say that those things like Scrabble aren't art, sure. But they can involve high levels of creativity, intuition, and experience—which are also facets of art-making.
Well said, Art.
As a writer, I want "art" to be reserved for the most difficult to achieve, the most carefully wrought; but I think history shows that art flourishes in cultures where other kinds of creativity are blossoming.It's just a little tiring to write immersed in a culture of car-chase movies and corporate hegemony.