I see so many people trying to place boundaries around Art in an attempt to exclude that which is not. In the strictest sense, art is defined as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. There is nothing except human snobbery that would distinguish the artistic rendering of a plate of food by a master chef from a beautifully constructed novel. Nor does the definition of art exclude dance, music, photography, sculpture, architecture while including drawings and paintings.
There is a huge difference between art that appeals to us or does not and designating something as not art. Like or dislike is wholly based upon personal preference and opinion. We are each entitled to choose that media and form of art that appeals to us, and within those preferences, we may be drawn to certain works of art more than others.
What we do not have a right to do is: to look at something that a person created using their imagination and state that it is not art. Those who look at another’s work and pronounce it “not art,” only demonstrate their own ignorance and lack of depth.
Art is not defined by how much effort went into creating the work, nor is it defined by the application of the tools. It is simply self-expression, rendered for others to see, touch or hear, perhaps even smell or taste.
It is all Art.
Years ago I was in a chat room labeled “art,” for artists and art aficionados, and I mentioned Bill Watterson, who I always thought was a phenomenal artist in his genre.
Many people scoffed and laughed at my comment. “Comics are not art!”, “Anyone can draw that!” and similar remarks.
I left them with this comment:
"Pablo Picasso's Dove of Peace."