Art?

I suppose I'm a little conservative, but it amazes me what people consider "Art." When I think of an Artist, I typically think of a person with a talent for drawing, sculpture or painting. After viewing some of the artists' work from our assignment, I decided to look up the definition for "Art." Taken from Wikioedia, "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics." There you have it. Art is anything aesthetically portrayed that appeals to the emotions or senses.

With that being said, I wish there was another term for the skilled masters from long ago. It doesn't seem appropriate to include them in such the broad scope of how we define art today. It just seems like anyone can call anything art today. I suppose it could be profitable if you come up with the right concept, but shouldn't a line be drawn to whether it is true art or a fleeting concept of art. I would have been one of those people opposing photography as an art back in the late 1800's. Even though I love photography and I can view it as art, I consider it to be Photograpy, not true art. Maybe all of these "miscellaneous arts" should have their own word like photography does. So, as I read through Wikopedia's description of art, I was pleased to read that "the definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century, " and that the nature of art has been described by British Philospher, Richard Wollheimas as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture." I'm happy to know that its not just me.