Response to Jacob's question: How do I define art?

I think art is, by its nature, relational. It requires a creator and an audience/ observer/s [who also may be its creator (potentially an audience of one)]. How we define art and creativity is essential for determination of relational or independent properties. What humankind considers as art are constructs. Whether they are the consequence of sociocultural, intuitive, or spiritual constructs, each person will have a unique (and therefore, subjective) relationship to art.

While art may be recognized/understood through cogitative processes with consequent realizations, those processes are not necessary for the creation, or recognition, of an object/concept as art.

Art may be produced intentionally, or from a non-cognitive source (subconscious, biological, or spiritual derivatives). A creative process is necessary to realize art, though the process may be actualized subconsciously - through a primeval directive rather than through cogitative intent.

An artistic product may have form, or, it may be immaterial (thoughts, discourse, constructs, concepts, etc.). I believe art is the co-creative product of the mind/body/essence of a corporeal being and others, or/and their environment.

Philosophy is the intellectual and creative pursuit and accumulation of wisdom; its purposeful inquiries result in novel awareness of self and surroundings. There is a form and artistry to both the philosophical process and its effects (as well as a history and merit). Therefore, I view philosophy as an art.

My Question:
Do you think other beings are producers of art? If so, how do (or do they) determine whether a creation of theirs, or another being’s, is art?

The Art of Philosophy

From today's discussion on what constitutes art, and what is considered a minor or major art, I must ask the questions: Is philosophy an art? Is there an "Art of Philosophy"? If philosophy is an art, is it a "major" or a "minor" art?

I believe philosophy is an art because it is a relational activity between persons, or between a person and their thoughts (which are created by a person's relationship (perception) with an observed or imagined object (tangible or intangible - includes thoughts), or other being; and this art form is practiced through forms of communication. When exercised properly (observer/receiver of philosophical communication experiences some cognitive response that furthers their spiritual/mental evolution), I would consider philosophy to be a "major" art. In order for philosophy to be classified as a "major" art, I would expect merit and gain for both the originator and the receiver of a philosophical discourse. Philosophy practiced without these elements would be "minor" and unworthy of the descriptor of either art or philosophy.

Questions:
1. Is philosophy an art? If you consider it an art, do you consider it a "major"or "minor" art?

2. Do all creative endeavors, including food preparation, presentation, and consumption, have the potential to be either a "major" or a "minor" art depending on the artistry of the creator and the sociocultural relativity of the observer to the object created (successfulness and quality of communication)?

2a.In other words, should a poorly executed painting of a meaningless object be classified under the category of a "major" work of art simply because it is falls under the "major" art forms category, while a sublimely prepared and artistically-presented sumptuous culinary masterpiece is held to evaluations as a "minor" art because "some" have classified it in the "minor" arts category.