[Blarg]

To me, that defines craftsmanship more than art. Any old work of even quite middling quality can convey stuff. So can a line of computer code or a spaghetti dinner. Sufficiently non-awful craftsmanship will suffice for that.

Art can be hard to define, and to some extent depends on the level of experience and perception of the viewer himself. But I think what lifts something to the level of art is insight and possibly intent. Or something like that. Real art has the potential to change you, shake you up, or make you think or feel differently than you have before -- sometimes even against your original biases and preconceptions. It has an element of challenge to it that mere good craftsmanship, however enjoyable, is not sufficient to provide. It is really about something. Mere craftsmanship, by contrast, can easily be about nothing or at least nothing more than its own workmanlike technical perfection, and can render what could have been an artistic experience into a tidy little dead-end. You can sometimes have artists who are poor craftsmen, and great craftsmen with no artistic spirit to speak of in them. The motivations driving the two types of creators can be different, even opposite.

So I think there has to be a little bit of daring and desire to say something true in art, the absence of which isn't necessarily felt in lesser works or by those who are simply accomplished craftsmen.