[abrokenpipe]

I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things.

My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one.

If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.

[the_only_law]

What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.

[abrokenpipe]

It's just my opinion