I dont think the definition of art is that specific. Maybe great or profound art is what you're trying to get at. Otherwise, razoredge has a point: any attempt at something creative is art. It doesnt mean its very good, or of value. But, almost assuredly it will have been based on some other form of art seen or absorbed, or understood even subconsciously. Now great art almost always requires a depth or interest and knowledge in the field one is creating it; but not always. There are prodigies, people with singular focuses, etc. One doesnt need a college degree or to have seen or paitned a thousand paintings or read a thousand books to create great art. Besides, you're just arguing semantics anyway, if one is arguing the true definition of art. Literary criticism has been pretty much a colossal failure and harm since it became theory in the ivory towers. It has made attempts at understanding literature, but I think they've all largely failed. Give me theory-free criticism from a Samuel Johnson or a Edmund White any day!