> You're just disagreeing without offering an explanation - why was the original not a good definition?
because a pretty mountain is not art? sorry that's not obvious?
because a pretty mountain is not art? sorry that's not obvious?
It's obvious to you, because your definition of "art" requires it to be man-made. But you can't use the fact that non-man-made things can't be art to argue that non-man-made things can't be art. It only works on people who already agree.
In particular, if art was so easy to define, we probably wouldn't have philosophical studies such as "Definitions of Art" - https://books.google.ie/books?id=6peJnXr4L5gC
And even the chair&table example isn't that straightforward - https://www.coolthings.com/little-oyster-coffee-table/
> While nature itself is not art, it is a source of artistic inspiration and can be used as a medium or subject in art. Art is typically considered a human creation with intentional aesthetic or expressive purposes, whereas nature exists independently of human creation. [1, 2]
> because your definition of "art" requires it to be man-made.
it's not "my" definition, it's the definition. In the dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation "the art of making friends" 2a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)arts plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship 3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill "the art of organ building" 4a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects "the art of painting landscapes" also : works so produced "a gallery for modern art" b(1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3) : one of the graphic arts 5aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful (see artful sense 2a) 6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter