Defining "Art," and Is Philosophy Art?

In his blog, Jacob Wheeler asked the excellent question, "How do you define art?" I spent a good portion of Art & Philosophy trying to figure out how I would answer this question (as my posts for that class attest), but I will restate it here: Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought Expressing some Idea or Emotion in some Medium.

Intention indicates that there is an active, conscious effort by the artist to create a work of art. It doesn't "just happen."

Original, Creative thought indicates that the piece is unique. There is nothing else quite like it, and it is purely the product of the artist's imagination.

Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself (hence my hatred of some "modern art," "art" undertaken for "art's sake"), but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea.

The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. It can be the written word, marble, paint and canvas, or sound, but whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art.

Now that I have defined "art," I will address the question Betsy posed: "Is philosophy an art?"

I will not argue that philosophical works could certainly be works of art. There is no reason that a work filled with philosophical undertones could not be a grand work of art. But is the subject itself art? I do not believe so. Philosophy can certainly be expressed in art, but I would not call the subject itself art. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the CONSCIOUS INTENTION of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art. Lacking this intention, a philosophical work is not also a work of art.

To end with a question: What value, if any, is there in an "authentic" musical performance, or is it merely a matter of differing tastes?