I don't think this is an valid argument. I think that "art", as understood now, is pretty much the word for "art". A language is an evolving thing and the usage

I don't think this is an valid argument. I think that "art", as understood now, is pretty much the word for "art". A language is an evolving thing and the usage defines the meaning. Many words change their meaning and new words emerge. > Even early modern and Renaissance art was probably seen differently to how we see it. A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians. Nearly everything artists in the past produced was commissioned work, the dutch old-masters are no different and I would be suprised if the appreciation for arts emerged out of nowhere, it was (as nearly everything is) a gradual process. I am a bit suprised by my lack of knowledge how art evolved as a concept, so I can't really argue much here.