Your ability to convey precise language doesn’t impress me. Since we’re all about “impressing” here, (apparently that’s what it’s come to?), I also read philosophy for pleasure, and somehow manage not to rub it in people’s faces. Your writing simply doesn’t stack up to the standards you set for others. You denounce the stated definition out-of-hand, and then offer no alternative.
So yes, a definition of art should take conventional art into account. That’s just obvious. However, “a conceptual work that provides an emotional response” still includes all the things you listed, and excludes things like tools and mathematics, since these do not commonly evoke strong emotion. The definition already took into account what is considered art, and while it is not a perfect definition (nor was it intended to be) you fail to provide any alternative, and just criticize in order to preen your own feathers.
Ironically, I also don’t accept the more relativistic views of art, so as far as I can tell we probably agree, but because all your efforts so far have been criticism rather than discussion, you can’t accept it. So for all your pride in your own intelligence, you have yet to even make an argument.
P.S. I guess we squeezed one out of you…
But what I mean by art is things that are made by human beings with the primary purpose not merely of having aesthetic merit, but of producing awareness of aesthetic merit and of stimulating the emotional response of appreciation of aesthetic merit.
Honestly, I basically agree with this, just not the arrogant tone with which you belittle everyone around you.