I posted multiple definitions, all of them correct. You've done nothing but play semantics games. I find that to be very suspicious. Ok, you are definitely not being serious now. Haha, very funny. Art is an expression, an application of one's ideas, a personal statement, etc., etc., etc. It all means the same exact thing, despite you dishonestly pretending otherwise. But again, carbon-copying someone else's art is just paint-by-numbers. Apparently you disagree with that, but instead of explaining how or why, you just keep desperately trying to change the subject. That is very telling. No, I didn't say anything like that, and you know it. In fact, I've been very clear. I will say it again for the umpteenth time, and you can once again completely ignore it: not every single thing in a given work of art has to be 100% original. e.g. many musicians play the C chord, most use the 12-tone scale, many guitarists use a pick, many sculptors use their hands, etc. etc., etc. So of course if someone re-interprets a jazz tune (as a lot of my favorite jazz musicians have done), then it can be an original work of art. Nothing I have said whatsoever suggests otherwise.