If the process of painting constitutes art then an artist is someone who paints. If an artist is someone who paints then everyone is an artist. If everyone is an artist then why aren't my scribbles in a museum?

This is, of course, setting aside the big question.

Who gets to decide that the process of painting constitutes art?

The good news is, you're an artist.

the bad news is (probably, not having seen your doodles) you suck.

Happy now?

The most pointless argument of all time is about who is and is not an artist. After the argument is do9ne you are still faced with the stuff, whichis the same stuff, and the job (if you want the job of being, say, a critic) of evaluating it.

A small part of that job is saying whether it's good or not.

As to who gets to decide all these things -- they are decided by the people who, as a matter of day to day practice, make such decisions. Theywork in galleries and art schools amd museums and newspapers. They constitute what Gerorge Dickey calls the Art Circle. The decisions they make are, in effect, the decisions of the art market. Operationally, they ARE the art market. A lot of expert opinion is involved, and if you're a reflexive anti-elitist you'll resent the way it's done. But it's doen by people who do it for a liviing and have a lot of pride invested in how well they do it. Given all that, they will at times make huge mistakes that get into the papers and make them all look like idiots. So do rocket scientists. so do generals and presidents.

Melvyl's comments are reason enough why eveyone should be a little "reflexive anti-elitist".