But FWIW I'd try a distinction between Art (particular local social institutions, in our case hosting oil paintings, galleries, openings, etc) and art (a superset -- all human activities spawned by the apparently perennial drive that gave rise to Art, Burrup peninsula & Lascaux rock paintings, etc).
The former is obviously culturally-historically defined; it's not so much that Art is anything that any bozo calls 'Art', but rather it's whatever the culture comes to institutionally admit as Art. Along with this comes related culturally-specific legitimating myths (heroic artists, obedient servants of the proletariat, God-drunk poets, shamanic intermediaries, etc).
The latter however seems to be an H. sapiens species characteristic. In this much wider sense, 'art' would be anything created in response to the basic drive. Sometimes Art stagnates, or gets too academic, or complex, or appeals only to a shrinking elite, or otherwise loses relevance and needs re-invigorating from the vernacular (ie. the wider category of small-a art).
Yes and no, in other words ;)
Even a cursory glance at art history will show the heroic myth is anything but universal. There are tortured artists yet others who are at the peak of mental health. There are poor artists, rich ones, uncompromising artists, artists who'll sell their soul for a drink or a fuck, artists who beat their partners, those who die young, or live to a ripe old age; organised artists, yet others who can barely find their studio.
A shorthand: there's no such thing as 'an artist' (let alone a 'real artist').