I am mostly arguing that modern/contemporary art theory is just one alternative - it's not "above" more traditional views of art, and there isn't some linear progression from Kant to Rosalind Krauss.
I think the more modern view has dismissed beauty as some lower form of making and understanding art. As something superficial and entirely optional, perhaps even discouraged by some.
I'd prefer to synthesize the more traditional perspectives on aesthetics with some of the modern insights, rather than assuming newer theories must supersede older ones.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163895/af...
"The classic and provocative account of how art changed irrevocably with pop art and why traditional aesthetics can’t make sense of contemporary art"
There is no clear answer to what art is, but there are many approaches to try to answer it. That is essentially what Theory of Art (or Philosophy of Art) is concerned about as a field of study.
Those approaches appear at distinct points in time and their ideas are rooted on the art and context of that time.
If you want to look at this site like Kant looked at art, from a pure aesthetic form, then you will say it is not art. You may even be offended that the question is asked.
But look at it through the lens of modern art theory, where art is communication, where art is experience, where art is interaction, where art is more about the content than the form, then it is definitely art.
If Kant had access to the Internet and was concerned about privacy, he might have found it to be art too :)