This is a good point and is sort of what i was after.

I asked the question "what is art?". Some traditionalist critics, followers of classical and even modernist art, refuse to recognise the postmodern as "art". Yet, by your definition, which is shared by me and probably by many of the traditionalist critics, art can encompass many things over a wide range of disciplines. So why is postmodern art overlooked? Why is it not "art"? I agree with you when you say "I see no reason to suggest that "the post-modern works", as you put it, can't be called truly artistic." But there are some that disagree.

So, I guess I'm saying, I need someone to disagree with me before I argue a case.