If you build everything in the scene, that's art. If there's a person in it (or a plant, or other naturally-occurring object), then it's not, it's craft, skill and technique, like an audio recording technician who creates the acoustics of the room, selects the microphones and their locations, arranges the levels, equalization and effects, records and later mixes the sound. That's a highly-skilled task, but it's not art by my definition.
From wikipedia:
"The three classical branches of art are painting, sculpture and architecture.[3] Music, theatre, film, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature and other media such as interactive media, are included in a broader definition of the arts.[1][4] Until the 17th century,
art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences. In modern usage after the 17th century, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, the fine arts are separated and distinguished from acquired skills in general, such as the decorative or applied arts. "
Take a look at this list:
- Visual arts
- Two-dimensional works
- Painting and drawing
- Mosaics
- Printmaking
- Calligraphy
- Photography
- Three-dimensional works
- Architecture
- Pottery
- Sculpture
- Conceptual art
- Poetry
- Music
I think it's interesting that all those start with nothing, except photography. Photography starts with some sort of scene. If you create the scene, that's art. If you don't, it's not, at least to me.
