your definition of 'actual art' doesn't jive with mine; I'm not sure 'object transformation' (for instance) would appear in my definition of art, except perhaps as a clarification on some kinds of endeavor; in others, I feel it's enough just to draw attention to the object (or subject, for that matter).
[WS:] Then I guess we differ. In my book, the human mind has almost limitless capacity to direct or re-direct attention - which in most cases takes the form of denial or delusion. Virtually everyone does that, so it is not such a big deal.
However, we live in a material world, and the skill and ability to manipulate and transform material objects is of critical importance. And that ability varies considerably among individuals. BTW, I mean "material" in a rather broad sense, as having some form of objective and tangible reality. For example, mathematical ideas are "material" in that sense, because they can be replicated and applied to physical reality by anyone who has the necessary information. Delusions, denials, excuses or justifications are not, because they cannot be replicated and applied by anyone but the person who holds such ideas.
Therefore, the ability to do things, creating a certain image, sound or object is very much different from mere pointing out at something and interpreting it in different ways (as the Old Man aptly observed;)). Anyone routinely does the latter as a party of everyday life - so I do not see why, say, Duchamp's "interpretation" of a toilet seat is different from everyone else's (unless, of course, it amounts to shouting that emperor has no clothes while everyone else delude themselves that he does). OTOH, atmospheric effects, such as fog or rain, are quite common and drawing anyone's attention to them is not a big deal at all. What is a big deal, however, is the ability to recreate these rather ephemeral effects on canvas, and thus "freezing" them in time so to speak.
To sum this up, I tend to be a vulgar materialist and have little appreciation of merely "interpreting the world differently." I think that the material is all that matters, as does the skill to manipulate and transform it. The denial of the material, be it by idealistic philosophers, religious figures, pomo writers, or the "new economy" buffs, is fundamentally antithetical to human experience, albeit it does have certain utility - that of escapism to delusions.
Wojtek