@Reasonable: I haven't seen Ratatouille, but what you described, it's pretty much what i'm talking about.
To put into same context, food is what you can eat, but whether it's food for some specific individual, depends on ones own preferences. If you don't eat fish, you don't consider fish as food. Or snails for another example.
I don't think you're arguing about preferences, just having a debate whether art is something with universal definition, or something completely subjective?
Commercial success depends on the type of product, in massmanufacture products, volume relates to success and individual products depend more on price. Both, however, are about demand.
Something can be considered commercially successful if it's finally worth of owning (are you getting any profit by selling it, which is the case with paintings for example).
As for Kubric, when someone gains a cultlike status, the someone is universally credited as an artist just because he did something most of the others couldn't.
My point was, that art is completely something other that people are willing to think it is. Or maybe to put it another way, art isn't just something an individual likes and downplays what one doesn't like as non-art.
I may have done the same in this very thread, but i don't care about art, i only care about the entertainment value of the product.
@mai: No. It's about creating new from the artists perspective. Not the ones who's judging it.
This doesn't contradict rehashing in itself, since the creative process in rehashing is about whether you're able to create something new to the rehashed content, when the new part is the actual art. If a painter paints a tree, the tree itself isn't art, but the touch the painter gave to the painting is the art of the painting.