A definition of art that cannot account for previously existing art is too narrow.
That's the measure there, and it's important, because it makes your argument and the arguments of your contemporaries a kind of fraud. You know it's not a valid way to appreciate or understand art at the macro level.
These tools, and this moment, cannot be thought of in a bubble (like Ortiz and Zapata are trying to do), without also understanding how we got here. Because the context makes no sense without it.
So that has to be called out, out of the gate, because politically motivated non-subjective definitions of art are dangerous, and have killed people in the past, as recently as the 20th century.
Doing what's being done by "artists" during this Crisis Of Painting is LOADED in historical terms, and everyone who's taking part in this campaign either knows this... or should.