"OK, here's my take on this topic. You are an artist, because the story you're telling with your image is strictly your own."

But what of images that don't tell a story? What of images that tell a SHORT story, like "She took a shower", "She's fondling herself", or "She's standing naked holding a sword"?

What ratio of style vs content determines what is art?

"Here is a definition in the dictionay: Art = The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."

That's a very broad definition. By that definition, EVERYTHING could be art from a Bacon Cheeseburger assembled from various ingredients to create a "beautiful" sandwich, to the "Happy Meal" box it comes in. It also presents the narrow idea that art must be "beautiful", which is a subjective term. YOU might think the Venus Di Milo is beautiful; Ted Bundy might think a dead coed with her head stove in is beautiful. I can only assume the writer of that definition meant "aesthetically pleasing by popular standards", which is also crap because those standards are artificially created and foisted upon us by those who taught us what we should "like" and what's "pretty".

Art is not always pretty. Sometimes, it's downright gruesome. Sometimes it makes us laugh or cry. I'd guess the person who wrote that definition isn't an artist at all...but then again, if the writer assembled that definition from words, technically it validates ITSELF as a work of art.

If you go by that specific definition, then YES, you're an artist. But does that really mean jack squat?