1. The Definition is too Narrow: In the given definition, art is described as "typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture." This implies a strong focus on visual art, thereby potentially excluding other forms. No explicit mention is made of performing arts like dance, music, or theater, or of literary arts such as poetry or prose. This observation is directly based on the wording of the definition itself.

2. The Definition is too Subjective: The definition states that art is "producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Beauty and emotional power are highly subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. What one person finds beautiful, another may not; similarly, what stirs emotion in one person might leave another cold. This argument is derived from the inherent subjectivity of the terms "beauty" and "emotional power" within the definition.

3. The Definition is too Elitist: The definition might be interpreted as elitist because it seems to suggest that art is primarily produced for appreciation of its beauty or emotional power. This could be seen as excluding art forms that are rooted in everyday life or that aim to convey social, political, or cultural commentary, rather than primarily seeking to elicit an appreciation of beauty or emotion. While this argument is somewhat interpretive, it is based on the definition's emphasis on art as something to be "appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power," which could be read as favoring a more traditional, elite audience.
spam fails_task lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor helpfulness creativity violence