I am not a leet hax0r :(
Art is a category. Ignorance or misunderstanding of how humans categorise the world is the source of various pointless and rancorous debates over exactly what constitutes a "true" example of something, be it art, a game, a sport, a crime, a planet, etc. Often this stems from an over-simplistic view of categories that includes several fallacies: That categories actually exist a priori in the structure of the universe, that the boundaries of categories are fixed and precise, and that all members of a category are equally valid.
In fact, all three of these are manifestly false. For example, every tree is individually distinct from every other tree, but due to shared characteristics we place them in a category called "trees". But the category "trees" does not actually exist in the world, it is a human idea, the same as the categories "plants" and "living things", into which a tree might also be placed. Similarly, the boundaries of the category "trees" are not always clear - one person might consider Bonsai as trees, while another might not. Or they might consider them as trees, but as a somehow less "good" example of a tree than, for example, an oak or beech tree.
We can try to reduce these ambiguities by using scientific measurement and legalistic language to nail down the exact definition of a particular category, but for some categories this is impossible. Art is one, because it does not relate to a set of similar objects in the world about which we can measure shared characteristics and precisely define boundaries. Art is too abstract and metaphysical a category, and attempts to define it inevitably end up too broad ("art is anything") or too narrow ("art is painting, drawing, music and literature").
The answer is to realise that art doesn't need to be defined. It's possible to enjoy it and talk about it without nailing it down, and it's possible for me to consider something a great work of art that someone else doesn't consider to be art at all.