That's a pretty broad definition though, isn't it? There are plenty of deliberate actions that would elicit an emotional response that aren't generally classified as art. A slap, for instance. Online trolling. Stockhausen got in trouble a few years ago for suggesting that 9/11 was the greatest work of art ever conceived. By the above reckoning, you'd have to admit that he was right. And, I guess, that his statement was in and of itself a work of art. Which who knows, it was Stockhausen. But the gist of what I'm getting at is that it's not enough simply to elicit an emotional response. How could that definition be narrowed to weed out the obvious exceptions?

Your second assertion- "a person can be taught how to better elicit emotional responses from their work"- has something to it, I think. We can all learn how to articulate our feelings more. But again, is it enough just to hone your ability to elicit emotional response? Plenty of really mean, marginally intelligent people have learned to hone their tools for the best emotional response. Is it artwork when they do so? And there are limits, anyways. Somebody might learn to elicit a better response (whatever that response is) from practice, but only within the boundaries of their natural ability. Just like I might be able to practice until I can throw a ball better up to a point (a very low point, in my case), I think maybe somebody might be able to practice expression up to the point that they no longer have the necessary physical, mental or emotional hardwiring required to express themselves further. And that ability spans a huge spectrum- some people can acquire and retain the proper emotional vocabulary to express themselves beautifully, others not at all. And if we're only as good as those boundaries, don't we have to then grant that while technique can be taught to bring a person to their limit, the limit itself is in-born? In other words, if artistic ability is an in-born talent just like any other, doesn't that preclude the teaching of same?