In the art circles composed of critics, galleries and their rich patron sheep, there is apparently a difference between art and illustration. A great artists like Frank Frazetta or Norman Rockwell are not considered artists, but a "illustrators". This is because they paint scenes from books or other commercial work. What makes an illustrator a illustrator instead of an artist? If it is because he was paid for it, then any artist who makes money on their art is an illustrator. If it is because his paintings tell a story or are scenes from books then all the old masters were just illustrators too. What's the difference between painting scenes from Myths, The Bible or Tarzan of the Apes? They are all storys.
It seems to me that all representational art tells a story, including still lives, Surrealism, Expressionist,Impressionist,Pointillism,Pop Art and indeed almost all art.
Now that we've established that all representational, and abstract representational artists are not artists but "illustrators", what do we have left?
We have the pure abstract artists who paint abstract images, colors and shapes that have no meaning (if they had meaning they would be illustrators). It can be said that abstract art isn't art, but merely design. Arranging shapes on a space for a pleasing effect. It takes little skill or craft as many episodes of "trading spaces" can attest. With some forms of abstract art it is doubtful that anyone could be able to tell the difference from work done by a artist and one painted by an elephant if they were not told.
In conclusion let's sum things up:
Representational artists are not "real" artists but "Illustrators". Abstract artists are not real artists, they are just "Designers".
This proves that there are no "real" artists and there is no such thing as real art.