The character existed on paper. The actual character, including the way he would walk, his vocal cadence, was not there, and is something the actor needs to find. If it really was just basically copying something that existed, then you would expect that anybody could walk onto a film set and take over for an actor and do an equally fine job. Same with music. It takes artistic talent to be able to inhabit a role or interpret a piece of music successfully.
As for a painter, what if he is painting a scene that exists before him? Couldn't it be argued that he isn't creating something since he's just copying it down with paint? Ooh! And wouldn't he also have to - gasp! - interpret the scene to determine how best to paint it? How literal to translate the scene, which color palette to use, what kind of style, etc?
Give it up, screwtape.
), I work with other artists, and I grew up with and around artists, and not a single one would agree with your definition of art. Many of us make our living from our art and have done so for decades, and not one of us would agree with the limits you put on the definition of art. Performance is creation. That you cannot see that doesn't make it untrue. (how's that for a funky sentence? 
) I will grant you that not all art -- performance art included -- is good art, but that's true of everything.
screwy, trying to confine art, and telling everyone that's how it is, is...well...kinda misses the point of art, don't you think? just throwing in my opinion, as an artist myself.
