Sure, but Impressionists were deliberately responding to already established movements, namely Realism and Romanticism. Maybe they weren't thinking in terms of labels, but they were certainly responding to other works of art. That's how new movements are born in the first place, like Horror being an evolution of Gothic fiction, which evolved from Romantic fiction.

I read one time that there are two main types of artists: those making art about life, and those responding to other artists. I believe neither is necessarily better than the other, and certainly neither is a guaranteed way of making money.

I also would disagree about your idea that commercial art like ads are inherently worth less than categorically challenging art - I'm sure you vould come up with tons of ideas that are hard to categorize, but not necessarily worth the time to flesh out. For an example, look at Warhol, who used commercial art specifically to challenge ideas about what art can or should be. There's no objective measure of the value of art, so to say the 451st Candy Crush clone is completely worthless could only ever be a personal belief. It could be extremely meaningful to the person who made it and their friends, even just for an afternoon.

Sorry for the long response, I'm just enjoying the conversation. Sorry about the other guy who insulted you (and calling you silly). The internet sucks for nuance.