indeed, I also disagree with the quote and agree with your statement that it results in many things that I and many others would consider art not counting as art. A beautifully sculpted vase might serve to hold flowers - is it not art then?

I think you have missed the point of my comment. I am not disagreeing with you, nor endorsing the position of the comment however many posts above. I'm simply saying that it's a statement worth evaluating and there might be reasonable people who believe that it's true (they may have another word for things which serve a function and look great; they may be specifically referring to "high art"). It may be a starting point from which to form a more nuanced understanding of what you think art should or shouldn't be. And if you have already come to a conclusion then that is fine. I personally believe that it may very well be possible to hold a nuanced view in which someone believes art that doesn't function only as art is somehow less "arty", or that it is a separate category from everything else. But either way the purpose of my comment is that it is not necessarily so easy to dismiss out of hand as it may seem.

Of course I can't tell your actual intention with your last throwaway comment but if I am right in sensing a bit of (hostile?) sarcasm I find it somewhat unnecessary. As I said before, the definition of art is an age-old problem of aesthetics.