Kpop fans are rather defensive about the artistry of the idol sphere

I chose that title because everytime there is a conversation regarding the artistry in kpop, if idols are really 'artists' or not, you will always see people go to places like "ofc it is art, it's performance art, whitney houston was an artist even though she didn't write her songs" yada yada yada.
Now tbf, there are two general, foundational views on this.

1. Everything related to artistic fields is art, everyone performing it is an artist
2. There is a certain treshhold of quality, skill, dedication, etc to transform an activity in an artistic field to art.

In the former pov it goes without saying that anyone is an artist who is linked to a field. I might be an artist when i sing in the shower, it might be "bad" art, but it is art. (though maybe some people would say you should have some recognition or earn money?)
For the latter i obviously wouldn't be an artist, because my skillset is too low, i don't dedicate my life to singing, it's just a hobby at best.

That is arguably the gap between people's argumentation on idols too, the former group obviously considers idols artists no matter what, they perform, so they are performance artists just like whitney houstan would be, or another common example, some actor. For the latter group that alone isn't enough, and they'd make a distinction between someone like whitney houston and an average idol mostly due to the skill difference, though also regarding dedication, etc.

Now as the title suggests, i am moreso in the latter camp than the former, to me art is more than just being linked to an artistic field. I don't think a toddler drawing something, performing an art, is an artist in the same way michelangelo was. I personally do think skill matters, i do think even in a performing art there are significant differences of 'self-expression' happening which ultimately link to the skills of the performer in some way.

Ultimately the idol sphere isn't a very artistic field imo, the whole machinery is designed to train young, attractive people enough so they can perform some dance routine, can sing well enough that with the help of studio tools they sound good, they are a product if one wants to be cynical. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with enjoying that, i do too, but i think the standard for "art" is supposed to be higher, so when someone doesn't follow 1) but rather 2), i'd like you to entertain that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy here, and the "but they do perform and thus it is performance art" isn't the knockout argument you think it is.
Some people, me included, are simply a little elitist, i don't think that is necessarily a bad thing though.