Is it still "art" (yuck - hate that word, too!) if the work is not seen or heard but anyone but the artist?
At first, I thought, "well, no, it can't be" - performers and audience are interdependent. But after thinking about it, the only conclusion I come to is "yes" - art can and does exist without an audience. What I or anyone else produces as a creative act is completely independent of one set of eyes or a million. Even the judgement of "good art" or "bad art", appealing or not, doesn't change the original creative act. How often have new movements in art or musical compositions been trashed at first, only to be later praised?
Perhaps performers and audience are indeed interdependent, but only in a commercial sense.
Thanks for posting this thought-provoking piece, Isaac.