"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect" - Wikipedia.
Why not? Culinary art is art. If a crappy painting can be concidered badly made art, your pizza surely can be concidered badly made culinary art, at the very least.
I personally think that anything that was made with intention can be qualified as art; the only things that don't have any artistic merit are thos that are made completely by accident or hapenstance.
That just brings us back to jey's comment. If everything counts as art then the term 'art' has been stripped of meaning and now we need a new term for what used to be called 'art'. It's a waste of time.
There is a world of difference between claiming that something fits the common definition of art and claiming that we need to use an extremely expansive definition of art. I thought the argument here was about the former. If it's about the later then I'll not fight; I'll just note that we're not even discussing the piece and bow out.
By definition, your pizza is very low-grade art. It doesn't have any symbolic significance, it affects only 1 of "senses, emotions, intellect". Otherwise, it fits.
Why does it have to be "art OR not art"? Can't it be a spectrum? Like love? Or beauty? Or any other subjective concept you can think of?
By definition, the shit in a can is also art.