Classical sculptors did you one better - some of the greatest of all time, like Lysippos, specifically designed their works to be mass-produced. This was especially easy for bronze; Lysippos, whose family actually owned a foundry in Korinthos, pioneered technological improvements to the lost-wax process that permitted the family business to turn out hundreds of his bronzes for whoever would pay. Did that diminish their quality? It's kind of hard to see how; Lysippos' Apoxyomenos ("Man Scraping Himself"), is widely regarded as a pioneering alteration to the prevailing understanding of proportions in the human body and to just what sort of poses people could have their sculptures in. It was also one of the most widely produced and purchased sculptures of its time, and its original creator seems to have intended it to be that way.
Or take another, possibly even more subversive, example, from the Farnese Herakles. It's one of the most widely known sculptures of the Hellenistic age, and spawned multiple fulsome passages from Renaissance art writers. For a long time, the Herakles was supposedly a creation of Lysippos, or somebody who made sculptures in the same style of Lysippos, mostly on the grounds of "they look similar" (ah, pre-late-twentieth century art history and its cavalier approach to intellectual rigor). This was derailed by the discovery of a signature on the base, made by somebody who was decidedly not Lysippos or "of his circle", one "Glykon the Athenian". This prompted people to actually look at the few textual descriptions of Lysippos' Herakles and note that, while somewhat similar, Lysippos' Herakles doesn't really seem to have resembled Glykon's all that well. If there was a connection between the two, Glykon seems to have taken the basic Herakles type from Lysippos and added his own alterations to it; it was not simply a marble copy of a bronze Lysippos original. So this basically unknown dude took a well-known work of art, iterated on it (probably, going by the textual description of Lysippos' Herakles, making it better), and turned out something that dazzled art historians from the Renaissance onward. Is that "not art"?
Art is a business, especially nowadays, and all that started in the Hellenistic age, when people first started to realize that, hey, normal people (well, normal people with an ass ton of money) could actually pay for the sculptures and mosaics they wanted, just to have, instead of looking at the pretty ones in temples and cemeteries. Hell, you even had some things, like the automata featured in the parades of the Ptolemies, becoming pop-art-esque symbols of a relevance equivalent to anything Warhol or Lichtenstein produced.
You could be writing about computer language formations, and that can be deemed as art too for example 
