"Anything done creatively is art." In itself, that statement is true and is the fundamental statement that inspired the Dada artistic movement. However, if we're functioning on that principle, what defines creativity? Humans are defined by their advanced neurological capabilities; our emotions are distinctly unique due to our inherent ability to feel such emotions. In that way, everyone on this site experiences emotions therefor their is nothing creative about the emotional progress because it is a work of neurological science, not creativity. However, evoking emotion should constitute as creativity, as you have mentioned.

You say that when "someones feelings and words (are used) creatively to invoke the sympathy or relations of other individuals" the piece constitutes as art. Although I personally disagree with your message, I really like how you've defended it. May I add to this by saying that there have only been a few messages that I have sympathized or empathized with? You see, I personally believe that some of these submissions aren't considered 'art' because they're constructed in a way that evokes no empathy. Unpleasant aesthetics distracts from the message as well, so I can easily understand why people chose to avoid categorizing these submissions as art.

tl;dr I see your point but I see everyone else's point as well.

Exactly! A lot of these hit you hard and make you think. These are certainly more artistic than the cliche misty forest scenes, not that those aren't art.

I have to disagree.
It's not people turning their emotions into poetry or stories or drawings or paintings. It's just people scrawling down their problems to get sympathy.
It's attention seeking, and I despise how it ends up on the "most popular" section of the homepage all the time.

For the record, I'm not attacking you, and I hope I don't offend you.