Original, External Stimulus

In Howard Gardner’s “The Arts and Human Development,” he describes the roles of individuals involved in the creation and perception of an artwork. Through considering these roles, I have found what I consider to be concrete evidence that an artwork must be based upon an external, original stimulus.
The main two individuals involved in the artistic process are the artist and the observer. The artist is the person who creates the work of art. What exactly he does which distinguishes his creation as a work of art is arguable (otherwise, this class would not be necessary). However, Gardner holds that the artist is attempting to communicate an experience (this is not necessary for what I claim).
The observer is the person who perceives the artwork and is affected by it. Unlike the artist, the observer is not attempting to communicate anything.
There are also two other individuals involved. The performer is someone who, through the instruction of the artist, recreates the artwork in a way which will have the desired effect on the audience.
The critic is the last role, and their function is to interpret the artwork and create an evaluation of the original artwork.
Of the three roles not performed by the artist, the critic is the only one who creates something which is shared with the audience (the performer does not create, it imitates). My argument is claiming that the factor distinguishing art from the critic’s creation is an external, original stimulus—because the critics creation relies upon the artist’s work, it is not art.
Does this translate into the intentionality theory?