What does it mean to be artistically literate in our society? What does it mean to be an artist?

I began this post about three months ago....
Today I attended a meeting concerning what it means to be scientifically literate.  Two very interesting presentations were given showing two different perspectives on the question. Both had valid points, and were not opposed to each other in my opinion, but in fact, seemed to compliment each other.
When speaking of Scientific Literacy, a very important variable for the first speaker was to warn us that the way we learn now has changed; there is an admitted loss of control over how information is obtained by all parties: students, teachers, and parents alike. Cyber collaborations on research, and publication of information have increased at a rapid rate over the last 20 years, and information is obtained within 30 seconds through the mightiest of the mighty search engines, Google.  Speaker one posed the point for Scientific Literacy there really are two components: the What? that we should know,  (basics facts, concepts, set forth and met by standards and benchmarks) and the How? (skills needed to reflect on scientific knowledge itself).   Speaker two reviewed a basic history of scientific theory from two different schools of thought:  Rationalism and Empiricism.
The question was then posed to myself and two of my colleagues and myself ...

What does it mean to be artistically literate in our society? 

We tossed around several ideas.  Well, you would have to have knowledge of several important artists and why they were important.  To be artistically literate you should have an understanding of some of the technical aspects of art, like perspective, proportion, composition and value.  There should also be a basic understanding or aesthetics, and the ability to observe a piece with some sense of objectivity.  Having a knowledge of the canon is also essential for being literate in art; having an understanding of the history, expectations, and current movements in art helps place a piece in its proper perspective, and gives one the ability to compare it to other pieces, contrast it , or be able to say what makes it stand out above and beyond the others positively or negatively, and why. Being artistically literate means also developing a working knowledge of the language of art.  In other words, being fluent in art language and theory means one is artistically literate.
Or does it?
Something about this argument did not sit right with me, therefore I was unable to publish until today. Art is about so much more than language, theory and canon. Art is primarily about emotions, a sense of flow, rhythm and capturing the essence of the subject.  Good training in technical aspects greatly contributes to one's ability to express their emotions more accurately, of this I firmly believe.  But even the least trained artist can be a master if their soul is in their work and process.

I began writing this particular post about two months ago.  As it turns out, recent events in my personal life have contributed to clarifying my understanding on this subject. I loosely quote George Berkely the eighteenth century British Empiricist, when I say, there has been a dust raised that prevented me from seeing, but suddenly the dust has settled on this matter and I see it now with clear eyes!  A technically accurate but soul-less artist is incapable of producing art (or anything) that means anything to anyone, let alone himself.  An artist with soul and depth of emotion is far more able to make a statement bearing weight and a transfer of meaning.  To be artistically literate is a separate matter, I will concede. But to be an artist one must posses a soul with feelings and emotions or the work is vapid, empty and touches no one.
I suppose the same could be said about a life.  A life with no feelings emotions or soul is vapid, empty and touches no one.
Do you hear me?  You know who you are.