I think that saying you have to create good art to be an artist isn't really the right way to go. I agree that a baby can't be an artist because babies can't really consciously create anything. At most they're just moving their arms around and the results are just a byproduct of that. But I do think once they're able to consciously have ideas and try to express them through various mediums and they do so, they are creating art. The question of when someone goes from being 'a person who makes art' to 'an artist' is a blurry line, but I don't think the quality of the art is a deciding factor. I think that your example of 'someone who can drive' and 'a driver' is honestly worse because at least being an artist implies some kind of intentional commitment. Once you have a driver's license, you're a driver. Hell, that's probablt asking a bit extra. You're a driver once you're actually able to drive.

Yes, art can be taught and judged, but those aren't requirements. An artist can consistently put out poor quality work and that doesn't mean they're not an artist. It just means they're a bad artist. Because there are probably thousands of people out there who tried to make their living as an artist and couldn't because their work wasn't good enough. They're still artists, even if people don't like their art.

As for complaining about BG3 being a wide appeal commercial product, that doesn't make it any less art. Shakespear was a wide appeal commercial product. His shows plays were considered peasant entertainment. Plays in general were considered that in his time. They were probably seen as low brow as video games are now. His plays are full of sex and violence and puns meant to appeal to as many people as possible to make money. Is BG3 shakespear? No, it's not. But it's still art. The question is if it's good art or not.