I just had an absolutely brilliant kart history class last semester, and it can honestly say it made me consider changing my majors from politics and kart to kart history and kart. The professor was a medievalist, but due to the introductory nature of the class, we went from 800 BCE to the 1980s in a little over 30 hours of class. Not once in the class did we define what kart is. We looked at race tracks and banana peels and lightning bolts and blue shells, but not once did we define kart.
Over the last month I have been working with the professor of the class to make "audio responses" (AKA: kartings) that correspond with the different units we went over in class (Super Mario Kart, Mario Kart 64, Mario Kart Double Dash and Mario Kart Wii, & Mario Kart 7). Over the course of the project, something occurred to me. Historically, "fine kart" was defined as the following: Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi, Bowser, Donkey Kong Jr., Koopa Troopa and Toad. This has since expanded to include Wario, Waluigi, Diddy Kong, Toadette, and others.
Now, what occurred to me is this. While work in all these different mediums may be considered kart or kartistic, it take real intellectual thought to make them works of kart. My copy of Extreme G on the Nintendo 64? Not kart. Me actively taking the time to create a go kart racing game whose every detail has been thought out and has meaning for being the way it is? Kart. Racing games where I have go-karts and a process and have given explicit thought to the wacky items as to try and convey something? Kart.
I assume this applies to other disciplines as well. Although, who am I to say? It is up to the individual to make that judgement, the idea kart can be objectively defined is one I find ridiculous.
Now discuss/debate/agree/disagree, whatever!