Should the Crucible be considerd art?

Art is defined as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Why can’t art have double meanings? Doesn’t everybody think different and unique things, and therefore possess a unique opinion or emotion about a topic. People consider different things art. Because art has such a loose definition almost anything can be considered art, For example an equation is art to a mathematician. So literally anything can be constituted as art, you just need someone to appreciate its beauty. And just because something is art, doesn’t mean it cannot also have other meanings and intentions. For example Arthur Millers “The Crucible” is debated as either being art because it is a play or propaganda because it is a political statement. Yes it is an art, but it is also a political statement simultaneously. Because whether or not something is art depends on the viewer. Although it is both, Yes, Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible” should be considered an art.
Arthur Miller was being questioned as a communist sympathizer during the red scare. He wrote the crucible as an allegory to explain the absurdity of McCarthyism and how people were succumbing to mass hysteria and accusing people not based on solid evidence. The evidence indicates that Millers intentions in writing the crucible were mainly for propaganda; however this doesn’t mean that it cannot also be appreciated as art by some. Miller relates the mass hysteria in Salem to the mass hysteria during the red scare. They are remarkably similar in that people are accusing everyone around them without the slightest evidence to prove it; people were also accused in order to gain more wealth or fame. For example in the Crucible Giles Corey is accused so that his land can be taken, and this happened with actors as well, who in the 1950’s cut down others by accusing them