Interesting... I think number 2 is conditional upon number 1.
If you don't create art with passion, I think your life can go on as always. Think of art class in school and having to do something, etc. Is it art, by your definition in number 1? Was it created passionately? If not, is it art?
If that is art, then I would tend to agree with 2. Once you put passion into anything, be it art, cooking, writing, your work, etc. you're never the same. A sense of accomplishment, however small, has the potential for change.
If number one does not hold up, then number 2 must fall with it.
So the age-old question of What is art? continues. One could also argue that the purposeful lack of emotion in one's artwork could in itself be art.
If art is not created out of passion , would that not make it "commercial" ? And not showing emotion in art does not mean it wasn't there during its creation. I have to agree , no 2 is completely dependent on no 1.
There is some truth in both options one and two. The Romantic period was all about passion for writing and the arts. However, artists of every genre are continually changed by their new pieces of art. Interesting discussion.