Abandoning hope?

Weitz's application of Wittgenstein's concept of family relations, while a little too easy too accept, is still tempting.  Consider an actor performing Othello's monologue from Act 5, Scene 2 ("It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul").  His artistry lies in the way he chooses to move or not to move, on the words he stresses, on whether he portrays the character as visibly sorrowful or coldly resigned.  His is an audiovisual art form.  The speech itself is another work of art, and though it uses the same text, the two are completely different.  Shakespeare created his art through words, paying close attention to the meter of lines.  The actor might entirely ignore the meter, might play the role in a completely different way from the first Othello.  So these two works of art both include the use of words and convey some emotion.  However, many works of art use no words.  So we are left with communication of emotion as a common trait.  Consider a third work of art: perhaps a still life of a bowl of fruit.  Perhaps no clear emotion is being conveyed by this painting (perhaps the emotion is present, but not immediately apparent).  The most specific link between these three works is creativity--I know I keep talking about it, but I feel as though I'm on to something and I'm going to hold on to it. 
What else do these works share?  Or is Weitz correct?