Art has been in a steady metamorphasis since the turn of the century. Surrealism, cubism, impressionism, and modern-art : these concepts allow very little rendering skill to pass as a profound statement. Abstraction has become more and more of an accepted way of expressing one's creative motivations.
A favorite example of mine is, in the 70's, the city of Los Angles, CA ordered a piece of artwork from one of their citizens. The price of the piece was over $100,000. When it arrived at the museum, directors were given "Instructions of Assembly."
Step 1: Set up chalkboard.
Step 2: Take a piece of white chalk and draw a triangle.
Step 3: Draw a circle around the triangle.
Step 4: Draw a square around the circle.
And that was it.
Needless to say, the people of LA were a bit disconcerted at the piece. But the city had already paid the artist. The artist's defense? That LA had bought an idea, and that idea's expression was manifested in an easy-to-assemble way.
This is the question of modern art. Did Picasso develop cubism out of absynth and crack? Or is there something more to it? Is abstraction an easy way for artists to make a buck? Or is it a way of expressing creative concepts?
Art is about expressing human emotion and the creative drive. If this can be done without what is traditionally considered 'skill' (such as detailed painting, lengthy prose, photograph-esque rendering, etc.), then perhaps our definition of artistic 'skill' in this culture is changing as much as art itself is. Maybe the perception of what it means to be 'artistically gifted' can range from the ability to capture an expression with a pencil and paper to capturing an emotion with kitchen condiments and a canvas.
Just food for thought.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I completely agree with you. It's frusterating seeing a piece of paper with a box on it called art. I did not know they were displaying children's arts and crafts in museums now.