Originally Posted by Scribbler
Although I tend to get quite prickly with people who suggest that art should be limited to easy, bite-sized works which the general public can enjoy, I can see where you're coming from. I went to the the Tate in London recently. There was a single room with six or seven of my favourite victorian masters including some incredible sculpture. The depth and strength of the work was stunning. Next to it was a room of Tracy Emin's drawings which I personally found to be very shallow and inexpertly done. The surfeit of weak and self indulgent works which populate galleries and museums isn't much of a legacy for us to leave behind, but luckily there is a vast amount of wonderful work too.
I would even go so far as to say, as far as effort goes, that even inexpertly done art can be quite excellent if the art is done to the very best technical ability and the highest good faith of an artist who does not seek fame and fortune as the reason for his art.
For this reason, folk art is often quite moving and fully qualifies as a respectable enterprise, and as art itself.
An individual who is physically handicapped and, for example, paints in an unorthodox manner could very well create art despite the lack of pure technical merit.
These are, in the run of things, exceptions to the rule.