I mostly agree with you, Denis. I would say, however, that I think that the painting or photograph or sculpture or whatever becomes art way before technical proficiency. It may not be good art, or interesting art, or even stimulating art, but I find it hard to say that it’s not art at all and that there’s some indefinable qualitative leap that occurs that puts it into another realm. I feel like there have been enough really compelling artists (Duchamp, Beuys, Warhol, Malevich, etc.) who have done things that early generations wouldn’t have considered art that it’s really hard to say that just because an artwork is uninteresting that it doesn’t belong in the class. Likewise, I would say that McDonalds is terrible food, but it’s still a meal, and I don’t know what differences you’d need to say it’s a real meal.

Despite admiring skill, which everyone does [on the countless jpeg images seen on social media these days], they mean nothing, achieve nothing [apart from an ego rub for the maker], and serve as a fleeting diversion from ones ordinary day job, almost like a McDonalds is a quick fix for hunger, but not a real meal.

It’s when a painting connects with a viewer, i.e. when the viewers hairs stand up on their arms, that’s when ‘painting’ becomes ‘art’ and ceases to an object without sustainable value.