I hold the view that true art always has at least two facets: Creativity, that is the idea or ideas, and Craftsmanship. That is the artist must be able to make something of their ideas. They are the ones that have to do it. For example, tipping a lot of bricks off the back of a tip-up truck and then driving away is not a work of art. Likewise, throwing a lot of bricks into a heap and letting gravity do the work of placing them where they go can't be called art.
I'm heard of some guy who dipped heaps of live earthworms into water paint and then threw them onto a canvas where they wriggled around, thus leaving paint marks cannot be called a work of art - yet he, apparently, had the temerity to claim it was.
A man who became famous as an artist in Australia dropped spagghetti and various things onto a carpet on the floor and then photographed them. This was supposedly art. To me, it was a travesty. Nevertheless, this artist - now 'gone to God.' was heralded as brilliant in his field. Personally, I thought his work was awful. But then, others didn't.
We get a lot of really trivial, non-inspiring projects displayed today - sometimes simply for their shock value - which bear little or no relation to art...My subjective opinion, of course, as is the interpretation of all art; it's in the eye of the beholder.
However, I maintain that a true artist must have mastered his or her craft in that art form before they can claim something they have produced as art.
Pablo Picasso could draw beautifully long before he took to Cubism. But how many who can't even draw a simple cartoon-like figure, take to 'Modern Art' because they don't have to master the discipline, then claim to be artists. What charlatans! And there are so many.