As far as I'm concerned, not all art is good. However, it has recently become extreemly unfashinable to say so. And so, whatever peice of BS some "artist" hard-pressed for cash, or just greedy, is able to be passed off as a work of creative genius. Furthermore, those who accualy create this stuff often have little regard for the classic masters (I know this to be true, as I know several such people), whom regard some of it as not being true art at all, just a elaborate show of skill at creating photo or almost photorealistic images. They ask, "Where is the art in simply taking something from real life and putting it on canvas? You can achive the same thing by taking a picture and blowing it up!"
But can you? Is it art when someone takes a shovel, signs it and submits it to the powers that be? Perhaps as a statement against the established art world, maybe, but is it in it's own right art? If it is, I would certainly say that the credit goes wholy to they who designed the shovel.
There are those whos artistic intent was also questioned at one time. The Cubists, the Expresionalists, and so on. However, to create these works, as they did, takes skill and practice. The fact that they put forth the considerable effort required to develop these techniques, as well as to create their numerous works, shows that they certainly belived in their craft, and it is all, in its own right, good art. However, it is very difficult to take seriously the claims of "artists" that their work is art, when it takes little if any serious effort and dedication to create them. They claim to have thought about it extensivly, dedicated their souls, and so on, but humans have often made claims to get money and attention, and when it getse to the acual creation, they might as well have not thought about it much at all, and easily made a similar work.
IRONY: A top Catholic cardinal on The Da Vinci Code, "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real."