With all due respect Woj, this has been pretty much the definition of a philistine ever since Duchamp's fountain (the "my kid could do that" school of art criticism). With this definition you're throwing out masterworks in just about every art movement of the 20th century.
[WS:] Au contraire, Michael. I think philistinism is denying that creating art requires any particular skill, effort, or ability, and proposing that all that it takes is loud mouth, chutzpah, and an appearance of authority to take whatever, call it "art," and make that label stick.
In fact, simplicity does not imply the lack of skill. Au contraire, it may (but does not have to) imply having superior skill to the point of being able to "bracket it out" - suspend it if you will, and opt for something simple, seemingly not requiring any skills. There is something zen-like about it: you need to master something to be able to transcend it; one is a true master when one controls his skills, rather than his skills controlling what he does.
This is not unlike the noveau-riche or the graduate student syndrome. The noveau-riche are unsure about their new social status, so they make every effort to show it by conspicuous display of status symbols. Likewise, a graduate student is not quite sure of his newly acquired status of intellectual authority, so he is trying to demonstrate it by supporting all that he says with copious citations of other intellectual authorities to demonstrate that he is "in the know." The same holds for the arts. In all these cases, mastery comes when one is not compelled or obliged to use what he has (be it wealth, knowledge, or skill), but is in full control of whether, when, and how to use them.
So yes, it makes all the difference in the world whether an artistic or intellectual convention is broken by someone who has mastered it, or by someone who failed to understand it.
Moreover, I did NOT argue that Duchamp did not have "skilz." I argued that his art opened the door for numerous charlatans and poseurs, who indeed have no skills, but hide behind the "norm breaking" convention and pretend to be an artiste - the I-am-an-artist- voulez-vous-coucher-avec-moi? thing if you will. Stated differently, it is not the artists who chose to "bracket out" their skills and opt for seemingly simple and "unskilled" forms of expression that piss me off, but mountebanks and poseurs who have little to say but hide behind these artistic conventions to gain popularity, as well as the entire subculture or social environment that create the demand for such mountebanks and poseurs (cf. _Being there_ by Jerzy Kosinski).
Another thing. In proposing a certain definition of art, I am trying to be consistent with certain broader philosophy, namely materialism, pragmatism and anti-idealism, that has a certain appeal to me. Whether that definition puts out of scope certain contemporary artistic trends that others revere is of secondary importance, for nobody should be a slave to any artistic or social convention. Likewise - and I am sure most on this list would agree with me on that - the proponents of socialism, should be concerned mainly with philosophical, ethical and pragmatic aspects of their ideals. Whether those ideals are consistent with the achievement of, say, the bourgeois laissez faire system that many hold dear is of secondary importance in this endeavor.
Wojtek