I was under the impression that "art" was a work that inpired feeling from the one beholding it. The more it inspires from the masses, the more it hold up as art. Both technique and inspiration for the work is important, but the most important is how the work is veiwed by people.
I wouldn't give the kincaid stuff value as I doubt it inspires anymore then a mild fuzzy wuzzy feeling inside and the need for a nap. People like it because it DOESN'T make them think. Even the modern art you guys rail against is closer to art, as it can inspire pretty impressive leavels of hate.
Kincaid is a cheat. He doesn't even to try to make his veiwers think about anything, he just paints some sappy thing and people say its pretty and put it on a wall. He produced decor, and crappy decor at that.
Most modern art is "art for art sake" and just want to get shock value and to be "smarter" then the general masses. It is nither inspired or inspiring. It's just pretentious and annoying.