I'll give you props on identifying the artist, but you are sadly offbase on the rest.
Art is not simply good technique and choice of proper materials.
If that were the case, Adolph Hitler and his drawings would be held the same regard as Picasso, Durer, or a host of others.
Actually, Hitler was famously not a great painter. A poor example of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
If his paintings were as good as Picasso, Durer, etc, then yes, his
paintings would be as good as the paintings by Picasso, Durer. And we would have likely known him for being a painter, not the genocidal madman of the Third Reich.
I specifically said art was about talent and skill. Not just good technique and proper materials.
"That painting is about a dude who bet everything on a horse race, lost and offed himself. Basically "highly allegorical" for "gambling is a tax for folks that can't do math.""
Wow. Clinically correct, conceptually not quite sure what to say to that, other than
Here, you'll probably be more comfortable with this...
Because I'm sick of poor art being held up as awesome because it has "deep meaning". Lancaster has a First Friday, which is when all the galleries stay open late and whatnot. The majority of the work is absolute crap. But "has deep meaning", "it's all about interpretation, man", "all judgment is relative", blah blah blah. The piece should speak for itself. When it comes to the quality of a painting, it should not matter whether there is a famous name attached to a painting, or a 7 year old's. The quality of a painting shouldn't require a ten page artist's interpretation for it to be judged as excellent.
And yes, I DO subtract points when the artist has a poor understanding of the materials in which he is working.