Is some of this stuff really art?

[BluffTHIS!]

I am no art historian and only know what I like, which tends to be older and traditional paintings from the renaissance and upto the 1800s. I like impressionists, some folk art and although its not my thing, I can appreciate more abstract stuff like Kadinsky or Picasso or Dali (I know the latter two probably aren't considered abstract overall maybe but that's how I consider them).

But some of the so-called abstract art really isn't to me. What I mean here are paintings by Jackson Pollock and those that consist of just some geometric shapes. But then of course those who do like that kind of thing and rave about it, attribute all kinds of "meaning" to it. But Pollock's stuff in particular just looks like something from a 2nd grader's finger painting or splatter painting exercise.

Here is what I personally consider the standard for whether paintings (or their counterparts in sculpture - you know the twisted metal and used tire kind of stuff) is really art or not. And that is whether such an artist possesses the technical skill to paint according to traditional styles. I mean that if Pollock could paint something that would be considered by art critics a very good impressionist painting or a very good late 1800s american landscape type of painting, but instead chose to express himself through a different form, then I would respect that. But if he lacked that skill, which seems likely, then I think it very fair to label his stuff garbage that is admired by those participating in an emperor with no clothes psychological charade so that that they can consider themselves "progressive" and "avant-garde".