I, like many of us here  enjoy art in comics and in various other mediums so much so that i learned to draw, paint, sculpt, and glass edge as a teenager taking art classes in high school and being self taught in other areas. I  think many of us have at one time or another stared at a comic page with splash art and were impressed stating how awesome it was and probably the best thing you have ever seen, I know i have. How many times have we put  pencil to paper and doodled, sketched a character simply to redraw what we saw or to create our own art for ourselves.  I know that at the time we might be critical of ourselves and say its no good or pretty crappy a few others might think different and for good reason, that it is on par to those you see in other mediums yet, your talent goes unappreciated while others are praised for their mediocrity.
 
This is what i want to focus on, how is it that others whose art work is inferior to various other people today get to be put in museums and praised  for the simple reason in that it was drawn 100's of years ago. Even when in the artist own time was considered mediocre by their contemporary yet today they are put in museum simply due to being unique and surviving. Snobbish art critiques praising the mediocrity of how fantastic the art  strokes are something that the artist at  the time wasn't too worried about when painting.  At the  time the artist was simply being half @$$ed with no formal training trying to hurry and maintain a schedule or simply being scattered brained.  
 
 
I think today people who have no business judging art are the ones who say what is art with a snobbish elitist attitude about it, i have seen art work from comics, movie posters, and paintings of today that are far superior in technique, color, lighting, anatomy then what the masters of the past could only hope for and would cry and tear their own canvas if they were shown the art of today. I am not a fan of abstract art and although i do enjoy landscaping and fruit bowl paintings to me such art does not deserve a place in a museum as a "Great works of Art". I can understand that they are placed there due to being relics but for people to argue for them for anything else especially against modern art is what really bothers me. Painters of the past would often paint people in churches, walls,  fresco style painting in  attempt to paint them as realistically as possible but if you look at it objectively many times the artist failed as the faces were flat even alien in appearance something an artist today could fix and do better.
 
So why do we praise an artist for failing to make a realistic  portrait  on a wall or roof as is his goal but we ignore the guy on the beach boardwalk who pumps out a charcoal life like portrait in minutes and can paint you a portrait half the time if not less of what it would take a  "Master" of the past and be far superior?  O_o
 
Why do we lie to ourselves about what is quality art, we praise something that is mediocre simply due to age?
 
How many times have you see something in a museum or art book that is horrible but for some retarded reason is worth more then what you will ever make and the worse part it is something that you yourself can whip up in your garage without trying in under a few minutes?
 
Could the greatest artist of the Renaissance replicate and compete with the artist of today  and vice versa? 
 
Who is your favorite artist and art style, modern or past and why?
 

feel free to give your opinion on the subject, i expect nothing less.
you can also post your favorite art work here.