Anax, I was speaking to the examples given by Purrin.  All of them were given from the perspective of the observer, which is where I find the hole in the logic.  As an observer, the only way to know someone possesses technical ability is to first observe art demonstrating that ability.  To have it "proved" to the observer in a sense.  (As a side note, I think we'll have to agree on that to move forward.)

Moving forward...what I asked was (or what I intended to ask my previous post was), from the perspective of an observer, how does one differentiate artists who have technical ability but never demonstrate it from those who have no technical ability (and obviously never demonstrate it)?  As I said above, one can't.   

It's a line of sight thing.  See below, where the parentheses denote the observer's line of sight, originating from the right and extending to the left:

Situation A (observer has seen previous works demonstrating technical ability):
   Artist > (Has Technical Ability* > Creates art that doesn't demonstrate technical ability > Observer)
Situation B (observer has not seen previous works demonstrating technical ability):
   Artist > Has Technical Ability* > (Creates art that doesn't demonstrate technical ability > Observer)
Situation C (observer has not seen previous works demonstrating lack of technical ability):
   Artist > Has Little or No Technical Ability* > (Creates art that doesn't demonstrate technical ability > Observer)

[*To say it one more time technical ability here can only be seen by the observer in the form of works that demonstrate it.]

In situation B, the observer's line of sight does not fully encompass the actual situation, neither does it in situation C, therefore, the observer CANNOT get (or give) an accurate assessment of reality.  Hopefully that makes more sense.

As for accidents and mistakes, that's a completely different matter, and since I have to get to work, I don't have time to touch on it right now.

I guess you haven't been around artsy kids who tried to draw like Dali or paint like Pollock without first learning how to draw or to paint.

I guess I have not, must be easy to tell?   

^ Lol, just realized it's not a very good shot.  How ironic.

THe point of art isn't to demonstrate technical ability.  The point is to communicate something.  The point of visual art is often to communicate something without words.  Technical ability often helps, or is necessary to communicate a certain idea/feeling in a given medium, but it is not the point, and if one can communicate something profound without technical ability it makes no difference. 

There's a quote that Marv has probably heard before about a raft and a river.  The point is to get across the river, you often need a raft to do so but shit if you can swim it more power to you.  The raft is not the point.  It's a means to an end.  A bit of a twist on the original use, but it works. 

The dildo piece isn't lame because it is technically lacking, it's lame because it doesn't communicate anything.  Well it does, but not anything that we seem interested in.  It's intentions seem more transparent than intended.   

The dildo piece isn't lame because it is technically lacking, it's lame because it doesn't communicate anything.

If art can elicit emotion, the grin on the girl on the left says otherwise