Thanks for the reply. I can appreciate your take on the matter. I do agree that people should freely critique and analyze the art of other people. In a way, response to art is what gives art its voice. I, too, have witnessed that people are afraid or hesitant to comment on the works of others when they have something other than kind things to say, and I do think that growing caution of expressing opinions has caused some artists themselves to be less likely to take criticism well and work on improving.

Like you point out with that link, the reading level or complexity in vocabulary within songs has definitely lessened over the years. I've noticed this in books, too, especially best sellers. I wonder if that has to do with a cultural shift and less complexity becoming more commonplace in different artistic mediums. I do agree with your points about the degradation of art due to a growing acceptance of less thought-provoking works. Personally, I feel it is easier to judge writing than visual pieces. In that case, you can tell when the subject matter is very juvenile and doesn't bring any new thoughts up for consideration.

My comment was more about how I don't like the idea of trying to define art or tell people what is or isn't art because even if I or some others don't see it that way, it can still be art to the creator or someone else. My worry with this idea is that seeing one type or just a few types of styles as valid can damage the community as well. I'm not much of a fan of abstract art or the work of Carmen Herrera (you can look her art up on google), but many people appreciate these styles. So then, is art only valid once the individual meets the standards of the art style they choose? Who creates these standards?