... they said, while wasting (in the true sense of the word, it would seem based on the quality of this comment) their time replying.

Maybe tone it down a bit and be nicer? Even if they have a poor education, why would you publicly shame them for it?

RobotCaleb, kindly explain: 1. Why are you admonishing me and not saying a word to the poster who said "check out the following books if you want to move past your misconceptions"? Why doesn't that come across as patronizing to you? 2. Why is art subjective but "the following books" are not? 3. Where did you get the idea that art is supposed to be inclusive? Kindergarten teachers routinely invited my mother to go there just to show her, "Look at the amazing drawings your son has been making AGAIN!" Do you think my kindergarten drawings should be blown up and plastered on publicly visible walls? Seriously, I want to know.

On point 3, well, yes. If your mother or teacher wanted to, and had the means and opportunity to do so. Whether or not you find artistic merit in those drawings has little bearing on the expression of pride that might drive your parent or teacher to publish that art. It doesn't have any bearing on the feelings that are evoked by the observer, whether it's your revulsion at your own productions, or the delight from normal folks when seeing displays of public art.

You said "Real art is deep, meaningful, timeless and doesn't need to be imposed."

Sand Mandalas are deeply meaningful, but completely timeless - most are created to be destroyed, often within days or hours of completion. Brueghel's Flatterers is a relatively crass, surface level, but lasting commentary on what we often refer to as Musk fanboys and such these days :P

Fundamentally, art is human expression, and your attempts to gatekeep that have fallen pretty flat so far.