Art is also about context. Look at prehistoric cave paintings: I have no technical skill as an artist, but I could easily recreate the paintings myself. But does that mean they're not art? Of course not. To take another example, how about the hasty sketches of a soldier in the trenches in the First World War?
I only use such a stark example to prove the point that technical skill isn't all that makes art art. If you don't know what people see in these "things" then perhaps you just need to look a little more carefully. A lot of modern art is taking the mundane, that which we are used to, and challenging our assumptions about it. Assumptions that we didn't even know we had.
I'm not commenting on this post in particular, but all too often I see this dismissive attitude towards modern art, and I think it's unfair and deserves more careful consideration.
The exact same painting.
This doesn't seem a very robust definition. Do you think things like aircraft carriers and landfills are art?
Any fast typist could retype any of the great works of literature in a weekend. That's not the same as being able to write them.
Your definition is somewhat myopic.
I was in a Syndey art museum recently, and there are a lot of beautiful art paintings I couldn't create in a thousand years. There are a few proudly displayed "things" that I could create in a couple hours with zero skill. I have no idea what people see in those "things".