Great post, and glad to see you picking this up again. Food is a good analogy. A person could throw a bunch of random ingredients together in a flurry of passion without preparation and skill. And it would taste like pig slop.
A skilled chef could create a culinary delight even if they move relatively quickly in the kitchen and don't follow a recipe. But that is only because they have prepare their ingredients ahead of time, and because they have the skills to pull it off. (a combination of talent, training, and practice)
However, place the average joe who can only toast bread in an "Iron Chef" competition, even in a good kitchen with all the right equipment and ingredients. He may come up with something slightly edible, but it won't taste good. It certainly won't taste amazing.
Why is it that these same rules don't apply to art? Our taste buds can't be duped into thinking something tastes good when it doesn't.
Somehow, though, we have duped our "artistic tastebuds" through education and exposure of mediocre, sub-par visual and auditory creations into accepting art that is terrible. We call it good.
I don't know. Maybe if a guy was in a dungeon and ate only moldy crusts of bread every day, he might be trained into thinking a McDonald's hamburger is filet mignon.
I think this is probably one of the roots of the problem. There are people in educational circles that teach that mediocre is good, and they indoctrinate their students.
I also think there is a big movement of anti-intellectualism and anti-craftmanship in the arts. Very often now people in general don't recognize skill in something, or worse, they disdain it. As if being skilled is offensive or doesn't add to the artistic value, and I believe it does.