Throughout the ages, those who possessed and used significant knowledge and skill to produce great art according to the values of their times were able to leave a record of that art because it was acknowledged and held high. The poor art of those times went to dust. Not all of that broadly praised art is met with an approving eye today, and it always has been so. This indicates the strong influence of individual tastes - "the eye of the beholder".
In the early stages of "Modern Art" (possibly further back than one might think) the artists who were able to rise above did possess and use fine knowledge and skills, showing mastery of strong principles in design, form, color, use of light, perspective, etc. During the 20th century, serious social and academic undercurrents in the "art world", especially in the US, undermined the importance of many if not all of those classic artistic principles.
Critique based on application of knowledge, skill, etc. gradually became replaced with uninformed critique - "anything goes" if the artist thinks there is a message, or if you think there is something there. Weak standards. Lousy stuff passed off as art. But, not ALL of it is lousy. What of it will prevail, and endure - and why?
If you think that progression is odd or unacceptable - take a listen to contemporary music. Which of THAT will endure.
"Art" can be a tricky thing - the best of it arrives on a strong foundation.
