That's just production precision, which I appreciate but many significant art pieces don't have much of that. If you don't like it, you don't like it(I don't like it too, I value mastery) but that doesn't say much about the quality or more importantly significance of the art.
Production precision is just one of the examples I gave. There are other things that can indicate the quality as well. In this particular case the art is painting and sculpting and those can be done with more and less quality.
Of course there is modern art where it can seem like anything can be considered art but even in those cases there is often work and talent involved. Maybe it's through the selection of which works to make public or the storytelling with the art pieces or coming up with new experiments.
I don't know, it's like a having an essay with no grammatical errors. Does it make the essay any good? Sure, having a great essay written with lots of typos and grammatical errors can be hard to consume but on the other hand we, in the internet age, have some great stories called "copypasta" written horribly and people love those. They are culturally significant artefacts of a time period of the internet culture and their production is not so good.
We have "HODL" which is a cultural phenomenon, which itself is a typo.
We have numerous memes images of cultural significance which is made with very low production value because their original makers had a great idea but not very good image editing skills.
I don't think that "production correctness" or "precision" is a metric that art can be evaluated on.
In the case of an essay the quality can maybe be seen in correct grammar but mostly by the writer being able to convey the story well, make sentences people want read and other things.
A cultural phenomenon is not art in my opinion. I think things can be made by people and found interesting and well liked without them being art just as a natural phenomenon can be interesting and well liked.
