If we are going to discuss the validation of art by virtue of “skill” or “meaning,” we have to give abstraction a fair shake. To my way of thinking, abstract art is more interesting (if not more beautiful) than realism, because it presents a visual experience that has no precedent in reality. It presents something totally new and is its own reality. Realism refers to a single point in time and space even when it is arresting, compelling and speaks to universals.
But abstraction can be richly layered and full of ambiguity and mystery that yields fresh nuances of visual experience with each viewing. To me, abstract art comprises a rich, multi-dimensional experience because it doesn’t cater to the constraints of time and place. The new visual experience it presents is of value in and of itself, and does not require a literal meaning in the usual sense. As a matter of fact, it may call on the viewer to be a more active participant in the viewing, because it reaches beyond our usual scope of perception and lends itself to the subjective reality of each viewer. Art does not need to refer to political or religious ideologies, or even the continuum of human emotions and experience, to garner its meaning. It simply is, and therein lies its meaning. And to me, abstraction is very compelling in its visual (and emotional) richness.
As for the “skills” part of the equation, Kandinsky (among others) manifested a high level of both imagination and skill that many realists don’t possess. Good abstraction is difficult to achieve, often involving both concept and great discipline that match or exceed many realist paintings.
Abstract art is often devalued because, to many people, it “looks” easy.
NOTE: I appreciate and pursue abstraction in painting, digital art and photogrpahy. Above you see two of my water abstracts, whose light and patterns I find mesmerizing.