Now THAT is talent.
Makes Pollock stuff look like a kid mid-tantrum throwing food on the wall.
Since modern art is about 100 years old now, technology didn't have much to do w/ it. You can give someone all the technology in the world, but if they don't have a unique vision and talent, along with discipline and drive, it isn't going to help them. Anyone that thinks that "anyone can do it" doesn't know very much, but that's OK. That's how most people are. Asleep at the wheel. Anyone can copy an original, existing idea.
There's the critics, and then there's the people who create the works. Nothing has changed since cave art. I'm sure some Cro Magnum guy groused "Hmph, he thinks he's something. Why, anyone could do that". Talk is cheap. Artists talk w/ their works, not their mouths.
We were in a museum, looking at Peit Mondrian. And (so help me) I said exactly that: "I could have done that!"
She wheeled around, looked me square in the eye and said: "Yes. But you didn't!"
Even if you had done it, you may not have had access to exposure or distribution so anyone would have seen it.
A great deal of life is about access, connections, luck or fate.
A great article I once read by Fran Liebowitz (sp?) was a rant about access. It was along the lines of actors/actresses who have famous parents, and their stating that YES, they got their foot in the door because of their parents, BUT it was their talent that got them hired regularly in their TV series.
And Liebowitz's claim, that the foot in the door is actually the only hard part. The actual acting 90 percent of the population could do it.
Remember she wasn't talking about great actors, but about the shlock acting that is regularly regurgitated on TV.
I wish I could find the article again.