I've always thought the "Kinkade vs. Art Snobs" debate was interesting.

Is art something that millions of people enjoy and are willing to pay for (e.g. Kinkade) or something that will be proclaimed as "great" by a tiny minority of snobs- the kind of stuff that most people only "like" because they have been told to "like" it and feel that they have to "like" it, lest they be mocked by the snobs?

Is a Jackson Pollock (a favorite of the snobs) that looks like projectile vomit on canvas
It kind of reminds me of the music debate. Which is better music- the symphony that is proclaimed "great music" by the snobs

I'll admit it, I have no formal art training (I decided to get a useful degree)
I suspect the overwhelming majority of people think the same way I do (even some of those who will protest to the contrary- because they don't want to look like they don't appreciate "real" art).

You know if you really tried, you might be able to squeeze the word "snobs" in there once or twice more. And you don't need "formal art training" any more than you need "formal food training" to think that McDonald's doesn't serve great food, even though it outsells most other restaurants in the world.

Your writing is drenched in animus, which is so often the refuge of the uninformed. Nobody says you have to like Pollock or classical music or great literature, but to claim that those who do must be "snobs" is just ignorant.