That's either an incredibly uniformed opinion or a joke. Millions of artists, art and art history students, teachers and academics aren't being duped by hucksters who have no talent, that's more like what Thomas Kinkade did. "I could have done that," no you couldn't have, you just don't understand the degree of difficulty. There is a ton of technical skill in the Klein and the Rothko. I'm pretty sure they made their paint. And Rothko's are huge. So are Jackson Pollack's, posterboy for art that requires no talent to millions of lay people. It's not just paint dripped on a surface, the act of him painting is part of it and if you see a Pollack you can see his cigarette butts and other parts of the process. I, having seen many drip paintings and attempting a couple, it's not easy to leave more than a mess with zero visual impact or interest. Not convinced? Try to make your own modern art. You might notice it's lacking somehow. There are technical aspects to any good art that you're oblivious to. Line, composition, color, hue, tone, value.

If you just want to look at pretty pictures that's fine and there are many working artists today who just paint pastoral scenes and still lifes and animals, the kind of stuff that makes me want to vomit blood onto middle aged women when I look at it. But being flippant and dismissive and demeaning to what is still a powerful cultural expression to many is a bit like saying "I only date supermodels. I'm only interested in superficial aesthetics. People who can appreciate anything less than ideal beauty are a complete mystery to me."