I'd argue art is a communication medium. You can communicate minimally, or you can communicate with vast detail, both require skill.

Art museums are full of work that says nothing, but passed a few gatekeepers with clout keys or shock value.

Skilled rendering with nothing to say is as unimpressive as deep ideas communicated by random spatter. The viewer isn't getting anything from it, no matter how trendy their turtleneck is.

I take a bit of issue with this idea that "the amount of skill involved doesn't matter", because that's the exact logic used to say artists shouldn't be able to afford a living, or could be replaced by algorithms.

(And yet we easily spot and mock visually exciting Ai renderings for how soulless and empty they are.)

Yes, we've seen impressive high-skill ultra-real pencil renderings that, in the end could sadly be replaced by a photograph, because there was no interpretation involved.

And we've seen awards presented for sticking bananas on walls as a "critique of modern society."

Art is a skill. It's a hard skill, because it's not a solitary pursuit solely anchored in visual perfection. If nobody can understand or appreciate your point, it falls apart.

Na, both are important in Art. I find it totally valid to equal skill with Art and also understand if you disagree on that, but saying that equaling them means you don't "understand" Art is pretty harsh. After all, making you think or feel something is a skill in itself. A super detailed and close to reality picture of a frog makes me think quite a lot about the amount of time and work involved, lets me marvel at the Details and, well, skill of the artist.