He says:

There's one more kind of criteria on which art ought to be judged and that is the nature of the message itself. Some works of art express ideas which are true and others are false. Some promote views which are good and others which are evil. Some tend to enlighten the viewer and others tend to degrade his character. This evaluation is different from the issue of pure artistic quality, but it is not an irrelevant question, and it is one that generally gets too little attention these days as nihilists seek to eliminate all such evaluations from life. For example, there's something wrong with an otherwise excellent painting that promotes the idea that ignorance is bliss that isn't wrong with an equally excellent painting that promotes the idea that ignorance is a cage.

It's easy to paint in black and white, and easier still not to have to risk anything for it--plus this fella is an opinionated hack.

If it makes you think or feel, it is art to you. Many intense and wonderful pieces are completely beyond many people. Just like I don't like peanut butter, you don't have to like Monet, or Miro. But it should make you react. And if you don't, it isn't any less art to it's creator or to the next guy. it's OK. It's only art.