I see that something is artistic when a certain amount of thought has gone into snapping/painting the picture. Then I ask myself if that thought was being potrayed in a cool and elegant way. If not, then its art gone wrong at least in my point of view. If I can't even get to see what the artist is trying to tell me or the thoughts he is trying to portray, then it is too abstract and maybe I need better eyes to interpret the piece.
Or maybe the 'artist' was just wearing the emperor's new clothes. I will never know.
There are many black and white, blurred and grainy pictures that I just don't get. To me Henri Cartier-Bresson is just some guy who had a 35mm point and snap and went round shooting anything he found remotely interesting. I can't see what he is trying to tell me sometimes. But I do love some of his work that I can understand.
On the flip side, if you showed me a well taken picture which leaves nothing for interpretation, it gets very boring after seeing the 101st one.
I find that more matured photographers can understand HCB's work. Newer photographers like clean, obvious expressed thoughts in the photo.
I'm somewhere in between. OK. I'm just rambling. Trying to stay awake after a heavy lunch.