A work invoking chance relationships OR just plain scribble?

Perhaps my favorite question for small talk is, "How do you feel about modern [visual] art?" More often than not their sentiments are unfavorable towards this genre, and they scoff at the possibility of artists making hundreds of millions of dollars by painting rectangles of similar form and quality to those adorning the walls of kindergarten classrooms. How can this possibly be art? What even is art? To me, art is the intentional expression of emotion through any medium--whether music, movement, visual arts, language, theater, multimedia, etc.--and therefore, because Mark Rothko's painted rectangles evoke emotions in the viewer (albeit for many it's bitter disgust) it qualifies as art. Then the question is, why does society value this kind of skill-less, haphazard art? This is far more difficult to answer because it's similar to asking why we value anything. Nonetheless, I believe the answer relates back to my definition of art. Because art is an expression of feeling, its judgment rests on the amount of emotion it conveys. This notion implies that as society evolves, what people find emotional also changes, and therefore, while glistening crystal bowls of grapes and oranges resonated with the 16th century audience, the psychedelic works of Jackson Pollack may be more stirring for the 20 and 21st century audiences. The truth is that many people find abstract pieces more intriguing than landscapes and realistic pieces of art. Maybe with the ubiquity of photography, realism just isn't as exciting. Who really knows?

Anyways, what inspired this post is a piece of artwork on Christie's Auction website entitled Two Hours with Crayon and Graphite on Paper by American artist William Anastasi, which is expected to sell between 40 and 60 thousand dollars. The work is 7 feet long, and as the title implies, was composed by coloring paper with a bright yellow crayon and a pencil for exactly two hours. Do you see it as the description states "an expansive work invoking chance relationships and eschewing overt intentionality" or merely glorified scribble?

Me, I like the former description. But it's just my perspective.

Signed,
EJS