Making a quality composition is not talent based at all.It is something learned.
Art is subjective.

If you believe that art is subjective, do you also believe that its appreciation is purely arbitrary?

In what context.

As in, the quality of art is arbitrary; what is considered "quality" will differ wildly from one person to another.

It can be.

Interesting answer; the wording implies that it may not always be arbitrary. Do you believe that there is innate quality in a work of art, in addition to arbitrary quality, regardless of an individual's personal taste? As in, if a person doesn't like Citizen Kane, he has bad taste?

Sincerity denotes quality.
After that it is all aesthetic, skill, and taste.

What do you mean by "sincerity?" Assuming that this is the common usage of the word, first and foremost, is sincerity truly a practical standard to judge an artist's work by? After all, could an artist not claim that s/he was "sincere" when s/he truly wasn't, but kept that secret well-hidden, so that no one would ever know?
In addition, aesthetics and taste are qualities that you would consider purely arbitrary (In the context established previously), correct? Also, how would you quantify skill?

Art is a communication device. If their statements are sincere then they are quality.
That is a pretty hard thing to hide. Even the simplest scribbling can be sincere, but people who create art for different reasons are easy to pick out because they think it is about shit like line quality and realism.
And yes, I said those were arbitrary in judging quality. Everything I mentioned after that was about preference which has nothing to do with quality.
And I would quantify skill as "Yo does this person know how *crag*in' colors and shapes an shit work."

So, just to make sure I'm following you, you believe that the only way to judge quality is based on sincerity--which is something quantifiable and non-arbitrary--whereas everything else--skill, aesthetic, and taste--have no effect on quality (Personal preference being what they have an effect on, which is, if I understand correctly, a different concept than quality)?

Quality is a really stupid word when it comes to something like this and I don't like using it.
Art is art. Art is about saying something, not about making a pretty picture. That's the practical aspect, but it's a consequence not the intention.

Which is all well and good, and something we will discuss soon, but as for my previous response, is my understanding of your stance--the merits of using the word "quality" aside--correct or incorrect?

Sure whatever.

So, if the ability to make a quality piece of art is something learned (As you claimed in your first post), and if sincerity is the only way to truthfully--regardless of preference--judge the quality of a work of art, then--putting the pieces together--you believe that the ability to be sincere is something that is learned--as opposed to an innate personality trait--correct?

I said making a quality composition is something that can be learned.
A good composition does not necessarily have to be art.
That isn't to say that some people couldn't stand to have a lesson in expressing themselves more honestly, but I think you are missing the point entirely.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do, technically--you are trying to say that a good composition and art are two separate things, from what I'm reading--but I don't quite see the relevance in pointing this out. This discussion, ultimately, is supposed to be about what it takes to be a good (Or successful) artist, correct? Assuming that a good artist is an artist who creates art that doubles as quality compositions (If not, please elaborate on what you believe a good artist is), and if art is something that has nothing to do with quality (As that is something that is purely within the realm of making compositions), then what does it take to make a quality composition that is also art? If it ultimately boils down to sincerity, how is that a "learned" trait (I have never heard of an "art ethics" class, as a side note)?

If it is a learned trait as a result of gradual environmental influences throughout a person's life, then I do not disagree. The human mind is most likely deterministic, after all, and talent is probably the result of numerous environmental influences, as well (The reason I initially disagreed with your stance on the ability to make a work of quality being something learned is because this followed from a discussion about education/art degrees, and if that isn't what you were referring to, then I'm glad that's cleared up). However, I disagree with sincerity being what determines quality; sincerity certainly isn't a universal standard for the judgment of quality (I have seen people consider sincerity the standard for quality in the past, but that view, from my experience, isn't necessarily common), and I'd argue that works of quality have resulted from people lacking sincere intentions in the past (Most--if not all--of the big 80s action cartoons--such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Masters of the Universe, Thundercats--were likely spawned with the intent to generate profit by selling toys, not to create a truly enjoyable work of entertainment, but they ended up enjoyable, I'd argue, regardless), which leads me to believe that the standards for judging the quality of a particular piece of work are just as arbitrary and subjective as the definition of art.

Furthermore, should we simply stop using the word "art" as it is something that is purely arbitrary and has too many definitions without a decided standard definition?

There are a lot of words to describe good compositions that serve either completely utilitarian purposes or are focused solely on entertainment. Signs, site layouts, still image, cartoons, comics, but none of them are art. They have the capacity to be art, but art is something without format.
What you fail to understand is that art is not a thing. Art is not a something physical that you can hold in your hands. If anything art is a verb. Art is when two people's mind, emotions, and feelings commune through a medium. Both sides must be present for this event to truly be called art, otherwise it's just one pretentious jerk standing on his own yelling at nothing.
It is something without a bar for comparison and without reason or logic. It is a phenomenon explainable through science, yet at the same time doing so takes that human magic away.
The quality of a piece of art has nothing to do with composition, that is the practical application. It has to do with how loud the message is, how profound the message is.
When a person's soul is screaming in your face, that is a great work of art.

I AM THE WINNAR

IT'S ME