Lets see if we can get this back on track. Personally, i think the idea is revolting, and a lot of modern art seems to be based not around skill, but rather 'what can be done that hasn't been done before'.
The concept is just another aspect of the art. Back in the classical era the paintings themselves rarely had any intellectual substance, even though the painting was "virtuoso". Scenes of couples or of hunters with their dogs were frequent, and even though the level of detail and realism was high, the originality was never really there. This is mostly due to the fact that there were many rules that ensured a certain uniformity in the art (and thus a lack of originality).
Skill, as you call it, is just one aspect of art, but there are so many other aspects that to dislike a work because of the lack of "skill" (every person's definition is different) is a bit foolish.
Thats like most things when you think about it. Lifes about originality if you want to sell out. People buy consoles, games, shoes, clothes, films because they're originial.
But yeah painting with your blood is rather wrong.
Heh... that's not true at all. In fact it's quite the opposite. What sells is what's always the same. Look at this year. All the best selling movies had predictable, generic plots, characters, music (Avatar, Twilight). The games that sell the most are those who have a definite form (New Super Mario Bros.). People want more of the same, very few care about real originality.
You know, I'd be okay if it was made with just normal blood.
But menstrual blood? That's just disgusting/wrong.
Well, disgust is another human emotion. And isn't the objective of art to wake up emotions in people? Who said that art had to be always pleasing?
"Something tremendously powerful was lost when composers moved away from tonal harmony and regular pulses... Among other things the audience was lost" -John Adams