Soo, what now? "Abstract" "Art" is difficult to make and therefore art? Was that some irony on your part, or did you really just now reuse my argument about artisanship? That it is art, because there is skill involved. Because, well, that is why cooking is also art, yet you seem to think it is not.
But you brought forth the explanation that it is complicated to make those dripping stuff, and hence is not effortless and hence is more than just colors (and therefore art).
But with both things, just because one does drip colors or prepares food, it does not say much about the skill involved. A display of great skill is needed to make it art, instead of just doodles or lunch.
You also seem to think that symbolism alone makes a thing art? Maybe this is translation issue. The grammar in your last paragraph is not clear. But no matter, intent, symbolism, meaning (deep or not), is all not enough to make a thing art. There is a reason for the term "a work of art". You still need the artwork for there to be art.
And, uhm, actually, where did you see me slinging mud at abstract art? If any, I slung mud at most of what people call art. It is the case of not wanting to admit stupidity. So "artists" can get away with delivering anything. No matter the merit of the work.
It is the same danger righteous people face. They did right and became righteous. But now, what they do is righteous because they do it, and no longer because it really is right.
I value stuff like the concept of death of the author and avoidance of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Considering something art, just because an artist made it, is the fallacy of appeal to authority.