Art or Bafflegab?

After visiting the Museum of Modern Art in New York, I left decidedly underwhelmed by the majority of their pieces. Now I realize art is subjective and that what I like is not the only factor in determining artistic merit. (although it should be) But aside from the fourth floor of MOMA (housing the cubists, impressionists and not so modern, modern art) much of the art seemed to be more examples of good salesmanship than actual artistic ability. 
   A large number of the pieces did not require any skill or seemingly any vision. What makes this person’s white canvas with a thin blue stripe around the edges better than anyone else’s equally bare canvas? The only difference would have to be in the artist’s agent
and/or the accompanying written drivel that convinced a major New York gallery to pay out the big bucks. Another piece was a paper with a straight line in pencil indicating the length of the artist’s stride. Then he included a map showing where he’d walked through grasses for a couple of years. I had to ask, “So what?”  Aside from the fact
that this artist managed to get his art (?) into MOMA, why would anyone bother to look at it?  
   Yes, this and the other pictures/sculptures lacking any discernible effort or skill can start conversations about what constitutes art, but with a bar that low, everything can be considered  art. And again,
what makes one artist’s work worth millions and another’s not? I’d like to think art, whether to my taste or not, takes some skill to create. It'd be nice if you could go to galleries to see art work that evokes emotions and/or inspiration. But maybe I’m just too picky. Are other people enjoying the modern art exhibited in galleries today?