Does mediocrity rule?

Roberts thoughts on another thread tie in with various thoughts of mine lately. (Isn't it funny how you are thinking of how to introduce a certain subject and someone comes along with an almost identical contribution?) Anyway, I was walking the dog and musing over various things and thunk a thought about a recent article in The Artist from a portrait painter who had found a way of producing "foolproof" portrait paintings. This involved printing out a photo of your subject on your printer and tracing it onto canvas and then basically filling it in. This will produce a portrait that will impress because it looks like the person, but shouldn't a good work of art possess something more than this? Shouldn't it have some qualities that make you want to stop and look, to think "this piece of art has changed the way I see the world" shouldn't it say " this piece has been produced by someone who has a particular vision and wants to communicate it?" It reminded of a recent exchange at an art group I go to. I had produced a portrait of the model and another member came up and said,"that's really good it looks like her", to which my thought was "isn't that the LEAST you expect from a portrait, shouldn't a good work of art possess something more? " This led me in turn to muse on the X Factor and how the crowd go bananas over anyone who is a competent singer , screaming insanely everytime someone hits a high note or can hold a tune. Are we not in a culture that celebrates mediocrity and is in awe of anyone who is merely competent at what they do? Shouldn't great art and great music be more than this?