Artfully artless... the way I mean it... is like The Blair Witch Project. Shaky camera, bad acting, looks like something a 7th grader could make... all by design.
Exactly. There's a huge difference between something that appears rough because that's the aesthetic you're aiming for, and having it look that way because you're just not very good or don't know what you're doing. It's the same with all other art as well. Generally the deliberately "bad" (for want of a better term) pieces are still completely consistent with slick looking artwork in terms of structure, tonal values, technique, etc. — they still play by the rules, but also subvert those rules at the same time and the result is generally something that both challenges and draws you in. On the surface it
looks like your kid could make it, but if they tried, they'd likely just end up with a badly made facsimile that has none of the depth or "beauty" of the original. Am I making sense, or am I just rambling? This is one of the issues that I tend to do that on...