My opinion on art is that for it to be good, it generally has to have taken skill to think up, and skill to actually produce.
Most modern art it could be argued that it took skill to think up, but rarely took much skill to produce.
OK, it's a scribble. It might be a scribble that "represents the disenfranchisement of working class society with politics in the modern age", or it might be a swirling pattern that contains "themes of submissiveness and dark undertones of power and control", but it's still just a scribble or a swirly pattern. Even I could have done it - my sister could have done something a lot better that I know what it's meant to be.
How do we know it's what the artist intended it to be, and wasn't just what randomly came out when they flung a paintbrush at a paper?
How do we know they didn't decide what it's supposed to be after they'd finished it?
If it didn't obviously take skill to produce then I'm afraid I'm always going to be unimpressed, as I'll just think 'well I could have done that!'
If the artist didn't even make it himself, but merely provided the concept, then that presumes that the audience only cares about the conception of it, rather than the production of it.
Why does Damien Hirst even bother to keep up the pretence that he actually even conceives them? I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't, in all cases. He can produce far more works and thus make far more money if he's got a close team of associates to design things for him - the thought must have crossed his mind. He's effectively just set up a company that bangs things out that he then puts his name to - because let's face it, that's all he's really selling, his name.