I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The word Art comes from the word Artisan, which means 'somebody who is skilled in a craft or trade.' Therefor the question 'Is this art?' should really be 'Did this require skill?'

The furry drawing undoubtedly required a respectable level of skill to produce. A level of skill I do not have naturally nor have I had the time to practice or hone as I stopped drawing sometime before high-school. Therefor I respect the work as art irregardless of what I think of the subject matter.

The blue paint on canvas is something I could reasonably produce with my naturally unskilled and untrained hands. Unless there is some other thing about the piece that implies skill beyond the average 'I have not drawn since I got too old for crayons' Joe I can not respect it as art.

The one on the left is art, the one on the right is an overvalued collectable.

You can tell the difference with this test:
Dump them both on the side of the road where somebody would see it without any context. Which one would have any value beyond it's materials such that somebody would pick it up and fix it if it was mildly damaged. For example a urinal signed R. Mutt would have zero value beyond it's purpose as a urinal, but the drawing here is art and there is value beyond the materials used to print it instead of value as a collectable.