[umvi]

> Even pieces that truly don’t require technical skill can still have value, which you don’t seem to grasp.

No, I understand. The Japanese flag is a red circle on a white rectangle. Takes no skill to design or draw. But I still think it's has value as a symbol. But I wouldn't pay $200M for it and I certainly wouldn't prop up the person who made it as some sort of highly skilled artistic juggernaut. I would think "neat concept, but I could've done that" and that would be it.

> Please try to replicate a Pollock. I think you’ll be surprised.

Please try and replicate my signature. I think you'll be surprised at how difficult it is (I've been perfecting it for 20+ years signing documents) and that should cause you to respect me much more, right? If not, please explain why not and in doing so you'll understand why I don't care for Pollock or his work.

Anyone can just make up a new form of art and "perfect" it by just doing it over and over (like your signature). I could invent a new form of music by randomly mashing keys on a piano in a way unique to me. So what? There is no negative feedback loop so therefore the "perfection" process is completely nebulous and arbitrary and takes no real effort because there is no defined destination.

Can we at least acknowledge the massive skill gap between learning to play a Chopin piano piece and pioneering a Pollock-esque field of art where there are no rules or negative feedback loops to correct you?

[SamReidHughes]

Playing a Chopin piano piece is much, much easier. You can tell Pollock is legit just by looking at his art.