[rainonmoon]

> Art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash?

It's really strange to me that you've allegedly spent so much time in the art world and still think this is a valid dichotomy. Part of art is context, which should be clear given that's exclusively what you're responding to here. It's also strange that you correlate popularity with some kind of moral authority about the right of a particular art to exist. What does it matter whether it's popular or not, as if that's a ruling on its alleged correctness to some imagined standard? I hope one day you can open yourself to having a genuine experience with a work of art and worry less about whether too many people like it or not.

[alienbeast]

I know what I suggested is a common complaint, seen as an uncultured take by the art world; I just disagree with the art world. I don't think context should be important for art. I think art should stand entirely on its own merits without explanation. No placard with a description. No article explaining how it represents a feud with his boyfriend. Just the artwork itself.

Of course, it's impossible to entirely decontextualize an artwork, because every viewer will bring their own backstory and interpretation... But the art should be able to appeal to viewers despite the context. Maybe that's the point: Art which is universally appealing to all humans, despite their backgrounds, would be the most magical type.

I once read a book which discussed how humans are universally attracted to landscapes which would be good for human habitation: Trees, a river, a temperate climate, hills and mountains to shelter in, flora and fauna... The average human from any time, any place, any religion, any language will appreciate such a painting. The same applies to nudes, still life of flowers and fruit, and other universally-understood and appealing (but kitsch) subjects. The same could not be said about the grey flag in this article.

And, of course, no artwork will completely meet that universal Platonic ideal, but the attempt to meet it is what creates the intrinsic beauty which modern art abhors.

I left the art world and went into STEM because of my opinions :)

[dandelany]

A world of perfectly inoffensive, universally appealing art sounds… pretty horrible to me. You’re describing Budweiser and hotel art. Boring.

When I go to a modern art museum, I consider it a success if 90% of what I see is forgettable and 10% of it, or even 2%, is really powerful/sticks with me somehow. I’d much prefer this to 100% bland pictures of flowers and trees of which 0% will be memorable.

[GlenTheMachine]

<Not an artist in any way, shape or form>

IMHO, modern art tends to be less popular with the public because it primarily references other art. In other words, it's art made by artists, for artists. You have to have a deep understanding of the theories of art, the history of art, and the specific works the particular piece you are contemplating references in order to understand it.

Art did not used to be made primarily for other artists. It was made for everyone. And that art, today, still tends to be widely popular.

This does not mean that it is in any meaningful sense lesser art. Rembrandt cannot be said to be a lesser artist than Johns. But his paintings are definitely more accessible.

Architecture is much the same. Brutalist and modern architecture tends to be very popular with other architects. But a brutalist home usually sucks to actually live in. Whereas more traditional forms -- southern farmhouses, traditional German cottages, etc. -- non-architects find to be charming and comfortable.

The parent post here is getting at something real, which is whether nearly all high art should be self-referential. The art world, today, is pretty insular. That doesn't seem healthy to me.

[alienbeast]

Well said. I like that weird and experimental art and architecture exist and are pushing boundaries; I just don't like that they have all but replaced more appealing styles as the default.

[slibhb]

People disagree about this stuff. Whether context matters, whether art should be beautiful, whether skill should be involved in making art, it's uncalled for to include a sentence like:

> I hope one day you can open yourself to having a genuine experience with a work of art and worry less about whether too many people like it or not.

I like plenty of abstract art but I find plenty irritating and I agree with the parent poster that it shouldn't be the norm.