[doytch]

I think the argument here is that hate (which is a subset of passion) is not the purely negative thing that we immediately think it is. Especially in art. When people _hate_ art the art has served its purpose. Art's intention (to paint with heinously broad strokes) is to create emotions and drive thoughts. That's a very different intention than a product/service and they shouldn't be compared in that sense.

But also:

> Afterall, it’s good for engagement and the Instagram algorithm.

[free_bip]

Arts intention is whatever the artist makes it out to be. If an artist wants their work to be loved, not hated... Well then this doesn't really apply does it

[tithe]

Does the artist control that outcome, though? The clear communication of their art's intention? Whether their work is loved or hated?

If you're creating art because you enjoy doing it, and if you're performing / putting it on display because you think it has value and others might enjoy it too, then I can't think of any reaction other than love and encouragement (implicitly via purchasing or explicitly via encouragement) that would suffice in keeping one motivated to share it with others.

Now, amidst any hate I might ask myself "Did I do the absolute best according to my ability? Is there anything else I can improve?" From this perspective, hate is amazing as fuel because it's an effective way to eliminate your perceived faults (assuming you take it personally, which I'd wager most artists do).

[theideaofcoffee]

Even if the artist wrote their own citation of a work saying "I intended it for it to be loved, and that's the only correct interpretation", it's still not correct if one subscribes, as I do, to the literary-focused "the death of the author('s authority)" once they release it. They really don't get a say how it's taken once someone else perceives it.

I think the parent's free use of 'hate' stands in for a conflict in emotion and interpretation this way, and less it being completely despised or loathed.