[bagster]

I have no opinion on this guys painting. It's more of a political cartoon than real art.

My beef is with art in general and what constitutes it.

To me, art is something that not everybody can do. Anybody can do what Warhol, or any of these so called "modern artists can do."

And art isn't defined by how many people agree to call it art. Art is it's own truth and not subject to opinion polls.

There are many people who sing, but they are not do not sing well. Yet many people will buy their records and call them artists. Rappers come to mind. Movies, same.

Many people choose to write yet show no special skill, yet are called writers and artists. Poetry, same.

Art appreciation according to Bagster.

[RegulatorCountry]

There is the subjective element which would be innate talent. Some may disagree, especially with controversial figures who pushed boundaries of what has been broadly accepted as “art.”

Then, there is the matter of technical proficiency. The craftsmanship, is it compelling? Is there beauty in the execution, regardless of subject matter? Even with an idiot savant such as Jackson Pollock I'd have to agree, there's another one who may have thought he was pulling one over on the bourgeoisie but actually did have talent despite himself. Those paint splatters display some very sophisticated compositional elements, fractals, even abstract visual representations of Fibonacci numbers.

I don't believe anyone could say that about the painting in question, not now and not in the future.

[C210N]

Agreed. Modern Art, at its best: