Regarding the post the author refers to primitive art. I really like primitive art but not pretend primitive art which is what modern art is. Genuine primitive art by untrained artists, like Grandma Moses, has much more to offer humanity than the garbage that Picasso cranked out. I will never forget seeing an orginal Picasso in Neiman-Marcus. This was maybe 30 years ago. It was nothing more than stick man's face with a cigarette stuck in the mouth. The price was 3,000 dollars. It was a joke and I could only imagine Picasso inwardly detesting the people he was able to hoodwink into buying it.
I agree with you on Grandma Moses vs Picasso, although I'm not a big fan of primitives in general. I prefer art that gives me the feeling of being in the scene, or with the person-- which to me, is mostly the capture of a realistic sense of light and space. A painting that does that can be tightly rendered or quite loose-- although I think that the looser one goes, the harder it is to capture that illusion. Of course, the appearance of tightness can be merely the illusion created by perfect brushstrokes-- I'm told that if you look at Sargent's portraits up close, it's astonishing how few brushstrokes he used.
He reportedly would write cheap checks for all sorts of purchases ($3-10) with the general belief that those checks would never be cashed, some of the recipients would opt to keep the checks so that they would have a Picasso autograph.