Ah, great screaming chihuahuas, what possesses me to troll for art critic blogs at 2 a.m.?
I guess I get what I deserve. I've just spent the better part of the last 2 hours lost in the world of different opinions by 'those who know' ( and that really needs to be heard in your head as a sniffy British upper class kind of tone way)
The usual and eternal debate on what makes good Art - and if it's , gasp, popular...well, so much the worse it seems.
Honestly, this kind of thing makes my eyeballs wildly spin in opposite directions in my head.
The whole debate is ludicrous because this is a matter of personal preference and most of the 'regular' folk, meaning you and me and the neighbors and probably the guys 100 miles away, just like what they like. Period. Although if it matches the couch that seems to help.
Ok that was me being 'sniffy' I admit.
Art is really a communication between what is viewed (the audience) and the (hopefully skilled ) creator. To have another person tell you if it's good or not is going to be influenced by this personal reaction. It's kind of like me telling you purple shoes are fantastic because I like them. Some folks will agree and some folks won't. Does this make purple shoes the pinnacle of 'shoeness' or just trashy fadism because of how I feel?
What I'm trying to get across is how the world of taste in Art is so nebulous. What is popular today may very well be consigned to a dusty footnote someday or what no one casts an eye towards could conceivably later on be worth a fortune (God knows THE ARTIST won't see that -sigh-) Critics are just people who have an opinion and it's just an opinion, not the word of God.
You can like what you like.
All eyes may look for free.
The painting is "Lament" by Edward Burne-Jones