Here's an analogy: a chunk of the Berlin wall is a lot more interesting than a chunk of concrete with some graffiti, even if you couldn't tell the difference. A

Here's an analogy: a chunk of the Berlin wall is a lot more interesting than a chunk of concrete with some graffiti, even if you couldn't tell the difference. A lot of art, especially modern and conceptual art, makes more sense this light: the original is not necessarily interesting because of the skill or craft that went into it but because it had a profound effect on art history and artists that came after it. Does this mean that art is ultimately a popularity game? I think so, or at least popularity among the right people. (It's cliquey.) Anything deeper comes from social forces making deeper things popular and, I don't know about you, but I don't put much faith in those forces. Modern art is controversial, and I think both extremes of the debate are off. The people arguing "my child could do that" are wrong in two ways: they underestimate the structure (conscious or subconscious) that goes into even the most minimal of pieces and, of course, something made by your child will not have historical significance. But the other side, the ones that great value into art and completely rebuff criticisms of the first kind go too far in the opposite direction. They put too much stock in post hoc rationalizations ("narratives") of why a piece or artists became influential, not accounting for the massive amount of noise that goes into determining what gets popular. (Even among self-selected, educated circles!) The exact things which get big, or not, are more functions of social networks[1] than any innate qualities of the things in question. Now, I'm not saying that all successful fine art is bad, rather that not all of it—perhaps even not much—is good. Any my own evaluations of art are no doubt wonky: I think a black square[2] is brilliant and liberates art from the tyranny of representation while a shark in a tank[3] is a shark in a tank and a testament to a salesman or conman more than an artist. Even if you try to dress it up with analysis. (Which could, just as easily, be more rationalization…) And I'm sure most reasonable people have similar judgements of their own. I'm not making general statements about it one way or another; instead, I just want to point out that popularity is a bad proxy for quality, and that applies as well to the world of fine art as to anything else. (Striking closer to home, it explains a lot about programming language design!) [1]: http://nautil.us/issue/5/fame/homo-narrativus-and-the-trouble-with-fame http://nautil.us/issue/5/fame/homo-narrativus-and-the-troubl... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_%28painting%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_%28painting%29 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_Death_in_the_Mind_of_Someone_Living https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_...