> Its art will never appeal to the traditional critic who worries more about the statement of art than it’s artifact. That didn't stop the Smithsonian from try

> Its art will never appeal to the traditional critic who worries more about the statement of art than it’s artifact. That didn't stop the Smithsonian from trying to take it "seriously"[0], nor the Art World from objecting to that[1]. Perhaps weirdly, I applaud both things, because as far as I can tell you're right about what the point of BM art is. (I am one of the few? many? people to have never attended Burning Man, but to have contributed to its art. I'm probably biased and ill-informed, but I like your take on it.) [0]: https://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/burning-man https://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/burning-man [1]: Argh! Can't find it online but IIRC either Frieze or Flash Art had a pretty on-point takedown of the show from the "serious art" point of view.