2 ms·

There's really two art worlds the way I see it. One is real, the other is pseudo academic. You can like and not like whatever you want, but there's a world of d

There's really two art worlds the way I see it. One is real, the other is pseudo academic. You can like and not like whatever you want, but there's a world of dealers, critics, promoters, and others that actually control the museums, galleries, etc. They, the pseudo academics, believe in a certain objectivity regarding art and they decide who is a genius and who is not. Because they don't use feelings, they are objective! Supposedly. And it's their fault that true artists work at coffee shops while Koontz and others collect the money. And I tried to understand their standards and how they gauge modern art and my conclusion is that the artist must be cool, sociable, kind of weird, and productive in the sense of producing many pieces regularly. As far as content and quality, random guess is as good as any.

brazzy 7y ago
There are actually three worlds, and of course they're all real, and all intertwined. First, what you call "real", obviously because you don't understand or like the other two, is popular art. The defining characteristic is that it can be enjoyed directly without much context or explanation. The second is, well let's call it academic art. It's not actually confined to universities, but the defining feature is that it is at least partially based on thinking about art, and usually challenges some of the unspoken assumptions underpinning popular art and often requires context to understand. Museums show this kind of art. The third is the "art scene". The defining characteristic is that it's driven by collectors willing to sometimes pay outrageous prices for various reasons. Galleries and dealers mostly cater to this world, and this is where "star artists" are born.