One way to appreciate a piece of art is to recognize the technical skill that was applied in creating it. The David's veins and or Jesus's musculature and Mary'

One way to appreciate a piece of art is to recognize the technical skill that was applied in creating it. The David's veins and or Jesus's musculature and Mary's flowing robes in the Pieta are virtuosic demonstrations of Michelangelo's skill in representing lifelike human scenes. That said, skill in creating realistic representation is not the only measure of art's value. Consider Starry Night by Van Gogh. What is it that makes this such a striking and stirring vision of the night sky? It is certainly not a photo-realistic rendering of the stars and moon. Instead, I think it represents a radically different perspective and I find beauty in art that allows me to have a different vision of the world. A more extreme example of the same idea is Islamic art, which strictly forbids representations of life, but still strives to express a vision of god/allah. Consider the mosque ceilings in this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/BaytAlFann/status/1517074277312389121 https://twitter.com/BaytAlFann/status/1517074277312389121. There is absolutely no representation of any recognizable form, no people, no animals. Only geometry. Yet, they are undeniably beautiful. Why is that? For Picasso, I would make a similar argument. No, his art doesn't immediately strike one through its technical skill. This is not the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. However, what it provides is a completely different perspective. Faces are inverted and laid flat, arms are arranged in strange configurations. Try to look at a scene around you, right now, and imagine how Picasso would see it. Then, I think you'll see how extremely peculiar and valuable his art is.