Sounds more like the personal thoughts of an insane person. It gets really old listening to people tell me a painting of a fresh pile of dog shite or Jesus wearing a Hello Kitty skirt is art.
It gets just as old listening to people tell me that "it gets really old listening to people tell me a painting of a fresh pile of dog shite or Jesus wearing a Hello Kitty skirt is art".
So please try to come up with something more thoughtful instead.
Maybe the artist is telling you that they think contemporary art is dog poop, or that in a Godless society nothing is sacred and worth painting so they might as well paint dog poop, or ...
But I find it very sheep like when others claim their "art studdys" program enabled them to see art others can't see like they're in some secret club with one of a kind decoder rings.
That does nothing to help me understand whether others who claim to see the art
are making a valid point and you're missing the point; or whether there's no point to get. (Seems like it's all about you feeling excluded.)
Other than being an image from an accomplished photographer. I still don't see anything in that image. It's an image my wife would delete from her PNS. And before someone says "then why didn't she take it?" I think she did. I like hers better.
Well, if your wife, or you, or I, had taken that image and then didn't see anything in the photo we'd made, and so we deleted the photo - a perfectly reasonable conclusion would be that we all failed
to see that photo could be turned into a work of art, so we didn't even try to persuade The Art World
that they should pay attention to what we were showing them.
In a different LuLa discussion, someone said "Actually, I can paint cubist pictures like Picasso. I can even dribble paint like Jackson Pollack." - and the important word there is like
, because being able to paint "like
Picasso" says a lot about technique but not so much about creativity or originality.
Now to have painted cubist pictures before Picasso or Braque or ... !