> I could never understand people writing about art, analyzing some painting texture, style of brush strokes, author intent, historical context or whatnot, or digging into artist biography or their development; not in order to learn how to make art, mastering the craft, but for the sole sake of analysis, critique or "art appreciation".

You don't get more out of art if you know its context?

For example, it's interesting to know that much of art, starting with Impressionism was a response to photography (https://kiamaartgallery.wordpress.com/tag/influence-of-photo...). Previously, art was judged based on how realistic it was. But when photography came around, painting could not compete. So artists had to come up with new methods and goals. Some wanted to make the viewer experience a feeling, even if that meant not literally painting truth.

Another example: the Surrealists used Freud's work on free association, dreams, and the unconscious in their own work.

Or this poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinger-Johannisthal-1908.... While the characters are interesting, there's more to it than that. It was originally designed for a 1908 air show in Germany. That's only five years after the Wright brothers' first flight! Airplanes were still brand new. Doesn't that impact how you see the characters here?

I certainly agree that anyone can create art, but I don't believe that the only thing worth doing with art is either creating it or blindly consuming it. To bring it back to your programming example, don't you get more out of Babbage's Difference Engine when you find out that it was built in the 1990s -- and worked?