I'm not asking you to care, I'm asking you to recognize you don't understand what you're looking at. You can say "I don't find the work compelling", but to say it lacks artistic merit is just silly.
The confidence is the problem.
You don't understand what you're looking at, you don't understand what the artist was doing, you don't understand why they were doing it, you don't understand the constraints they were or were not operating under and why they may or may not have picked those constraints. It's like looking at a Picasso and saying "well that's the shittiest bull I've ever seen." What you're doing is like watching a boxing match and saying "it's very lazy that these people aren't using their legs" or "I don't understand why that person won, they didn't even knock the other person out!". There's a thing that's happening here that you've not bothered to learn enough about to understand whether or not the participant is accomplishing their goals, because you haven't bothered to learn what their goals are or what accomplishing them would look like.
Again, it's totally fine to say "I don't like this," or "I don't understand this" (although I'm getting the sense I'm unlikely to hear _that_ from you), but to say "this lacks artistic merit" - you absolutely do not have the knowledge, background, or apparent interest in the topic to have any idea whether or not that statement is true.
>What you're doing is like watching a boxing match and saying "it's very lazy that these people aren't using their legs" or "I don't understand why that person won, they didn't even knock the other person out!". There's a thing that's happening here that you've not bothered to learn enough about to understand whether or not the participant is accomplishing their goals
But, you see, art is not a game. There are no rules. If you paint me a portrait of myself with your feet and you make me look like my mother, I'm not going to be impressed that you managed to paint my mother with your feet. I'm to ask you why you didn't use your hands, you dolt! If you handicap yourself to the point you make something bad, then it's only fair the results are judged on their own merits, isn't it? If you wanted to use your feet to entertain yourself then any criticism you receive for it shouldn't matter, because the activity fulfilled its purpose to you, the same way boxers don't care about the criticism they receive from people who think they should also use their legs.
I don't care about their goals. Their goals are for themselves. I don't need to know them to judge the quality of the result.
>"I don't understand this" (although I'm getting the sense I'm unlikely to hear _that_ from you)
I'm honest enough to say I don't get the point of the soup can. That doesn't stop me from saying it's low-effort. I see better art on Twitter every day, even though most of it probably has less of a message.
It is low-effort. That is the point.
Not that you could be a good judge of effort in general. Andy Warhol's art, however, was specifically made that way.
In any case, I hope that you do understand that effort and artistic merit are different, orthogonal concepts.
There are masterpieces that were created with little effort.
There are works made with great effort that are worthless.
The examples are abundant.
At the same time they say that:
- They would look down on an art history PhD who tries to tell them there's more to it
- They think that people who think that work isn't "shit" are idiots
- They are glad others are frustrated with their attitude, because other people seeing something in what they think is "shit" frustrates hem
This is way beyond missing the point. They are taking offense at others having opinions on an artwork, and take a difference of opinion as a personal attack that they are glad to retaliate to with a bona-fide, actual personal attack.
They also feel entitled to an explanation, which they demand, and when people point them in the direction of what they could learn, they say that "oh, you want to get something out of me" (as if learning gives to anyone else).
Their basis is: "If I see it a certain way, then everyone else should see it that way, unless they are incredibly stupid or are talking in bad faith". So when other people don't provide a justification for seeing things differently, they are dismissed as stupid, or perceived as hostile.
Let's say, this pattern of behavior is well-studied, and has a name.
(I grew up with a parent who behaves in this way)
Not at all. You go far beyond "judging on your own grounds" by saying that something has little artistic merit.
In fact, your "judgement" only has the word "you" and none of "I" or "my"; your own grounds are completely missing from it.
You are entitled to your grounds, but you are instead climbing on a pedestal to confidently proclaim that everyone else doesn't have ground to stand on.
Here's what you have enough basis to say:
"I see a painted can of soup on a white background. I felt that you didn't try. To me, lack of trying means that your work has little artistic merit."