I disagree and I think it’s a legitimate question. Are you impressed by the artist or the art they produced? How much can a piece of art stand on its own without the context of the artist and their journey, perspective, evolution?

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-duchamps-urina... is a fun read :)

> How much can a piece of art stand on its own without the context of the artist and their journey, perspective, evolution?

I was recently taught that some art is not meant to stand on its own, out of context in which it was created.

> Picasso mastered "typical" art before he engaged in the abstract forms, right? That's what makes him special.

So in a hypothetical future where memory of Picasso's 'typical art' mastery has been lost, that which makes Picasso special will also be lost?

> This is such a techbro opinion

Scoffing at Picasso and (particularly) Pollock seems very mainstream in the working classes (and has been for as long as that art has existed.) It's not a "tech" thing.

And? That would be like if Chris Lattner got bored of making compilers and languages so he started making bizarre ML-generated creations and everyone started worshiping it because "he previously mastered typical programming, so anything bizarre or abstract he churns out now is automatically special!"

Art and Engineering are not the same.

No, I didn't know.

But why should I care about that when the "art piece" I'm seeing at the moment doesn't impress me?