Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8202558" data-attributes="member: 5142">I think part of the issue is that many aren't equipped with either the knowledge or expertise themselves to make such a judgment about the quality or significance of a piece, though they likely can express a rudimentary sense of their preferences, whether as a like or dislike. Furthermore, art is very much a product of its time, with art often acting as a call and response to social and philosophic movements in society. Art often tries to provoke and challenge the predecessor generation. So sometimes the "genius" of a piece is lost on people over time, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)" target="_blank">Fountain</a>: aka the infamous upside down toilet bowl. But art pieces like Fountain are also important because they force us to consider what constitutes art. You can see, for example, a different side to Picasso in his early works that very much attest to his technical skills. I guess then that I made the mistake of trusting the summation of results given of the article.</blockquote>