Another gem of a statement offered to me while I was gallery sitting yesterday. Guess what? Only paintings that look like photos are really art.
Thus, I am very confused as to what art is if it is not art.
By this gentleman’s logic, a librarian can legitimately judge whether a book is “good enough” to even be a book. If it is not a book, then what is it?
If a movie is so bad as to not be a movie, then what is it?
If a theatre performance is not a theatre performance because I don’t like it – then what does it remain? Or does it become something else?
If I don’t think this gentleman’s opinion is worth very much, can I still consider him an art critic or just a buffoon?
What I do know, after 20 years, is to shut up and smile and nod when dealing with this kind of person. And never vote for them like much of our country did in the last election.