"Normal expressionless faces" to quote OP have been a big part of the foundation of "art" for ages. Hammered in marble, paint brushed on canvas, made with tiny mosaic pieces, and any other possible medium. What makes "hammered in glass" shallow and uninspired compared to any of those?
The exhibitions section [0] has examples of abstract pieces of art too.
I’ll understand what? We have a plethora of established artists of incontestable value. If I need to check one out in particular to understand expression, excitement, inspiration, then all others have failed. You name exactly one. Why not Rodin? Or Henry Moore?
I bet nobody here saw the art from the submission in person but look at how many opinions around.
Every time I hear armchair critique of someone else’s “boring uninspired art” and “expressionless faces”, or “art connoisseurs” giving snippets of wisdom, I know they’re fuller of hot air than a desert on a hot summer day.
If it's shallow and uninspired, why not make a better version? The medium is freer than Free Software. A sharpened hammer, a pane of laminated glass, and some time.
They said "shallow and uninspired" but that's separate from "requires immense skill and patience". The point is, whether or not the process is cool and impressive, is the end product really very interesting?
It can be valid to criticize something as uninspired even if you're not capable of doing it yourself. Movie critics would have a hard time otherwise.
In this case I wouldn't be quite as dismissive, personally. But if you've seen one, have you seen them all? Probably yes.
Like when someone that clearly needs more exercise, is yelling at a sports star to “not be lazy,” or “practice more.”
It can easily be said that this makes no sense, because the yeller has no idea of the tremendous work that even the lowest-tier athletes put into their vocation.
On the other hand, they are a “customer” of the athlete, and have a “right” to criticize the “product.” They are probably out of line, suggesting root causes and solutions, but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.
The athlete is in a no way a product a dude behind the tv bought. Tv watching guy is not a customer of the artist. Like, first of all, the dude behind the tv did not paid the athlete nor the athlete employer.
> but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.
They are just as asshole, as much valid as me mocking random people on the street.
I agree with that last part but the people watching the athlete are definitely the customer. The athlete gets paid because people watch them on tv (and in person). If no one watched them on tv, then they quite literally would not get paid. Their employer is selling their talent and abilities (the product) to the watchers (the customers). The watchers are literally paying the athlete and the athletes employer, if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.
1.) It is not even true that all athletes you watch on TV would be professionals. A lot of them are supposed amateurs, not getting actual salary at all.
2.) Like common, it is even fairly common for people to pay literally nothing to anyone and watch professional sports for free.
3.) Those who are paid are NOT paid by the watchers at all. Not even by the TV itself. Their actual employers are multiple steps away from broadcaster.
> if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.
That makes them products themselves. They are not paying by watching ads, their time is sold to the real customer who is whoever paid for ads.
There is no obligation for a critic to produce better work than what is being criticized and it is a cheap and dishonest rhetorical tactic to imply otherwise.
I 100% guarantee you have criticized things without trying to produce better work yourself. It is a deeply dishonest standard.
