When someone makes something incredibly insipid and meaningless and then calls it "art," critics will agree and praise it out of fear of being ridiculed for not understanding its genius if they call it what it is --- meaningless, amirite?
Yeah, but that isn't what this post is saying. The post is saying, regardless of the artists intent, the viewer will give meaning to the piece, just to not seem out of the loop. It's more of a psychological phenomena on how the person wants to be viewed more so than the actual art piece.
Maybe it's not meaningless to the critic. The point of any art form is that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways and none of them is wrong. No art is meaningless.
I agree with critic part, but art is different to everyone. You can't really tell if a piece of art didn't mean anything to the artist who created it.
Yeah, but that isn't what this post is saying. The post is saying, regardless of the artists intent, the viewer will give meaning to the piece, just to not seem out of the loop. It's more of a psychological phenomena on how the person wants to be viewed more so than the actual art piece.
Postscript, I just wanted to say phenomena
Maybe it's not meaningless to the critic. The point of any art form is that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways and none of them is wrong. No art is meaningless.