zlacker

>>nemoni+(OP)
It's astonishing to me that people will just buy into any success story that involves crypto and NFTs. People don't question why poorly drawn pictures are being bought for thousands of dollars, don't question why there are hundreds of altcoins on the market and some "cryptocurrency experts" are supposedly "offering free tips" on investment. The whole space is rife with scams and embellishments and yet there are so many people just blindly buying into it, including the damn BBC!

>>WilTim+o2
While I generally agree with your sentiment, some of the most iconic art in the world seems to me to be poorly made and I have no idea why they are valued or admired. I don’t just mean the usual go-to controversial examples in modern art like Serrano’s “Piss Christ”[0] or Emin’s “My Bed”[1], as even some older stuff like Klimt’s “Der Kuss”[2] give me this confusion (the woman has always looked to me like she has a broken neck).

(If it was just “I don’t like it” I would also list Cubism, but I can get that there are well-made examples of Cubism without liking the style).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bed

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_(Klimt)

>>ben_w+X6
The first two I would categorize more as anti-art (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-art). Modern art, which does include Klimt, is its own thing that is (relatively?) more traditional than those examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art.

Anti-art is more like a sort of trolling meta commentary on art. The "performance art" of the art world, really. People who like it like it for the iconoclasm and/or humor of it, I think.