I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all, obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and contemporary art museums, I continued to breeze past the installation, laughing quietly to myself like I knew something these art people didn't.

Then I had a similar situation happen. While continually saying "anyone could have done that" and "this isn't art" someone finally said to me "yes it is art, you didn't think of this, and without this, you lack the basis for many other contemporary forms of art." It then started to occur to me that this art was anything but obvious; if I so easily cast this aside as "not art," the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, one worth considering within its context. Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression that it was just too much to swallow for years.

I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could have created this", "but you didn't"), but...

...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with your premise and still think "Fountain" is worthless as art. I could indeed have done this -- and yes, I see the irony, "but you didn't" -- and didn't because I didn't think it's the kind of art I want to make or celebrate. It's Duchamp's right to create it but I'm not a mean or ignorant person if I dislike it or consider it snobbish and not worth my time (or even "not art").

I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art. I "know" it's worthless to me. This is a discussion we must still be able to have, otherwise we can't say anything about artistic endeavors unless it's positive...

That's the entire point. The fact is so many people discuss this one thing from 1917- it provokes a good discussion on what is and isn't art. I don't see how this is viewed as snobbish. There is no reason one is obligated to make "traditional" art.

> and didn't because I didn't think it's the kind of art I want to make or celebrate

Celebrate isn't really the right term here. It's an art piece that's displayed at a museum. The discussion around it is noted as important.

> still think "Fountain" is worthless as art

"Fountain" is not only art, but it has immense value as comme. Art shouldn't be looked at in terms of "worth". It comes down to human expression, which in turn has a specific context. Art doesn't exist in a social vacuum. Just because it isn't prototypical "beautiful" art doesn't mean it's not worth anything at all.

I think considering Fountain snobbish is my right. I don't think something that fosters discussion is valuable for that alone. Not in all cases anyway. I don't consider all art valuable (not in the sense of money, in case I'm unclear). I rebel against the notion I must acknowledge all forms of art as valuable. I don't and I won't. I've no wish to impose my will on others, of course.

I understand art doesn't mean beauty and beauty doesn't mean art. I'm not artistically naive; in fact I consider myself artistic in the sense I can both create and appreciate art.

After all these words, I still consider Fountain "something that happened and that people acknowledge and discuss", but not good art (good in the sense "it has artistic merit", not in the sense of pretty). That's not good enough for me.

Not all art should inspire wonder. Not all art should be of any kind of quality. I am not a big fan of that piece, myself; but one wonders if perhaps, the very intent of creating that piece was to evoke those kinds of feelings, that kind of reaction?

I listen to a fair amount of noise music. Not all of it is even very listenable. A lot of it evokes feelings of dread, discomfort, pain, anxiety. Of course it sounds terrible - that’s the point. It’s a vehicle for emotional catharsis. It’s a thing that makes you feel something, even if they aren’t feelings that most people enjoy. Even if wanting to experience those feelings is not something that most people could relate to.

Just a perspective. I agree with you, that we should be able to speak freely about art, and that it has nothing to do with how you should be perceived as a person if you do not consider certain pieces to have any sort of artistic merit.

>I "know" it's worthless to me.

So long as one understands the "to me" is implicit, and so long as one understands that POV to be one of countless POV's, I don't see any issue with criticism.

For myself, if something doesn't work, and I see that it's not the work of a novice, I tend to default to, "It's not for me right now," rather than, "It's garbage." I can still discuss the reasons it doesn't work, but I find this perspective to be more helpful. It makes me more curious about the opinions of people who like it, which gives me more access to more perspectives. When something doesn't work for me, I want to know why it works for others. I don't mean this to come off as a game of semantics.

Note I will, however, make a mental judgment of someone who finds "Fountain" very moving or noteworthy. Again, this is my personal judgment and I think I'm entitled to it.

edit:

> "It's not for me right now"

This has definitely happened to me, but with books and movies.

I didn't mean to say you do. I was talking about perspective, because it impacts how we experience things and can help or undermine our ability to enjoy and understand.

>This has definitely happened to me, but with books and movies.

Same - also happens a lot with music.

Sometimes snobbery finds you even when you don't seek it. This can apply to the spectators of Duchamp's work even more than to Duchamp himself!

I don't even know how I truly feel about "Fountain" either; all I know is that it is quite thought provoking for me and has taught me a lot about how I think about and digest the world. To me, even if the art is ugly and snobbish, it still has merit if it helps us better explore our world. The art piece's mere existence allows us to have this conversation about the relative merits of different forms of art, which I believe to be meritorious in and of itself.

I think this has led us to an interesting, if for now rhetorical question: what is art for? Well, at least I'll have something to think about for the rest of the day :)

> I dislike it or consider it snobbish and not worth my time (or even "not art").

Sounds like you had a reaction to the piece or at least the performance art of signing it off as art.

So, what is art? Is it restricted to the common categories - a painting, a poem, a sculpture, a cliche 5 minute film played in a loop on a wall of a gallery? Can new categories of art be created? Are there one-off things that are art, while similar things would not be? What's the criteria? Does it have to be technically brilliant, or intentionally created as art? If I see something as art, but the creator made it by accident or for a practical purpose, who is right? What if we can't ask the creator why they made it? "I know it when I see it" might be the only criteria, but that obviously implies that others might see differently.

And finally: does it matter? If the word "art" has indeed lost all meaning, does that change the way we interact with the world, or communicate with each other? How often does the average person communicate about "art" in a general sense, rather than simply what they enjoy, anyway?

It does for me. If "art" and "everything" become synonyms, I feel I've lost a valuable concept, and one I definitely use frequently.

Your anecdote about the "don't hack this" label is indeed clever and funny, and it's making a statement I can relate to. It's like hacking the event, in a way.

I don't see that anyone so far has argued that only a poem, a sculpture or a painting can be art. I'm surprised so many people in this conversation have made a logical connection between "I don't like snobbery like the Fountain/I don't think it's art" and "art must be pretty and only poetry/painting/music are acceptable". Why do people assume it's binary instead of a continuum between art and not-art?

I took away something entirely different from it (I took it as a given that the vending machine was indeed art because someone had proclaimed it to be so, and proceeded to think about what it might have to say within the context of the space and the event), but there you go.

The thing is that simply saying that something is "artless" isn't interesting - someone claimed it is art, and they did it for artistic purpose, and people are thinking about it as if it were art, so why isn't it? There's a big difference between saying that it's a stupid reaction to its context or that it's snobbish, and that it's artless.

I really enjoy witnessing the tagging and graffiti around the railways in the cities I've lived in, and feel there's definitely art in claiming the space in that way, but others feel it's spoiling the view and artless. Which of us is right?

I think I'm as entitled to claiming something is not art as the author who claims it is. For some creations, the consensus will side with one or the other. Nobody can put pigeon feces on display in a museum and force me to think of them as art, no matter what they think.

A lot of people don't consider found objects "real" art, by the way. I'm not alone in this.

Also, the time in 2006 when an artist sent a sculpture to be displayed in a gallery, with a tiny plinth to prop it up: the gallery rejected the sculpture and displayed the plinth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/15/arts.artsnews

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but where do you draw the line? Do you draw a line at all? I know I do.

When you see an upside down toilet in a museum and art enthusiasts in awe and say "I could have done that" you express you incomprehension : why is something so trivial admired? I thought I had to do something exceptionnal to get admired. The answer you get is "But you didn't", yeah because I didn't think a toilet had value.

You feel mocked by the artiste. Cheated.

So yeah, creating is hard and it's pretty hard to understand how hard before you tried it yourself but still people should be able to express their total incomprehension of the enthusiastic response de see around them for weird stuff without getting dismissed by a "but you didn't".

When someone can take a toilet, say it's art, and then it sells for >$10 million, it feels to a lot of people like some parts of society are just deliberately mocking them, rubbing their face in it. They're so rich they can flush $10 million on what looks like trying to grab some brief attention, or be what we now call a social influencer, whilst many other people who work hard every day to develop some truly difficult craft end up with far less or nothing.

Nobody who hates Fountain hates it because it's "not art". They hate it because someone managed to convince a whole lot of rich people to pay them way over the odds for a toilet. It looks and feels like some sort of long con.

Damien Hirst takes this mockery you mention and makes it the very focus of his "art". He took a skull and coated it in diamonds and called it "For the love of god". Even the title seems to say "jesus, how far can I push this?"

It's 103 years old and today you are taking the time to discuss it in public. There, at least, is a demonstration that this piece made a dent in the universe.

My very standard toilet has caught my attention -- and discourse, dare I say -- way more than Duchamp's urinal. Would most people consider my toilet art? Or would it need to be put on display in a museum?

Can you think of any man-made things older than a century that you wouldn't consider art? I sure can!

I assure you my toilet made an impact in my choices today of far greater import than Duchamp's found object.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZlrHyzIwcI

Looking at art from the perspective of a century after it was introduced and its effects have become incorporated into mainstream culture just not that useful.

I find the best museums and exhibits help you get into this mindset; I'm reminded of an exhibit I saw at the Tate Modern about Picasso in 1932. It provided not only the context to his art, but to him as a person. I was able to better understand how his art was shifting at the time due to the nature of the world around him and his personal relationships. It really allowed me to see the artist through the art and the art in its context. https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/ey-e...

I hope that I can take this idea to domains outside of art as well; considering the context of everything we encounter is important for a better understanding of our shared world.

I mean, I can look at art created thousands of years before "Fountain" and appreciate it, but still consider Fountain snobbery, can't I?

For centuries artists have tried their best to create the most beautiful artworks possible. This lead to an association of beauty with art. Art must be beautiful. You challenge this idea by making something that is not beautiful but people will still consider as art.

Otherwise, if everything is art as long as someone tells me it must be so, the concept of "art" becomes meaningless to me.

I dunno. The aesthetics of contemporary art place no value on skill or craft. Minus the idea, anyone really could have created this piece. That's the point... or anything and everything is art, or quality doesn't matter so nothing is good or bad or better or worse, or art doesn't live in some sacred realm (we would be pissing on it in any other context), or "interesting!?" as a principal aesthetic... So sure, we can recognize (works of post modernism) both as art and culturally significant/important, but at the same time, they tend to be profoundly un-engaging. They are more fun to talk about than to experience in person which is deeply weird for the visual arts! They may as well be a post on /r/hmmm/ because "hmmm" is all they are really going for. "look at me, I'm a urinal, but I'm still art!". hmmm...

* Fountain is technically Dada and dates to 1917

Ironically the "missing of the point" seems to have become a point in itself even without the historic context. Weird accidental statements by society in its reaction like ignoring the virtuoso playing the Strativius in the subway station because they don't recognize the quality without the trappings. A mere portrayal would be a ham handed allegory but if it really happens a lesson can be learned instead of an expression of another's opinion.

> the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement,

A statement of what? Why is it profound?

> one worth considering within its context.

Why is it worth considering? Why is it worth doing so within its context? Its context is its siting within an art gallery, so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement.

> Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression

What effing perspective? What context particularly? What expression - what does 'expression' even mean here?

This trademark nebulousity characterises self indulgent bullshit that props up 'art' and the people who 'consume'[0] art.

(not knocking art, far from it, but lack of rigorous thinking is dangerous. Think for yourself, don't let others do it for you).

[0] Damn, I hate that word.

Yes it is art. There is no barrier to turning into something into art. You don't need to go to a government office and license your work as art. You don't need to go to an established committee of artists to approve your work as art. Art can be bad, otherwise good art couldn't exist. Every good artist started out as a bad artist. People started to think all art must be good because that's the only form of art they see and the only way to counteract that is by showing them bad or ugly art.

Then what divides art from not-art? Is there even a difference?

> Art can be bad

Then why do people look at it? Are you saying they can't distinguish good art from bad?

Isn't at least one of the purposes of an art gallery to exhibit good art and not bad? If not, what is an art gallery for?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 it was made in 1917. If it was bad art as you imply, it's been over a century and no-one's officially dismissed it as bad (or is it described officially as bad art?). What does that say.

"Fountain was not rejected by the committee, since Society rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee" - ah,. so money changing hands was a requirement for it to be treated as art.

"The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art."

Apparently it's good art then. I guess. AFAICT. Who can say?

It's like nobody's even thinking about this, just "it's art so it's art", whereas "am I being suckered" doesn't come into it.

I view it as part of the wider conversation at the time, where many artists were challenging the standards of art. The Fountain is a little more on the nose than - say - Paul Klee intentionally using imperfect lines to give his art more feeling (which brings to mind J Dilla's slightly off-beat drum patterns). On the nose works better for some people.

"Modern" "Art" is very far from someone actually creating something out of passion or curiosity. Last time I visited the Guggenheim, there were three different "works" from three different "artists" on display - all of them were plain, white canvases.

I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I'd much rather enjoy someone's first attempt at C64 graphics or short story writing or programming, or try to improve my own skills in any of those areas (and many other).

I can appreciate the type of conceptual art you're talking about as like a commentary on the very context it has ended up in, or as a way to question what makes us call an object "sculpture" vs. "garbage", or whatever. But I'm with you. I want to see folk art, outsider art, works-in-progress, beginner projects, and new experiments - both to connect with the community around me and so I can steal some of what I'm seeing to adapt for my own projects.

I like to do the critic thing too, but for me experiencing the products of art does not get me nearly as excited as experiencing the processes of it, whether I'm the artist or someone else is.

Example: the Voyager record. Any sufficiently-intelligent alien who comes across it is likely to conclude "That object probably wasn't an accident".

Compare this to tabloid articles with stories like "The face of Jesus appeared in my toast this morning!". Regardless of whether you're an atheist or not, the Voyager record undeniably offers a higher standard of evidence that some intelligent entity intentionally produced it. Somebody spent time and energy to make it look exactly like that.

I like this definition because it acts as an interesting litmus test.

Fantasy novels? Art.

A toilet? Definitely intentional, but how much thought went into every little aspect? How much of the design and production was left to chance?

An extremely ergonomic and well-designed toilet? Inching more towards "art", because it's not just any old toilet -- it's that toilet.

Plain white canvas in a fancy modern art museum? Debatable. Why does it look like that? Is the intent intrinsically obvious? Maybe it's obvious to serious art critics with a background in this stuff, but maybe it seems meaningless to everybody else.

Random squiggles in a fancy modern art museum? Still debatable, but more obvious than the white canvas - even if it was all random, somebody decided that they really liked those squiggles, and made the call that the squiggles were "done", and they decided to put it up on a wall instead of trashing it. From the artist's perspective, this is definitely art - it encodes a number of judgement calls on the part of the artist. To everybody else, it might just look like squiggles, so everybody else doesn't have to agree that it's art.

I think you're missing the point though.

The whole significance of that exhibition is that esteemed artists are given a grand platform (with a long history) to express any idea they want and this (the 3 blank canvases) is the one they chose. That in and of itself is the art.

They had no obligation to display those 3 blank canvases. In fact, they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive with the finest strokes and details (presumably if you're at the level of getting museum exhibits, this is just a base level of skill you've acquired and is trivial to display).

But the very fact that the artist used the platform to express the idea that the canvas itself is the art and the entire point is beautiful. They placed an emphasis on the very beginning rather than the end of the creative process.

In some ways, the exercise is totally pointless, cliche, and lazy. I agree. But there is also immense beauty in the same exercise because somewhere along that very seam lies the answer to the question "What is the meaning of anything at all? What's the point of this museum?".

If that pointless piece with 3 blank canvases led to you and I to having this conversation here, then I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished".

I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree.

> they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive

I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago.

> there is also immense beauty in the same exercise

While there is truth to the old adage of the eye of the beholder, I happen to believe there is also universal, objective beauty. I sincerely disagree that any of the two need to be constructed by some contrived abstraction and over-interpretation of the act of exhibiting three blank canvases.

> I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished"

I think they considered their mission accomplished by the sheer increase in worth their work will have from being displayed at the Guggenheim.

Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal.

If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit.

You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.

Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there.

Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages).

Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours).

There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.

Don't confuse being able to measure something with attempts to explain what the measurement means.

Even if everyone agrees the mathematically-perfect face or landscape is beautiful, "we" are what was actually measured. If there isn't absolute agreement that the mathematically-perfect face is beautiful, be very suspicious of the interpretation.

Beauty is an experience, not a thing. It is inherently relational, not absolute or objective. If all things were equally "beautiful", the concept would vanish. If we all had mathematically-perfect faces, that particular spell would be broken.

Art--like beauty, boredom, and curiosity--is a relative, relational experience.

Don't get confused by the art-object; it is not the art. It is, at best, a call to have an art-experience, which you may or may not respond to.

Don't get confused by the art-museum; it is not where art lives. It is, at best, a physical space where it is socially acceptable to have art-experiences and leave art-objects laying around.

>Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours).

These are opinions. I can find things that are symmetrical that are not beautiful. I can find things from nature that are definitely not beautiful.

Many times it's the exceptions to things that are beautiful - the out of place line in something that's otherwise symmetrical. But there are very few things in life that I think people will universally say is beautiful. There are always exceptions, people who do not like this thing or that.

You really seem to be suffering from an inability to differentiate opinion from fact.

But it's precisely the context that makes this art in my view. I don't think someone displaying 3 blank canvases in their garage would be the same. It's different when a highly respected artist chooses to do that in the Guggenheim. It adds an element of theater that produces an emotional response.

This is quite a messy conversation since the bounds are effectively "what is art?". But it's always a fun one to have.

That our culture rewards such non-effort so generously is the set up.

“The mission” isn’t to make a statement. But to get a doofus with more money than brains to pay rent for no effort whatsoever so they can make art for themselves.

You haven’t even seen it and you had an emotional reaction enough to keep posting about it.

There’s no contrived setup required. You replied with a contrived setup about art the way you did. Others replied with a contrived setup about art the way they did.

Please explain how that amount of subjectivity in this story alone create a framework for objectively beautiful art?

Too many ways in which chemical loops in billions of brains can flow to suggest such a thing.

Whether you can based upon some theory of pure science doesn’t matter since it’ll end up a cognitively subjective answer.

If you don't like a style, don't go to exhibits that feature it. That's why I avoid still lifes and portraits and a lot of other pre-19th-century work. I find them dreadfully dull.

And if you want to see new things vs things you've already made up your mind about, you're gonna have to do more work and more digging to find the right venues!

The criteria for what goes on display in a museum is not ability but significance. If someone is does the first version of style X, if style X is significant, then that someone's art rates museum display even if their version is a bit amateurish.

The significance of blank canvas in particular is detail I wouldn't otherwise comment on, however.

She had a lot of paintings that look like empty canvas from afar but show lot of details up close [0]

You don't have to like her work, but dismissing her paintings as "full of shit" is, well, remarkably full of...

Minimalism was her artistic choice that spanned many decades, and who knows how much time she spent to master her pursuit. She was so into her choice, she sought out to destroy her earlier works [1]

She was recognized by her peers, who are more qualified than you and I in judging at the very least technique and dedication.

[0] - https://www.moma.org/artists/3787 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Martin

It sounds like you're disparaging the art (and in fact the artists for producing it) because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult. It also sounds like you believe the artists are trying to present it as more than it is. But tell me if I've misunderstood you.

This is a very antagonistic attitude. You're approaching art with an adversarial mindset that only recognizes it if it's something nontrivial. I don't think anyone is trying to bullshit you - art is just subjective.

For many people, what's more important than the competence is the originality. Not even necessarily the originality of the thing itself, but of the meta surrounding it. In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. It's certainly less derivative than a lot of the highly competent also-rans who painted the same scenes in the same (highly proficient) styles in the same time period. Moreover, it made you think. You didn't have a positive reaction to it, but then (as any artist would tell you) art doesn't restrict itself to positivity :)

Now with that in mind, let's circle back to your other statement:

> You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes.

It seems like they do have an ability, it's just not an ability you respect because your definition of art is more narrow than theirs. And that's okay! No one is forced to deeply appreciate all forms of art. But the way you're disparaging this kind of modern art is a perfect example of the middlebrow dismissal that's already been brought up in this thread.

People are not full of shit just because you don't appreciate the (highly subjective) things they do. The triviality of many modern art pieces is part of a broader context which your criticism completely fails to capture.

Yes and no. I can find beauty in - or otherwise appreciate - simplistic creations as well. For example, a lot of contemporary photography is very little about technical skills and very much about selection, timing, subject and setting. I can find that highly engaging. But yes, there has got to be some thought behind it other than that it's supposedly "unique".

> Moreover, it made you think.

Lots of things make me think. I believe this is a simultaneously pretentious and simplistic approach to defining art.

> meta (...) original (...) derivative

What about beautiful? Emotional? Timeless and with lasting meaning? The kind of meta-art "commenting" on what art is or trying be "unique" that seems to make up the bulk of today's production is more than a century old by now.

> bullshit

Quoting this last because this is the core of my reasoning. The majority of the contemporary art world has long since lost any kind of connection to what's worthwhile, beautiful, thoughtful, insightful or interesting. It's a massive bullshit machine, propped up by nothing but a lot of pseudo-intellectual meta-reasoning about made-up abstract concepts commenting on themselves.

Many are provoked and angered by people getting famous for participating in reality shows or exposing their lives on Instagram. I can find the concept absurd, but it doesn't bother me as such. It's easy to ignore and if they can monetize their fame, good for them. That's between them and their audience.

As soon as something is considered art, on the other hand, it's considered to be of such significance that it warrants not only recognition, but also for example public funding, the interest of academia and a self-evident spot in any public place. It demands to be taken seriously, and people in positions of power will comply, no matter how inane it is. It's the naked emperor, if you will: it permeates society in ways that are systemically upheld by people who, when asked the question, probably couldn't explain what's actually good or beautiful or interesting about it, yet I'm expected to accept it at face value. For every blank canvas exhibited, there is one carrying true beauty that is left ignored. That bothers me copiously, however much I wish it didn't.

Is it? I have a plain white canvas sitting in the garage. Maybe I should charge admission? :-)

I knew someone who was a big fan of Jackson Pollock. He's famous, and he's also a useful punching bag because his paint splatters just look random. It wasn't until I tried it myself that I realized that splattering paint in a way that looked to me like a Jackson Pollock painting was... not something I could easily do.

I still don't particularly care for Jackson Pollock's paintings, but that moment was a useful reminder to me that even for things like programming, we have a tendency to underestimate the subtlety required to produce "good enough" work product.

In other words, making is art is hard NOT because of the physical act BUT because of the intellectual labor of distilling or serializing emotions into something that can be made is hard.

It's kind of a two-for-one in this way since you can delight people with the novel use of technology -- something they have the same access to as the artist and genuinely could have physically done as well as convey the actual message of the art.

Writing software is generally pretty similar, the hard part isn't mashing the keys in the right order -- almost anyone can do that, literally. It's asserting a what will be out of the infinite possibilities of what could be.

I don't do a lot of things, often because I see no value in doing them.

They actually sell a poster that says this at the Guggenheim gift shop.