Nowadays, artists and art critics take it upon themselves to decipher whether or not a piece that is produced is deep, superficial or even art. As somebody who has always been enthralled with artwork, always yearning to stare at canvases in front of me since I was a young child, I can easily say that I attempt to pay attention to the fine technique each artist uses and whatnot, however, I have never once dignified something meant to be art as not-art.
This semester, I have been taking an art history class that has left me tearing my hair out at the content analysis on whether or not abstract art, surrealism and contemporary art are better renditions of work than traditional art. My professor has taught us to discern art as pieces that have an audience although that is not necessarily true. To be blunt, I hate that definition of art.
Art is supposed to make you feel something--it is supposed to deeply disturb you, challenge your mind and leave you writhing in pain after observation. It is not simply something that just "has an audience". It is supposed to wreck you within one single glance, and if it doesn't, then that's fine, as it is all up for interpretation.
Which brings me to my next pet peeve: the discussion on whether or not a piece is superficial or deep. It is completely superficial in itself to call something superficial, first of all, just to get that out there. To one person, a painting of two lilacs could signify beauty, strength, wisdom and mortality, and to another mean nothing--art is perceptive for that very reason. Your interpretation of the piece is the meaning behind the piece. What you feel is how you're supposed to. There is absolutely no reason for critics to demolish something they don't like because they do not resonate with it, as there are more people in this world who may.
Overall, it is ridiculous for people to make superficial comments on artworks they have know pure knowledge of and don't like. Not everybody is going to like the same thing, that's why we have diversity.
