[deleted]

Ikr. Displays incredible talent and an acute eye for detail, the human form, and eliciting emotion. Then gets "ThErE sHoUlD bE CoNTenT". Whatever dude, the art is fantastic, definitely not a "cop out".

Sometimes art can just have no meaning. That doesn’t mean it’s not art though.

I've 11 years of experience in making drawings, i really can say (until now) that the best things come out unconsciously. I let the imagination flows, as i let the pencil draw when it's tracing something. I have an embryo of idea at the beginning, is true, of course! as the use of elements, and emotions, and the kind of feel I want to express. But at the end, the result is something really surprisingly, and often so different. That's why I keep drawing after all this time i think, there's a lack of boring in all this. It's so beautiful to see what is possible to create.

Assuming everything you observe is intentional isn't the way, man, because the simple fact of the matter is that not everything is. The entire piece could just be a series of impulse decisions with little thought as to "the meaning" of it. The choices could entirely be technically motivated, or as simple as "idk, I thought it looked cool".

Art speaks for itself because what it means to you can be completely different from what it means to the artist, and there's no obligation for either to validate how they see it.

as a BAD viewer you might assume everything you see is intentional. You might just need to try to look into the art you view more rather than seeing it at such face value, tsk tsk tsk

It’s made up after the fact because galleries need statements most of the time

Sure, it'd be nice. But hardly a requirement, I feel

it can make art interesting, yes. if an artist makes a piece as an obvious metaphor then it is the obvious intent of the artist for their metaphor to be understood. that being said, art does not exist purely as a vessel for metaphor. there are many pieces I can point you to that aren't "a pretty sunrise with birds chirping" that definitely convey a message without something being a concrete representation of something else. often art is an interaction between the art and viewer in that the emotion it creates in the viewer is part of the experience. this kind of thing can't always be put into words. so I personally think it's almost insulting to artists who aren't creating a political cartoon or a concept album (or other forms of obvious metaphor) to try and overanalyze something to the point of thinking everything represents something concrete. often it doesn't.

also why did you respond to me three times?

I think you're perhaps confusing description for content.

If you don't see how any works of art are interesting without having them described to you by the artist or a curator, then that does not mean the artist or curator should describe it to you. That is a You Problem.

Now, if the artist were in a school or competition, where they have to describe art in order to complete some sort of goal like a qualification or to win a prize, then there is an expectation to describe it.

But that isn't related to the content of the art. The content is still there regardless of the description or criticism.

I guess earlier you weren't trying to moralise about art and gatekeep art, and were just wanting to express an opinion you have about what you'd like from artists, however the way you expressed your opinion was definitely moralising, demanding, and inferred that any opinion other than yours isn't valid. So I guess that's why you have been heavily criticised by art community over it.