While I agree, putting “inspo” in quotes is also pretty rude. It’s inspired in the actual sense of the word imo, not a straight copy the way the quotes would imply.

You literally just restated the last thing you said. I repeat: saying art is “good” or not misses the point of art. Either you connected with it or appreciated it in some way, or you didn’t.

I think buying art with the intention of prospecting its future value is commodifying the object. That is a capitalist process which is, at its heart, incongruent with the philosophy of art and creative expression. At that point, the object is no different than any other commodity, so stating that it’s good or bad at being monetarily valuable becomes a more concrete result of its being bought and sold than it’s merit as an artistic work.

To speak of a work’s artistic merit as “good” or not speaks solely to your ability to receive something that the artist communicated. Whether you enjoyed or appreciated that is a valid opinion, but not a concrete fact.

The appreciation of artistic creation is a function of 1) the artist’s ability to connect the viewer with the art and 2) the viewers ability to connect with the art. Just because you don’t appreciate it doesn’t mean it lacks value or is undeserving of appreciation. It just means that your specific capacities for appreciation don’t apply here.

For the record, having never heard of them before your comment, and just skimming their work online, I enjoy the visual aesthetic of Soutine. And I found your comment terribly unoriginal and pointless, past the fact that it pointed me to a new thing to enjoy.

You should probably evaluate whether what you’re saying has any value before the next time you go to comment about how valueless the things others enjoy are.