>>3238501To me, it's mainly aesthetics. If a piece of modern art doesn't appeal to me aesthetically I'm just as quick to discount it as everyone else is. However, if it does appeal to me (through color, technique, composition, etc.) then it's just as valuable to me as any other piece of artwork I enjoy. Draftsmanship is nice and all and it's the path I've chosen but I'm not being honest if I don't admit that sometimes I wake up in cold sweats wondering what representing image faithfully is worth, or if symbolizing or creating a scene can convey what it is intended to, ever.
What I can find most aggravating, however, are the pieces that need a backstory to elicit an emotional connection to the piece, that shouldn't be the point. The constraint of visual art being fucking visual and communicating visually in a salient matter is essentially my one criteria.
What a lot of "modern art" is is a vehicle for a story or idea that communicates a meaning that you have to be told, it may still be technically 'art' without it but that shit wouldn't be selling to the highest bidder or hanging in a museum without it.
Besides, I would question anyone who doesn't think blank or solid color canvases are insulting and derivative. The first time someone did such a thing it may have been shocking and innovative but literally everything inspired by that is in my opinion bad modern art, even in context.
Besides, often in captivating modern or non-representational art, the draw is the at least partially the craftsmanship.
