>>5767044>>5766902I think the answer is obviously it being intertwined with power and money. It's simply the trends of our time.
But why did they chose it? Probably because it effectively has no standards, self-awareness, or critical thinking, which gives more flexibility and reduces cost, but also allows any kind of made up bullshit to be held up as unique, inspiring, original, etc. when really it's just a dumping of popular buzzwords and pretending something has great depth and meaning. You have to be inoculated or have some other motivation (career, money) to 'get it'.
The difference between elites and the rest of us is so eroded (and has been for hundreds of years) that they need novelty and special clubs to self-differentiate. So it has the added benefit of just being immediately unappealing to a layman and a skilled artist who isn't an ideologue (or pretending for his own benefit). They love this because they pretend special knowledge or sensibilities that the peons don't have.
Abstract art divorces art from any grounded standards, from skill, from a tradition and values that allows evaluation by anyone with the experience and skills. Though not all of it, that is the typical model today. It means it can exist in freefall and be said to be whatever is convenient without the need for substance or depth. This is obviously useful in a number of ways. There is no equivalent flexibility. It's like how political labels are intentionally abused and divorced from reality, conditioned to elicit a certain feeling and impulse. The labels can be anything, it all depends on presentation by the establishment or grifters, and self-perceived camps.
Another thing is ideology: basically they have hard on for anti-beauty and the fact that beauty requires a lot of work and skill, which they do not have or even despise, emboldens this further. Anyone can adopt an air of superiority when it requires nothing from them and their 'opponent' (as they see it) requires a lot.
