I disagree and I think it’s a legitimate question. Are you impressed by the artist or the art they produced? How much can a piece of art stand on its own without the context of the artist and their journey, perspective, evolution?

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-duchamps-urina... is a fun read :)

> Picasso mastered "typical" art before he engaged in the abstract forms, right? That's what makes him special.

So in a hypothetical future where memory of Picasso's 'typical art' mastery has been lost, that which makes Picasso special will also be lost?

> This is such a techbro opinion

Scoffing at Picasso and (particularly) Pollock seems very mainstream in the working classes (and has been for as long as that art has existed.) It's not a "tech" thing.

And? That would be like if Chris Lattner got bored of making compilers and languages so he started making bizarre ML-generated creations and everyone started worshiping it because "he previously mastered typical programming, so anything bizarre or abstract he churns out now is automatically special!"

No, I didn't know.

But why should I care about that when the "art piece" I'm seeing at the moment doesn't impress me?

IMO thinking Picasso is special is more "tech bro" than not. Specially crypto-bros. Every time I see someone defending art like this and its value, it reads exactly like people defending crypto.