[Ralath]

@Ralath Yes, they do. But the thing is, they just need to have one burst of genius to be acknowledged as a great poet/painter/whatever and then after that, it's enough if they just submit a work, because that is automatically treated as "so and so's work".

I don't think that's true. If it were true, we wouldn't have a term such as "one-hit wonder" which basically describes someone who has only produced one work of great value. And I think the phenomenon you're describing is part of the general masses that take things at face value. But even then, I think there are more discerning eyes out there. I mean, that's why there is criticism. If everything that was "so and so's work" was good, then the critic would have no job.

It's alright if they like the squiggles. But they judge the squiggles, not by the way the squiggles are drawn, but by who has drawn it. If the aforementioned 5 year old goes to a connoisseur and shows him the painting, he'll be like "Aww that's cute son, here take this buck and buy yourself some sweets." But if Vincent Van Gogh showed him the squiggles he'll be like "The diverse imagination used in the creation of this masterpiece shows a mature understanding of...blah blah blah". That's why I detest abstract and sometimes normal art.

But people don't look at art of any sort just for the art alone. They look at the story behind the art and the context of the art itself. Otherwise, it'd just be a competition to see who could draw the most realistically. Usually, the most famous paintings are those with interesting context and complex themes and people like being challenged with these things.