I don't disagree with anything you've posted here. It gets beyond the point I was making. Let's set aside the surgeon, since there is a lot of room for objective fact. Suppose I see a house and I think it is ugly. Let's assume there are no structural problems and it's not a "bad" house and any physical sense, I just don't like it. The response "could you build a better house?" is foolish. I don't need to be able to build a house to know whether I like one. I don't even need to be able to build one to appreciate the intricacies and artistic merits of architecture. So that was the only point I was trying to make above - that to know whether one likes a work of art, and even to have a great deal of knowledge on which to base judgments, one does not have to be able to produce something "better" oneself. I'm not sure where that kind of analysis even comes from.
This. I don't like abstract art, not because I do not understand it. I understand full well the artist wants to be expressive in his emotions and wants to show the inner most of his minds. I understand that fact. But to me I get no visions from it. That doesn't mean I lack understanding. It just means I cannot connect to the piece. Just like a woman is attracted to the really good looking man in the bar and is turned off by the ugly one. [stay with me] Some paintings turn on mental switches and other forms of art turn off mental switches. It isn't a lack of understanding. It's a lack of connection with the piece.
I hope I didn't come off as chastising you! I just wanted to caution people from making the mistake of thinking that "I don't like it" means "it has no merit" since that is the point at which hackles begin to rise.
Not at all Nikki. No need to worry on that score I agree there is a difference between not liking something and saying it has no merit. In any art form, whether music, literature, painting, sculpture, etc, there are artists that I do not like but who I think anyone would admit have a great deal of talent in their chosen field.
