[Shawnee123]

Let me put this out there:

A person has taken many art history courses. Along the way, they learn what made that art popular in that time, what the context was, what the social mores were that led to a certain art being popular and a certain art being shunned. You learn about who did what first, who copycatted, who expressed themselves or their world for that time, and who became famous because they knew the right people and who wallowed in poverty because their art wasn't appreciated, but they kept doing it...and so on and so on.

Art history isn't just a timeline.

So, knowing these things, having a working knowledge...doesn't that make one a more discerning critic?

We might think the caricature artist at the fair really does a bang-up job...and perhaps in other parts of their lives they are actually creating, but a caricature as we see all the time isn't really 'art' it's more 'craft.'

Everyone should absolutely enjoy what pleases them, but calling out those who have studied many aspects of the creative process (and all the things I mentioned above) as "snobs" isn't quite right either.

I could think Dick and Jane is the best literature on the planet: because even I can understand it. That hardly makes my opinion an enlightened one.

two cents and all...

(Oh, and part of MY definition of art is that it doesn't give it all to you. It makes you think. A story about how a boy and a girl meet and fall in love and break up and all the laughs and boo-hoos can be a GREAT time, but I separate that story from one where I'm not quite sure what the ending was...my imagination has to come in and make some decisions. I have to think.)