This is an orchid:

This is not an orchid:
I dislike this portrayal of orchids because it makes them look like 1) flowers cut off from their stems, unattached and removed from their biological functions and 2) formless blobs instead of pristine geometric structures
The way I see it, art can have only two purposes: adding aesthetic value to the world, or saying something. Art is a very inefficient medium for sending messages, language is far better. It takes a rare person to manage to say something with art that couldn't be better framed better with words. Even Picasso's Guernica would probably be better as an essay (although less influential, probably.) Because of this, artists should maximize for aesthetics. Brian Clarke fails at this. His art is ugly and uninteresting.
The way I see it, art can have only two purposes: adding aesthetic value to the world, or saying something. Art is a very inefficient medium for sending messages, language is far better. It takes a rare person to manage to say something with art that couldn't be better framed better with words. Even Picasso's Guernica would probably be better as an essay (although less influential, probably.) Because of this, artists should maximize for aesthetics. Brian Clarke fails at this. His art is ugly and uninteresting.
This painting (bottom) looks like something one might find in a hotel room or restaurant. Why should we classify it as high art? It's name is "Site Plan."
The one above it (top, formatting is problematic on this laptop) is titled "Is this a Dream?" Well, I certainly hope so.
The middle one is a "Self Portrait." Sorry, Brian Clarke, but your face is boring AF








