Here's a topic I don't see people engaging with: I could in principle make the same kinds of completely abstract paintings Pollock did, but if I do it, it won't be art because I'm not in the art world. I have no access to galleries, I have no patrons, and I generally don't move in those circles, so I have no ability to be taken seriously for doing it.
It would be still be art but no, you wouldn't be taken seriously.
To some extent succeeding at art is by definition succeeding in those circles, whether through politics, a chance patron or gallery owner fixating on you, raw unignorable talent, etc. A related definition is succeeding by sheer popularity and fame, like a Banksy, though he's succeeded in both ways. I don't think this insight undermines the art world wholesale, though it definitely suggests (correctly) that luck plays role, that not all great artists succeed, and that not all successful artists are great. Most games in life are like this.
I think part of what makes an artist stand out in a medium like this is that they are able to stand out in a medium like this.
Going and seeing something like “the fountain” (Duchamp) is surely accompanied by many people remarking “I could have made that” and it could be true, but they didn’t. And that’s the difference.
To some degree that accessibility makes some of these things even more interesting.
I brought up a Dadaism piece on purpose. In fascism, one tool of the leaders was to declare some art pure and acceptable and some as “not art.” Dadaism was a rebuke of the idea: that authority can or cannot tell us what art is and isn’t.
Dadaism is intentionally absurdist. And it’s that quality that many would use to discredit it, is the very thing that makes it so powerful (to some).
Not saying that pollock is playing with absurdism, but saying that sometimes the things that make something “not art” or “not interesting” to one person are the things that elevate it to another.
Not sure if that’s what you were asking, but that’s a riff I was inspired to share.
