Shoe sniffer no. Foot licker yes. Problem with that?
I agree that many artists hide behind their irrelevant crap art by making it look more important than it really is, but there are also people that use that as an excuse when they don't get it.
That's contradictive coming from someone who worships Warhol. What makes his Brillo piece (which is ONLY text on cardboard) art, and Indiana's piece crap? Please explain if you will, 'cause I'm loosing interest here.
As for art having to provoke "positive" thoughts. Where the hell did you get that from?
We're not talking about decorating a house with pretty things, so that everyone's happy.
