art is in the eye of the beholder as they say.
Honestly like, as an artist, I've been in the trenches of this discourse about "what makes art 'art'" and artists trying to push the bounds of what that definition could be by stripping art down by reducing it over and over. I kind of find it fascinating that really simple things like a shoe on a wall or a blank canvas can elicit high reactions when people take them, and present them as "art".
I think just though looking at art history and the ideas and how people pushed the bounds over time, I do think that after mastering things like realism, you eventually want to explore something else and that leads to abstraction and deconstruction. I almost see it as an inevitable point that bare minimum presentations such as this would eventually become the outcome, yk? People would want to see how complex and how minimal they can make things and really question the definition and ways you can approach "art".
I don't really have a point here. I guess I don't think it's worth being frazzled over weird "art" like this. If it speaks to someone for whatever silly or meaningful reason, that's cool. I think it's really cool that something as simple as a couple of lines on a canvas to complex sculptures can move people and ideally, all should coexist and it doesn't have to be one or the other.
Yes yes I wrote an essay. I am semi passionate about this. Sue me 