>>9622289> art doesn't derive its meaning from just popular supportnope, sure doesn't.
Art can also derive meaning from the impact that it has upon the powerful.
Sure there is art for the masses, that the powerful and elite pay not mind to.
But imagine if there was a painting, a novel, a movie, a sculpture that very few of the masses knew about, and they didn't understand the meaning, but it profoundly impacted the powerful of society and changed how they saw the world and how they conducted themselves or at least made them appreciate something that they didn't before. Then that art piece would be a notable piece of artwork. A "great" work of art worthy of study. But there are countless pieces of art that a person could subjectively say is amazingly beautiful and profound but has achieved no status among society, and wouldn't even be recognized as art.
But a technically beautiful piece of artwork known to only 2 random people that have no real impact upon the world, might as well be just the same as a child's macaroni picture in terms of how much of an impact that made unto two loving parents who think it is the cutest thing ever.
The only thing is, is that the guy who made the beautiful piece of artwork, that again, might as well be a macaroni picture in how much "greatness" it has imprinted upon the world, most likely pretentiously calls himself an "artist". And likes to fancy himself as such since it would be such an ego boost, a foundation for them to falsely feel superior and a core part of their sense of identity.
But ultimately he has achieved nothing remarkable. And certainly less than a college hipster with a guitar playing 3 chords to a group of other college retards about a song about ultimate Frisbee that makes them laugh.
