>>4143008>who tf says this painting is good because it’s detailednta but that seems like a pretty apt comparison, isn't it? I mean even "classical" art like Monet isnt "detailed".
It can also be seen for modern (not in the usual art term), digital art. I.e. pic related, no details in the background, still good because the ligth is right. Kinda like what Ken Rockwell goes on about, that no one except pixel peepers cares about what goes on in the edges if it's a good photo.