>>2703223>read a book doggThat's not the issue, I'm just not a fan of your pseudo-intellectual bs. You typify everything wrong with contemporary art in my opinion. You seem to be the sort of artist engages what I tend to think of as intellectual masturbation, someone who retreats into intensely personal symbolism, iconography, or theory to the point that you exclude any viewer who doesn't first take the time to listen to you prattle on for a few paragraphs. All too often (but not always, so I'll refrain from jumping to conclusions in your case) this happens in an effort to disguise a lack of actual talent or inspiration.
The problem is that nobody is going to feel anything upon viewing your art. You have to explain it, or at least explain your theoretical frameworks for them to 'get it'. There is no visceral reaction, only a slow, dull intellectual reaction after the fact - if the viewer reacts at all. As I think someone earlier in the thread already stated, good visual art does not need a thesis statement, even if it might be (and I would say is likely to be) improved by it.
The fact that your VISUAL art is literally worthless outside of the context of you VERBALLY or TEXTUALLY explaining it, is a problem. The art is worthless on its own, and honestly not worth much more within the context of your intellectual frameworks, since not only are those frameworks bland, non-compelling, and uninteresting, but the way you have chosen to express them is equally bland, non-compelling, and uninteresting.
So no, the problem isn't the fact that you're not making "pretty pictures", it's that your ideas are uninteresting, and you "explore" them in uninteresting ways.
