I suspected it was trying to say Trump supporters are dumb shits
God okay, this is something that fascinates me so I'm just going to ramble for a bit. I think that's an... interesting reading of the situation, particularly as the stereotype seems to often go the other way entirely - admirers of classic art are cultured, fans of scribbles are childish and pretentious.
The far-right's views on modern art are not unknown. There is a lot of drama that circulates, some just based on artistic circles often being unabashedly queer and unavoidably not exactly a Trump supporter's idea of healthy company, but a lot is the traditionalism, the 'Things were better in the Good Old Days.' So the grand classics are True Art, while more modern stuff that asks the question of what the heck art even is, that gets looked down upon.
Which is a take I find fascinating because it is so glaringly bizarre to me. Is there skill that goes into old paintings? Absolutely, but to a lay person like myself - and realistically, most of the people in this thread - it's skill that's indistinguishable from a halfway competent student of the same style. There's the fascinating world of art forgery, people that can so effectively mimic another artist's style that they create a piece that even fools some experts. All that keeps a forger from being as gifted as DaVinci is the lack of individual creativity, which isn't something you can see in the art in question. Equally, so much of what we see in the Mona Lisa, for example, is thoroughly counter to its intent - the painting was a commission for someone that knew who on earth the woman was, someone who had an emotional connection to her. It was a big pricy equivalent of keeping a photo of family on your desk. And I have no idea who she was, nor do I give a damn about her, and realistically speaking everyone here is the same. That piece of the art's original intent is completely lost to history - that which was the entire reason for its creation is gone. I think there's a genuine argument there that the Mona Lisa itself oughtn't be considered art in the same vein as many others because such a core piece of its original intent is lost to us.
Does it have value? Sure, but far from the same value DaVinci saw in it. Contrast something like the Birth of Venus, and that references a story many of us will know, and can understand.
But it doesn't come down to education, it comes down to taste - what matters to you with art? Is it the simple draw of seeing something pretty? Or is it getting some kind of emotional reaction? Should it be both? Can it be neither?
Would I hang the OP's art on my wall? Eh, probably not, but I also wouldn't really want to hang a lot of classics on my wall, so many are far too hollow for my tastes.
But the very fact you can ask the question 'Is this art?' I feel is the whole point. If you romanticise the past and glorify ancestors and tradition, if you have some notion of a Golden Age, where Men were Real Men, then the aesthetic of the classics will appeal to you more. That seems to be the whole far right/art topic that I expect your article was acknowledging.
But where I stand is, well, there probably wouldn't have been this long a thread in a discussion about Rembrandt. That's gotta count for something.
Poll