High art rant

High art, low art, commercial art, computer generated art, performance art. Sometimes I think I'm playing a game a twister on a mixed media canvas. Is one any better than another? What makes it so? Is it the museums that dictate good art? I think I had a surer concept of art before I went to college. Art was everywhere. Art is everywhere, but now I find that I'm so critical of what I see. I look at a work and categorize it. More often than not I find myself irritated, whether it is irritation at the work itself or at myself for being too critical, I'm not sure. 

Some artists works like those of Thomas Kincaid seem to embody my internal struggle. I don't like Kincaid. He's just so commercial. You have to know there is a but coming-- But, the colors and the fairy-tale imagery appeal to a younger less cynical child me. I would never ever be caught painting something so happy, dreamy, disney over and over again for the rest of my life, just because it sells. BTW, I really hope he likes what he does. And good for him for making money doing it.

See, I really am torn. I admire an artist I think is super commercial for making money. In this case I may admire the idea of making money from art more than I admire the art itself. Does that make me shallow? I don't think so. It's about hope.  The hope that my work could inspire and touch others, (not that Kincaid's work is very deep) and the hope that someday I too could live off selling my art.

High art rant