Anyhow, obviously not enough to be certain, either way. What is the question? In most cases, causal inferences relie on statistically untestable assumptions.
Art is part of human nature, text and pictures are different things, ideas and images are good bedfellows, lets be adamantly real. Stories from far away can be told.
Artwork with next to no ideas, is simply swept under the carpet, and makes a story still not fully told.
Birds of a feather write about art, probabilities and the ways the two intersect, on the journey to the internet. About half of all visitors still believe good art is “just a theory” and prefer to believe in silliness. Never underestimate the ability of people to reject facts that do not fit their view of the world.
Is rabbit art necessary ?
The mother of visual theories : Trust images more than words. Art comes from the irrational part of our beings, because all things that we draw wouldn't have been made if we didn't need to draw. Only artists can answer our instinctive needs.
I do not believe in art theory but in visual perception. Never attribute to art that which is explained by stupidity, some figures lead to pretty crazy conclusions.
Conventional art and borderline artworks are two sides of the same coin.
Before the invention of the fleeting aesthetics, art was simple. Art-conscious decoration is a visual language.
Now, the best reason to paint is that there is no good reason to paint a weird mix of half-baked images and pictures as object, as a little part of this magical canvas.
The mass media are a powerful factor in the construction of images about borderline art and consequently on how picture with an eccentric edge are seen in the public eye.
Good art is emotion. Separate the meaningful information from the random smoke that means nothing (but sfumato), but feed symbols of fear. The carpet of contemporary art must be really dome-shaped by the large number of awkward art works which have been brushed under it.