8 of 11. Despite the popular opinion of the internet, there is a recognizable difference between toddler art and abstract expressionism. And I have yet to see a toddler with enough restraint to paint something similar to a Rothko, or even a Pollock for that matter. Usually its always just big smears.
Yes, but a lot of Abstract Expressionists (and artists since then) have created things to deliberately look like they were "painted by a toddler" to react to this rather common complaint/comment. Definitely, no toddler is going to create something like a Rothko or a Newman (both require some technical preparation no toddler is going to come up with) but it's not always so easy to distinguish. Not that it matters one bit. Place them in the right place or context or even consider them in the right way and the pieces created by toddlers can be art, too.
Normally I'd be really happy to agree with this (and I do agree that in the right context toddler can make serious art too). But the article has the obvious agenda of trying to "prove" that critical art of the last decade shouldn't be taken seriously because "hey my toddler can do that". So I agree with you, but as a response to the article I'd disagree.Not that it matters one bit. Place them in the right place or context or even consider them in the right way and the pieces created by toddlers can be art, too.
Oh, yes, naturally, that article is full of it. Just because a piece created by a toddler can be considered art no lessens critical theory and art of the last few decades (or any art at all).