Modern statistics make the absurd appear significant, modern art makes the significant appear absurd, that's because the photon can act like a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time. No experiment is perfect, inquiring minds want to know, painting brushes know that.
Photo-based figure paintings are flat as a cheeky canvas, drawing from life is crispy fun.
Contemporary art challenges notions of space, perception and meaning of silliness. Silly artworks are abundant in our world, but there are many real images lurking among the humorous doodlings. Now we know all of those questions are unnecessary.
For centuries, idiotic humor has been an art. Artists don't know where the edge is, or even if there is an edge, but some fear cutting edge art living on the edge with utopian ideals. What makes an academic discipline seriously important is the obscurity of the obfuscatory language its proponents employ. Either way, the answer never is common sense; neither question has cut and dried answers.
Art aphorism looking for the need to touch the things it find beautiful, an artistic expression of the colored registration of the passing moment. We need theories and the art of eristic or logical disputation to sell decoratively kitsch paintings.
Because art is embedded in even the most banal objects, visual images used as metaphors in art are inexpensive (Veblen goods pay where quality is judged by price). But most paintings are not artists, and they have some ethical resistance to the idea of making every human interaction into a money transaction. An urgent need to capture memory from a distorted point of view.
Art is hard to explain, of course, but how did I get stuck with such a theory? When the answer came, it arrived from an unlikely corner of art.