I have looked just enough to know that my dissmissal is correct for me. I do not find those parts of interest.

you can enjoy them that is okay. Just don't think I'm wrong for not.

My argument was not about those things being interesting or not. My point was that you are wrong about what the content it.

"Artist struggles" is not what art museums writeups are about. They are not even caricature, they are just something people who do not go to art museums imagine to be there. Mostly because the only thing they know about art is that some artists struggled.

Also "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" dont have all that much to do with "artist struggles".

	▲	bluGill 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I see the misunderstanding - you are placing too much emphasis on "artist struggles". I have seen "about the artist" writeups and museums, and I've been to about the artists talks - both talking about struggles. The idea that they don't exist is false in my experience. However generally writeups by the art itself is "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art". The "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" do not move me at all. I've seen plenty of writeups on them next to art I enjoy - I've learned to not bother reading those place cards (and I love reading!) because they are a waste of time. I know what I like, and those writeups are uninteresting to me. If you like them fine, but they harm my enjoyment. For that matter if art exhibts were about something else than "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" I would likely enjoy art more. (and I supposed artists would scream about the museums selling out)