system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: art critics are full of shit

Don’t get me wrong, I love art. I’m an artist myself. However, every time I hear art critics talk about a piece and how it “invokes feelings of _____” or how “the artist was expressing ______”, I think they are full of it and making that stuff up. Yes, obviously art can have deeper meanings, however for most art (which is someone trying to copy something they see or abstract), they are reading into something that isn’t there. The prime example being abstract art. You can’t look at a Jackson Pollock splatter painting and tell how the artist was feeling, he just threw paint at the paper. And better yet, every “expert” will have a different opinion on his emotion, but claim theirs is factually correct. Likewise, you can’t pull deeper meaning from a portrait because it’s just a portrait of a person. So in summary, I think art critics are full of shit for trying to pull meaning from splattered paint that is no different from if a 3 year old did it, and likewise full of shit for trying to pull deeper meaning from other forms of art that are simply a natural representation of what the artist sees.
gpt
Art critics aren’t making grand objective statements about what a particular piece is factually conveying or what the artist was expressing. It’s to provide, well, a critical look at the art and try and get the ball rolling on a conversation about it.

All art has deeper meaning, even if the artist didn’t intend on that meaning. Critical analysis is what makes art important and interesting, at least to a lot of people.