It doesn't upset artists to find out that artists used lenses or mirrors or other aids, but it certainly does upset the art historians.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Artists are definitely, like, under a sort of microscope of scrutiny more than others.
You know, I just don't believe that art is supposed to make sense. I really don't think it's supposed to be analyzed to death. It's left to the listener or looker to get what they can get from it.
I'm quite sure that all true professional artists, of every description, in all walks of life, whether their craft is painting, music, sculpture, medicine or anything, have one primary concern - mankind.
Art history is littered with work that involves light.
An artist cannot be responsible for what people make of their art. An audience loathe giving up preconceived images of an artist.
In its most limited sense, modern, art would seem to concern itself only with the technical innovations of the period.
What I am really concerned about is what art is supposed to be - and can become.
Art history looks at art works and the people who have created them.
Artists complain about the art world until it starts rubbing their back, then they have their love affair with it.
I don't worry about whether anyone knows anything about art.