The process is the other way around, though. You derive meaning from the artwork, rather than projecting meaning into it. It's basic pattern recognition.
Sorry, I do not think I care enough to teach you how to look at pictures, recognize patterns and derive meaning by thinking about what you see. Which is the fundamental ability needed to appreciate art that you lack.
It would be as tedious as teaching someone that a bunch of lines and curves put in sequence can be used to represent words and ideas and shit.
Or trying to explain that moby dick is not literally about some dude hunting down a whale.
Or that you can convey ideas without directly stating them, or that it is sometimes required to convey ideas in such a manner, in order to not cheapen them.
Simply put, you are visually illiterate, so talking about art with you is as futile as writing a letter to a middle age peasant. Or I guess trying to talk about music theory with someone who listens exclusively to nightcore lmao.
I honestly think you're one of them hylics from gnosticism, whose soul is too impoverished to interact with reality beyond face value.
>Anime artworks on the other hand do not.
They all do look like crap, though. Poor shape design, very primitive color palettes, weak linework, generic compositions, mediocre anatomy, and most of them are just the same picture over and over again.
Sure, anime does not usually become outright hideous, but that's because it's hard to fuck up drawing the same picture again. As I said, animation is about efficiency: consistent mediocrity is more easily managed in production, compared to producing something exceptional but rare, with a high chance of failure.
There are some manga/anime artists who actually do have a great sense of composition, style, technical ability, etc., but you still haven't posted one that meets such criteria, which makes me suspect you're basically art-blind. Kinda like how autistic people are face-blind.>>52262
I think art is no different from others fields of human intellectual inquiry, in that it is a process of discovery, and sharing those discoveries with your peers and the general public. Understanding of art "develops" through exploration of the "frontier" of our knowledge, just like in math, physics, whatever. So, something once profound can become banal if everyone has already seen it.
Of course, there's also the question of execution. Sometimes, execution fails to live up to the ideas attempted with the piece. Sometimes, execution is top notch, but the ideas are vapid.
And honestly, I can forgive top tier execution without much ideas, if the execution is really, really, really good. Because at some level of technical skill, the structure of the image itself becomes "art". I really like art by this chinese guy, Ruan Jia. Even though he mostly paints generic fantasy MMO stuff, he has such mastery of color, composition, design, atmosphere, shape, brush strokes, etc., that you can enjoy it without caring about what it's depicting. I usually just zoom in 300% and look at the brush strokes. You could cut out a 5cm by 5cm piece of one of his paintings, blow it up and hang it on the wall, and it'd still be very nice to look at.
I don't think I really care about the argument of "representation vs abstract". I see art more like a visual language of shapes, colors and symbols, and mastery of those, regardless of what's being depicted, is what brings me most enjoyment.
Maybe it's the same reason I like instrumental music over vocals, lol.