It&#x27;s possible the artist doesn&#x27;t even care about the viewer at all. Many artists create work for their own reasons. Some people see art as entertainment, but I see it as a form of communication. It&#x27;s not necessarily about communicating something pleasant either. So what you just said could be communicated by painting a museum sinking into a river, or to further abstract, a white square painted over by a blue field of color.<p>As for that curator, that show, maybe they&#x27;re trying to build up some emerging artists by connecting them to Rothko, who we recognize. Important questions are: Who was first (to wrap tinfoil objects) and how serious were they about it, and how does it fit in context with past work? Hypothetically, a wrapping of tinfoil might be more meaningful if you&#x27;re familiar with that artist&#x27;s body of work, maybe there&#x27;s a certain &quot;tinfoil&quot; sensibility you would miss without familiarity with the artist&#x27;s past work. Or is the tinfoil more a reaction or comment? Sculpture must be held accountable for choice of material, so the choice of tinfoil was deliberate for its properties or public connotations or both. Duchamp&#x27;s urinal gets a lot of attention, but at that time in history it was a new idea and he had the respect of his peers already. So I think sculpture more requires you learn the history, they tend to get more conceptual than painters and it ends up involving philosophy sometimes. But also you get a feeling for materials and how they&#x27;re put together, similar to the feelings you get when entering someone&#x27;s home, you can&#x27;t literally explain it, but you sense it&#x27;s there.<p>Writing this on my mobile btw. Just in terms of craftsmanship, that would impress an engineer, that&#x27;s a whole different world and there&#x27;s &quot;craft&quot; museums, where it&#x27;s not about concepts as much as it&#x27;s about the tools and the work and perfecting the work process, the engineering. Sculptors need some craftsmanship to be taken seriously, but it&#x27; primarily about the ideas and concepts. Personally, I appreciate craftsmanship so I might gravitate to work that&#x27;s less philosophical and more about structure, space and craftsmanship.<p>Last point about field paintings. It may just look like one boring color. I agree these are boring, but there&#x27;s two areas to consider. First, there&#x27;s a lot of choices involved. How was the canvas constructed, a flat color painting becomes a sculptural object, how are the corners wrapped, is it cotton or linen or oil or latex? Also there&#x27;s different chemical pigments for different reds, so red isn&#x27;t just a number on a color wheel. It might cost thousands of dollars to get that much of a certain pigment. Also what kind of oil was used? Is it glazed? How was the paint applied? How was the glaze applied? Endless decisions just to make a one color painting. Then you get into all the strange &quot;color therapy&quot; stuff that I never learned, but some people take colors and the physiological effects very seriously. Also hanging and lighting pieces like that in context with other work, maybe the curator has some ideas behind that, there could be a regional or historical connection. It&#x27;s not for everybody and I usually rush past the really plain field paintings, but I definitely enjoy some of the abstract expressionist painters that incorporate fields of color.