&gt;<i>Abstract hard can be harder than it looks. (Buy some acrylics and try it if you don&#x27;t believe me.)</i><p>I have a fine arts background (design and painting lessons at an art school, etc.), so yes, I know that it can be hard to create some abstract art. But that&#x27;s only the case if you have a specific hard visual end goal that you need to get to.<p>In most modern cases the only difficulty is only &quot;conceptual&quot;.<p>That said, I don&#x27;t think art is good only when it&#x27;s &quot;ealistic&quot;, or that art is good only when its hard to execute. Some modern pieces can still be both hard -- requiring a whole team to create -- and crap.<p>So, I agree that conceptually challenging art can be good too.<p>But for most of modern art I have the impression that the conceptual part is also a half-thought gesture to just make something to sell, often by an idiot who wouldn&#x27;t understand a true concept if it bit them in the ass, and who just goes through the motions. Or by someone who thinks that he&#x27;s creating some painful manifestation of his unique experience, but is just producing stale, cliched crap.<p>&gt;<i>But the &#x27;you didn&#x27;t&#x27; part is more about self-promotion and networking than aesthetics.</i><p>Exactly. Which I don&#x27;t consider the important part of what art should be about.<p>&gt;<i>So from the point of view of art-as-marketing, you couldn&#x27;t do that.</i><p>Well, except if I was cynical, devoted the same time, and was into ass-kissing and socializing.<p>Which might be hard, but it&#x27;s hardly laudable.