Silly thing is that there is a fairly decent explanation in the video posted by @Diddums in post #3
The argument "well you're talking about it" doesn't refute the points made in the video, the argument of why aren't you making millions then if it is easy etc.. just completely misses the point that a lot of the value attributed to the work isn't derived from the work itself but from the fact it was created by a certain person and has been approved of by certain galleries/collectors etc...
I don't think anyone is arguing that all abstract works or art are worthless or that everything "modern art" is stupid - but there are quite reasonable arguments along the lines of "the emperor has no clothes" when it comes to some pieces and there is certainly an argument (already laid out in the video) for why some pieces are worth millions and others aren't.
You can test aspects of this stuff too:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19010423
This is perhaps why the likes of Banksy can sell art for $60 in NYC without someone running to the bank and handing over a big wad of cash for the entire stall - most of the value of his work these days isn't derived directly from the work itself but from it becoming apparent that Banksy made it rather than some nameless graffiti artist who hasn't built up and benefitted from years of publicity, publicity stunts and a name known worldwide. Not that I'm knocking Banksy, I quite like his stuff and it is a far cry from throwing some glitter on the floor - it, like other art, still benefits from hype but that has at least perhaps been generated a bit more organically rather than the more abstract stuff mentioned in the OP which has relied on a select few insiders approving of it.
I'm not saying the likes of Hurst etc.. have no talent at all, there was perhaps some necessary amount of talent required in order to get into art college in the first place but when they're creating things that are so abstract then there isn't really much to discern between their work and pretty much any other art student who wants to create such pieces. Their success hasn't come from some organically generated widespread appeal but more from the likes of Saatchi buying up and promoting their work - it isn't really much to do with the art by that point - a dog turd can have value because some prominent collector says it has value and some galleries will promote it and then some other collectors will notice it and so on... it can all be achieved with relatively few people in the process - this is where luck perhaps has the biggest impact as they're almost entirely reliant on it. Once they've got that name then they have some momentum behind them and can carry on producing pretty much whatever they want and as it is abstract there isn't necessarily much skill required - in fact often they don't even need to get their hands dirty at all - their assistants can produce the "art" and they can just come up with the high level concept/idea etc.. which can be literally anything they want as they're now [big name artist] and [big name collector] bought some of their stuff and [big name galleries] regularly display it.
The argument "well you're talking about it" doesn't refute the points made in the video, the argument of why aren't you making millions then if it is easy etc.. just completely misses the point that a lot of the value attributed to the work isn't derived from the work itself but from the fact it was created by a certain person and has been approved of by certain galleries/collectors etc...
I don't think anyone is arguing that all abstract works or art are worthless or that everything "modern art" is stupid - but there are quite reasonable arguments along the lines of "the emperor has no clothes" when it comes to some pieces and there is certainly an argument (already laid out in the video) for why some pieces are worth millions and others aren't.
You can test aspects of this stuff too:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19010423
This is perhaps why the likes of Banksy can sell art for $60 in NYC without someone running to the bank and handing over a big wad of cash for the entire stall - most of the value of his work these days isn't derived directly from the work itself but from it becoming apparent that Banksy made it rather than some nameless graffiti artist who hasn't built up and benefitted from years of publicity, publicity stunts and a name known worldwide. Not that I'm knocking Banksy, I quite like his stuff and it is a far cry from throwing some glitter on the floor - it, like other art, still benefits from hype but that has at least perhaps been generated a bit more organically rather than the more abstract stuff mentioned in the OP which has relied on a select few insiders approving of it.
I'm not saying the likes of Hurst etc.. have no talent at all, there was perhaps some necessary amount of talent required in order to get into art college in the first place but when they're creating things that are so abstract then there isn't really much to discern between their work and pretty much any other art student who wants to create such pieces. Their success hasn't come from some organically generated widespread appeal but more from the likes of Saatchi buying up and promoting their work - it isn't really much to do with the art by that point - a dog turd can have value because some prominent collector says it has value and some galleries will promote it and then some other collectors will notice it and so on... it can all be achieved with relatively few people in the process - this is where luck perhaps has the biggest impact as they're almost entirely reliant on it. Once they've got that name then they have some momentum behind them and can carry on producing pretty much whatever they want and as it is abstract there isn't necessarily much skill required - in fact often they don't even need to get their hands dirty at all - their assistants can produce the "art" and they can just come up with the high level concept/idea etc.. which can be literally anything they want as they're now [big name artist] and [big name collector] bought some of their stuff and [big name galleries] regularly display it.
