There has to be some attempt from the artist to guide the viewer towards an emotion or idea. It should provoke a reaction out the viewer. With modern art, I look at it and feel nothing or confused.
so the art was able to provoke a confused and nonplussed reaction out of you?
it sounds like it fits your criteria, then
my personal reaction is amusement—the idea that someone would
have the gall to submit a white canvas to a museum, or sell it for $20 mill, is funny to me, and also vaguely disgusting
what separates it from your bedroom wall is the added context of "this is art"—that statement, and the intent behind the statement
it doesn't make the piece "special," but whoever said art had to be special
I think pretentious artists know there's nothing inherently meaningful about their pieces but then say that's the point
i mean, that's just called honesty—is it pretentious to be honest
Also if an artist has a genuine point to make but decides a blank white painting is the best way to do it, they're just a shitty artist
i don't disagree, and that's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but as long as you don't strip them of the status of being an artist, or try to gatekeep what can and cannot be art, then we're basically on the same page