Banality in Modern Art

[POST IN PROGRESS]

A chef knows every ingredient and way of cooking; therefore he's able to consistently make good food. Every customer who enters the restaurant wants good food. If the chef doesn't know the ingredients and ways of cooking, he isn't going to be able to make good food consistently. If the customer gets an empty plate, and has to get food themselves, and they happen to get a great pizza, the chef can't take responsibility for the quality of that food, regardless of their relation to it. 

Art is a language; we communicate ideas, emotions, experiences, etc., through art. If art is indeed like a language, we can assume that one has to learn the language to communicate ideas, emotions, experiences, etc., and the better one controls the language, the more able he is to communicate said things. Therefore the job of the artist is to learn the language the best he can, and not be content with less, for then the things he wants to communicate will be like a caveman grumbling to himself, and he only he himself will understand; whether the creator is egocentric or not does not matter, as the art stays meaningless and only holds meaning to the creator and therefore has no inherent value for others. 

A writer writes "Man walks dog." and publishes it as a short story or even a novel, provoking the natural response: "Ey, but that's not a story!" followed by "But wait! What is a story?" and writer quickly replies: "It provoked some discussion and some thought about this concept; then it must be a story, right?" and then the audience replies: "Well, we don't care whether it's a story or not, because if it's indeed a story, it's a damn awful story!"

Instead of exploring the question, it just gives an answer; which is, without reflection, hollow. 

If it eventually turns out that it is indeed a story, because it provoked some thought and some discussion and in this analysis, it doesn't change the fact that the story doesn't offer any meaningful thought, it's self-indulgent, as it's existence relies on it's own existential inquiry. It's asking to be researched. It relies too heavily on the audience's investment.

If I just show a black screen for two hours of time, I can't take full responsibility for what the people in the theater imagined during that time and say that their thought and imagination was all part of my 'creation'. 

Quality of thought depends on the individual, it's also like a language, but according to the argument below, the quality of the thought is independent from quality of the work, and therefore the work itself is insignificant and need not be remembered.

We want to read as much qualitative works, but don't mind reading less qualitative works because they still inspire great thought depending on the individual, this doesn't mean the work deserves attention, unless the greatness of the thought is so important that the work becomes remembered through the thought.

That would really make Ayn Rand as profound as
she believed she was. Alas, if only that was the case...

One can learn a lot from a bad book (great thought and discussion), but that doesn't mean the book is good; thus the quality of the book stands independent from the quality of thought, if there's a lot of qualitative thought, than those need be read and remembered, and not the work, unless it's essential to understand the qualitative thought.