simple but is it

since we are learning how to speak about art and its criteria it struck me that we are using very little of it. the way we speak about its potential is very poor- we limit oureslves to words like bad, nice, complicated, simple. yep, but could it be that simple is comlicated? what is simple then? is it its simplicity of how its made: use of easy accessed materials, known techniques, way its put together (clear manner) or maybe designed for easy use of any abilities level of the receivers? Is it about the way work of art is presented visually- that makes us feel its oh so easy? what about the process we dont know much about- how the particular artist gathered his reaserch and how he design his works layout? this may only be a game of a very layered and complex contents whe should explore.could it be that artist demands some feedback, some kind of reaction or effort even? could I do that way myself? well, technically no. you didnt come up with the idea! we receive ready impact. could we take an example of it? yes. is it appropriate to judge works artisitc value by what we feel is right in a matter of personal opinion? is it ok to make personal comments? sure. those comments should not make you feel better about your own work. Opinion should not be based on wheather we feel confident... isnt it true that a simple-looking masterpiece is artists great skill?
in the other hand simple could also be unambitious. can we call unabitious practice art? if so, what makes it art? ambition to remain unambitious? there is no secret service dropping paintings in galleries to fool public. they are there for a reason. and its that reason that we should debate on more then if its a pretty picture that our 5 year old siblings could paint. because they cannot.
natalia