When it comes to art / food / products, I want the best experience for ME. If I want human connectedness, then I’ll go interact with a human directly.

I have a hard time even processing this as a concept. I’m not sure what art is if not a direct communication from artist to audience. Does the artist have to be in the room with the art for it to count as direct?

edit: after some thought, I think I have a theory, and it has to do with the other two things bundled into the same category: food and “products”. I think OP sees art (and food) as commodities with objective value i.e. products. The better the product, the more valuable it is and therefore the more money it is worth. Conversely, more expensive products are expected to be “better” than less expensive ones, and expensive products that aren’t “better” are a scam. However “better” is defined, as long as something is better, it doesn’t really matter what its origin is.

I wish I had another word for this because I don’t mean this as a pejorative, but it’s a very self-centered way of looking at art (and food, which overlaps with and is possibly a subset of art, depending on how you define art). It misses the bulk of what I think makes art cool. I don’t think this is an uncommon point of view, I just don’t think I’ve ever seen it put that way.

OP I hope you find a way to engage with art products as the end result of intentional creative endeavor. It’s really incredibly rewarding, far more so than treating art as a discrete product removed from the creative process that made it. I think you’ll be surprised at the depth of the ocean of which you have yet to scratch the ice on the surface.

Curious to know what you think of this, OP. Your take on art (if I am correct) is one that I am curious about, but most of the people who share it, IME, are not the type to engage with conversations about art. Actually, even if I’m wrong I’m still curious.