To me art is like the relationship between woods and nymphs.
Contemporary art runs towards participatory arts, as opposed to traditional spectator arts. Art is not just about getting what the artist want, it's about first helping viewers to get what they want as interlocutors. Drawing a connection between mimicry=chameleon and affiliation, operating on similar lines, for similar reasons.
Given that newer-is-better is an old and dusty point of view, why not turning to older-is-better for a more trendy taste? Ernst Gombrich has a book for you (The Preference for the Primitive).
The possibilities are endless, pictures scramble to create differences.
We argue that the common denominator of these invasions was the arrival of a new genotype that was better adapted to the natural environment.
The chameleon couldn't paint something that looked like something.
Walter Benjamin, Fraudulent work attracts fraudulent confirmations like rotten wood spreads.
Soft-ground etching of a dragonfly wing, copper plate. Some artists demonstrate a special relationship to nature, inviting us to wander through the woods with dragonflies.
Artworks are desirable by creating a desire for something new, or something that has already been established as being desirable.
Is it that absurd to hypothesize a disconcerting property of the missing bottom line?