>It follows from what you say later about Nolan/Anderson that this means you understand what people see in Van Gogh but don't see it yourself?

Why does that follow?

There's a remarkable amount of technique to Van Gogh's work. The passion in his output is evident. It does not, however, "turn my crank." I look at "Sunflowers" and see sloppiness; I look at "Starry Night" and I see a distorted view of the sky. When I wanna see a landscape, I'm more of a Bierstadt guy; when I wanna see still life I'll go with Rembrandt. I would not consider Van Gogh to be a "bad painter" just like I wouldn't consider Tom Waits to be a "bad singer." Doesn't mean I'm going to listen to him.

I have assessed Chris Nolan as a dishonest storyteller and most audiences not refined enough to notice. Wes Anderson, I suspect, has a way of displaying "quirky" to people who have no basis in quirkyness; I grew up with more weird than I can handle so it mostly strikes me as superficial, tedious bullshit. I really fuckin' hate Neill LaBute but he's an honest filmmaker.

>This seems to me to bring up this difference: often, when people say they "don't get modern art," it actually means they "don't get the appeal of modern art." Which is like you saying you didn't give a shit about Van Gogh. So is that excusable?

It is inexcusable to argue that me saying "I don't give a shit about Van Gogh" is equivalent to someone saying "I don't get the appeal of modern art." You're putting words in my mouth to try and win an argument I didn't know we were having. If you care to ask, rather than tell, we can continue.