See, someone should "know" that it's a piece of art. Just by looking at it wouldn't be enough. Someone has to tell someone else that it's an art. And exactly that type of art is something I cannot digest.
Funny you should make that comparison. The first time I saw a large Pollock drip painting up close is probably one of the most profound art experiences I've had. Seeing it in full scale and being able to truly comprehend the the 3d texturing and layering and dynamics of the work was awe inspiring.
The truly amazing thing about the experience was really how completely by surprise it took me, I had no expectations or pre-conceived notions. I was just walking around the museum and all of a sudden there was this painting that I couldn't take my eyes off of. I probably spend half an hour just standing there studying it.
Conversely seeing the Mona Lisa in the Louvre left me completely unmoved. I mean don't get me wrong I totally get it's almost unprecedented cultural and historical significance and as an historic artifact I'm really glad I've seen it, and I completely appreciate the amazing skill and craftsmanship that's gone into it. But as Art and as a profound artistic experience it falls far short for me.
So, Pollock: http://www.terraingallery.org/Pollock-Number-One-1948.jpg
And random art from 1500s: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Mon...
I wouldn't call the first one "art", but perhaps it's just me. So 1500's...