The point of the original review is actually that it's his tik tok fame and video format that is what creates the audience and not the art itself. His fans have little interest in the actual art, it's the vicarious and voyeuristic aspect that his fortune is built off, the art is incidental.
Yeah, the painting is boring, safe, well trodden material (and he's not good at hands!) but the phenomenon is social media. The hype machine. The parasocial relationships.
Many extremely famous artists are also performance artists. Dali, Picasso, Warhol, Hirst, Banksy. All of them made some kind of performance to go alongside the art, whether it's crazy personality, or controversy, or nobody knowing what you look like, it's a performance. You need to get people talking about you and the art will only get you so far, in many cases. Great as, for example, Dali's art is, would he have been as famous without the mustache and pet anteater?
Of course there's plenty of counterexamples where the art alone was enough for fame. Esther and Van Gogh come to mind.
Right, but Picasso's performance was of _himself_ alongside his art. This guy is making a performance out of the act of making the art, and then people's real-time reaction to that art.
Yeah, the painting is boring, safe, well trodden material (and he's not good at hands!) but the phenomenon is social media. The hype machine. The parasocial relationships.