Well, one could be faily musically inclined and never have listened to "despacito" on the height of its fame.
And I think that in this case,the critic was kind of a dick in his critic. In a very knowledgeable and eloquent manner he implies that if (from his perspective) the painter is not very good nor the art he produces, then the only explanation is that all the people who enjoys his art are gullible simpletons who don't know art. He has every right to have this opinion, of course, but he shouldn't be surprised if the gullible simpletons in question loudly disagree.
And I think that in this case,the critic was kind of a dick in his critic. In a very knowledgeable and eloquent manner he implies that if (from his perspective) the painter is not very good nor the art he produces, then the only explanation is that all the people who enjoys his art are gullible simpletons who don't know art. He has every right to have this opinion, of course, but he shouldn't be surprised if the gullible simpletons in question loudly disagree.