how are people even defining substance? are things that do not illicit positive feelings void of substance? i feel that motivates the arts to be a form of consumption instead of experience

*hides doodle of smiling flowers on art page*...I joke, but the implied quaternary there is interesting: 1. All shock, no substance 2. Toxic positive, no substance 3. Tragic, but meaningful 4. Hopeful, but deep...Rarely is anything so rigidly defined though. 1 and 3 can overlap, 2 and 4 can overlap, and opinions differ depending on who you ask. Lol

And therein lies the distinction: Opinions often differ from experience. A piece could be deeply meaningful to the "artist", but mean absolutely nothing to a "critic", or maybe even elicit a repulsion in them. One's feelings about a piece can also change as they hear an "artist" explain their work, or when they learn more about the "artist" themselves.

All personal perceptions and preferences, especially in someting as interpretive as "art". The nuances make things interesting don't they? :D

it does and i think about a lot how the audience is part of the experience of art in the micro and macro even the internet as the audience changes how we interpret a piece. i'd go as far to say other external elements including price change interpretation. i think there is something to be said about embracing all elements of the experience outside of black and white, and even accepting (cont.)

our morals and feelings of disgust and misery as part of this "substance" that is sought after. art is powerful because it summons and invokes things. i think people tend to rob themselves of the "substance" they seek by seeing themselves as separate from it

Indeed. We could say the same about the relationship between judgment and compassion in general. Condemnation makes one indifferent to another's suffering and simultaneously becomes a repression of one's own.