>>7771818
>>7771832
Both are correct.
Art is about giving the viewer and impression of something. You don't have to know how the subject actually works in fine detail beyond what is seen, you just have to know how to make it look like it works like one would expect.
The puzzle piece that Anon #2 is missing is the fact that "art" runs in a spectrum from two polar ends that I'll call PRODUCTION ART and FINE ART. Production art includes primarily artwork that is itself a component for a larger work. Concept art, texturing, backgrounds, 3D models, character design, etc. These are meant to not exist as standalone pieces and so they must include extra visual information in a very tight manner because it's part of a pipeline with other artists. And in the current time, these artists are from wildly different cultural contexts and can be morons, so you must be very explicit to avoid miscommunications.
Fine art on the other end, is art intended to be what it is. It is the full art piece, the intended audience is... the audience, not other artists you work with. You don't need to know precisely how something works if you are only showing it in the manners that your piece requires.
These do overlap - the final result of a production is often a fine art piece (assuming it's not an advertisement or other variant of art-in-service of some other goal), but it is almost exclusively the responsibility of whoever is at the top in charge. This can be the director or the producer. It's whoever has the most control over the final work, and often producers are just funding it with select requirements and changes.
Most internet artists have not learned how to make fine art. They learned from production artists and make production art and then wonder why their boring shit with too much lore/detail isn't resonating with anyone but other artists.
Some reject this but end up with a child's surface-level understanding of postmodernism, making art that says nothing. Personal graffiti.
