Most of the architects and designers mentioned often among enthusiasts are known for doing projects of a massive scale and scope, much like how fashion designers are usually known for their most extravagant runway pieces. At times it seems as though these over the top designs are motivated by a collective need to justify the valuation of their respective art forms. It has a tendency to happen in any industry, artistic or not. It even happens in human behavior. People turn themselves into products marketed for mass appeal, or exclusive high society consumption(as our good friend Napoleon?), or even display as repellant on purpose(as I've done in kind to criticism that I found lazy and rude).
On the high end of this spectrum of industrialized expression there are art pieces so grand in concept that they rarely escape the artists mind to see the light of day, or classical works we still struggle to replicate. Works such as these can inspire much critique from the enthusiast and uninitiated alike. Wasteful, ill conceived, gaudy, garish, made simply to prop up the artists ego. Made simply to prop up god, or capital. Is there a difference at this stage? At the low end? "Comedian", 'Fountain", works that provoke simply by their being called art, that force their way into the halls of luxury often simply to make a mockery of the very concept of "high art". The artistic gourmand looks at the fans of these works and accuses them of jealousy. They shrug in agreement as they light up a molotov. 1/2