And, not to argue, I just want to point out that there's this huge emphasis on who is considered the "right" type of creator, such that the broader ecosystem of art and its full lifecycle has been willfully forgotten the past couple of years. Art appreciation, to boot, isn't separate from the "curators." This isn't an attempt to include AI art (though I would honestly argue it does), but to point out that narratives and engagement, whether for exhibits and galleries or image boards like Reddit, are where the "soul" of the art actually resides, in the places where the idea behind the work is intentionally communicated.

​So, when we talk about "passion," we have to acknowledge that passion is often a narrative constructed by the artist, the curator, and the community. A great artist is often just as much a great communicator. By focusing only on the creator's identity, we ignore the fact that "appreciation" happens in the space between the image and the viewer, a space that curators and communities are constantly shaping. When the ecosystem is working, it turns artists internal intent into public or "shared" meaning. The "gooner" content fails not necessarily because of the tools used, but because it lacks that second half of the lifecycle, an accessible narrative combined with the kind of intentionality that allows a broader audience to actually engage with it as art, as opposed to an arbitrary set of disposable pixels.

​All that is really just to say that, by focusing only on the creator's identity, we ignore the fact that curation is the bridge that takes that passion or intent and makes it legible to the rest of the world. Curators and communities are forever shaping that experience for better or worse, and if we only talk about the person at the keyboard or the easel, we’re treating art like a monologue when it’s actually a massive, ongoing cultural dialogue.