>>185738
I don't think a work of art is better because it has more detail, nor do i think effort put in should be a measure of quality.
If detail makes art better then we should start building museums for Where's Waldo puzzles, or for the myriad of photorealistic pencil drawings that people like to share, which i find even more pointless, since they don't leave space for the artist to express anything. I'm not saying less detail is better either, my argument is that we shouldn't take it as a determining factor.

The same goes for effort. We can make assumptions about what required more or less effort for the author but we can never know for sure, so it's not worth it to take it as a measuring stick. However, even if we did have a way of knowing for sure what would that tell us exactly? Different techniques, intentions, subject matters and visions will lead to varying degrees of time before finishing the work. Not to mention individual skillset. If i tried to make a painting, a song, a movie, a book, etc, from scratch it would surely take me 10x more than it would a trained artist, but that wouldn't make mine inherently better simply because it took more out of me (assuming the results of what we made were comparable, of course)

Ask yourself this: If you found out through whatever form that a piece of art you liked was actually made in half the time you assumed at first and that, on top of that, it was actually a secondary project for the author, would you suddenly like it less? Would it be lessened in your eyes even if the only thing that changed was that you gained new information?

Then again, i don't think it's right to assume a perhaps simpler work of art was easy to make just because it took less technical prowess. Struggle to meet vision is not only time adding rigourous detail. If your vision is different you'll struggle just the same, but in a different way. Knowing how to express yourself in as little words as possible may be just as hard as trying to write the most encompassing essay.