I'd rather have lunch with the mathematician. In fact, Feynman is at the top of the list of people I'd like to have lunch with, and it's not about his bongo drum playing.
(P.S. I learned to play the trumpet in my youth.)
It sounds like you know some pretty terrible artists, though. I mean, seashells on a model house?
PS. Feynman is Feynman for a reason.
And all art has a wide expanse between commercially available and popular, and the avant garde, and within that range is another range between simplicity and complexity.
Art also encompasses film, fiction, the visual arts, music. All of which have a massive range of intellectual importance and depth.
No offense, but I feel as though you're showing your ignorance much more than proving your point.
Of course they do. I'm merely challenging your claim "Great art is heavy on intellectual complexity." There's no doubt at all that "She Loves You" is a great song. Personally, I prefer the earlier Beatles tunes rather than Sgt Pepper. Perhaps you could quote from the latter some lyrics that have deep meaning to you?
I also greatly enjoy Led Zeppelin, have every album, even cover albums, but am under no illusions about the intellectual complexity of "squeeze my lemon".
Nobody celebrates Led Zeppelin for their lyricism, but I think you knew that already.
I was always baffled by what that was supposed to mean.
And they also work with people who don't take an intellectual approach to their production but rather follow intuition.
One thing is certain: it's a more heterogenous environment. I find that to be extremely stimulating.
Deciding to become an artist doesn't make one profound or conceptually interesting. Rather few artists achieve that. The starving artist community generally has not, which is why they are starving.
After all, how many TV shows you watch are "pretty intellectually profound"? And those artists are good enough to get paid for their work, most aren't.