So {this particular artistic expression} is bad because why?
Because Hitler didn't like it? I don't like a lot of things because they conflict with my cultural upbringing, that's not a useful metric to judge the market value of something
Because art can be used for money laundering? Does that make all art suspect because it's value may be inflated
Art isn't unionised, if you don't like it you don't have to paint like that or buy it equally art doesn't have to be decorative, how many pictures of idyllic tree lined rivers do you need now? If you want art to mean anything then art has to reflect culture, if you find culture abhorrent then the solution is to change it. Getting angry at Rothko isn't going to change anything
Everybody is an "art critic"
That's like saying everyone is a theatre critic, even a Somalian who doesn't speak the language or understand the cultural references or even the point of someone talking about a long dead Prince of Denmark for 4 hours, and that's before anyone gets rated for their acting ability. People can have an opinion, but their opinion usually has zero worth as an objective critique
Oh please fuck off with that shit. I know the difference between actual art and a Jackson Pollock. I don;t get lost in the weeds of sophistry because I have SENSE.
I know the difference between actual art and a Jackson Pollock
no, you have stuff you like and a literalist sense of what art should be defined by that preference
if other people like different stuff, does that make them wrong?
Yes. Them liking shitty stuff makes them wrong, because of their shitty taste. Subjective opinions can have objective arcs.
(post is archived)