File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Spencer Tunick photo
group shot at the Aletsch Glacier, 2007
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Interesting. Getting a bunch of people naked on a glacier seems pretty cruel though.
>> Anonymous
Sarah Palin constituents?!
>> Anonymous
this is weird, i've actually seen this glacier
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
<---Women only pics are more fappable.
>> Anonymous
>>419289

Think thats a loli in the lower left hand corner...hehe.
>> Anonymous
>>419329
if you look close you can see a beached whale.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>419289
This old geezer got a big one.
>> Anonymous
>>419436
haha, I was thinking that too, but I think he has erectile dysfunction.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
this could have been so much better in the third reich. instead they made sure that only hippies took part in this photoshoot
>> Anonymous
if an avalanche happens and 30 000 years later you find frozen butt in the ice. would you hit it?
>> Anonymous
ITT: Artsy-fartsy garbage.
>> Anonymous
>>419522
why do those so witless as to not understand insist of advertising their mouse sized awarenesses?
>> GreyDeath
     File :-(, x)
I found Waldo!
>> Anonymous
>>419564
Thanks Captain Pretentious, but there is nothing to understand here other then the tired antics of social humanistic hippy photographers and the like who fancy themselves artists, but are just sad imposters. If you think these worthless photos represent such genuine ideals as harmony, unity and liberation (which they are no doubt supposed to) then you’re just a sucker. Show me some photos of the sick being healed and the starving being fed, then you may have a point.
>> Anonymous
this is awesome.
Post more.
>> so sad Anonymous
>>419564

What’s the point of making such a sad charade of formality if you’re just going to use it to be another internet variety indignant prick? Do you seriously not realize what a fucking fool you sound like? I’ve heard people with more brains than you in their pinky finger be accused of pseudo-intellectualism for making remarks far more passable than that verbal pig-in-lipstick that you just shat out.
>> Anonymous
>>419564
Oh ya? Understand what? Explain the 'message' of these photos, without googling the answer.
>> Anonymous
>>419584

lol win
>> Anonymous
Art doesn't have to have a message.

And it certainly doesn't have to have a message worth of Anon. Hell, even if its got vagoo, Anon will probably not understand it.
>> Anonymous
>>419912
it is not possible to make art without a message.

Try again Anon!
>> Anonymous
Tonight on 4chan, people argue opinions like their facts!
Tomorrow on 4chan...
>> Anonymous
>>419919
Come on, you can't possibly not have noticed the way people these days create random, pointless shit in various mediums and try to pass it off as artistic or highbrow. I does get pretty annoying sometimes.
>> Anonymous
>>419919
Come on, you can't possibly not have noticed the way people these days create random, pointless shit in various mediums and try to pass it off as artistic or highbrow. It does get pretty annoying sometimes.
>> Anonymous
>>419919
Tomorrow on 4chan, you learn to spell.
>> Anonymous
>>420087
I lol'd
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>419999
people these days create random, pointless shit in various mediums and try to pass it off as artistic or highbrow.

Right. But Spencer Tunick began shooting nudes in different contexts right from the beginning. It became his style, he got better at it, sold his work, went digital, sold a lot more, acquired many assistants to help, etc. He is a successful artist and actually a very pure photographer. His work is theatrical and presumptuous like Jeff Wall. And because of the nudes and the ambitious logistics of assembling these mobs of people, he is famous and, therefore, controversial. His work fits many definitions of what makes good art.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Picture for Women

Jeff Wall, 1979
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420102
Ya that's nice, but here in reality a middling sketch artist has more talent in their pinky finger than this pretentious chump could have in ten lifetimes. This isn’t art. It’s crap, and people who think that the mere act of observing and pretending to appreciate it, means they have crap for brains.

See this picture I posted? Ya, that’s art.

THE END.
>> Anonymous
>>420102
and yet, no body cares...
>> Anonymous
guess "successful" is determined by how many people one can fool into paying real money for something... guess if ya can pull it off, then mo' powa to ya... and too bad for the fools who $bought$ into it...

but bottom line is this is what I like to call "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome...
>> the truth Anonymous
>>420116
perfect metaphor
>> Anonymous
In my opinion the photos are, ok, average even, in their artistic intent.
The act itself, a performance if you want to get technical, is way cool. When would you have a chance in your daily life to stand naked around hundreds of other naked people. The sheer strangeness of this experience alone would be worth a thousand visits to museums an about three visits to 4chan.
I will volunteer to do this if he ever comes to a city near me ... again (ouch)
>> Anonymous
>>420114
Academic art, you mean.

Which is long dead.
>> Anonymous
>>420319
Wow. You suck on so many levels... just like these photos.
>> Anonymous
>>420346
>>420319
well guess ya have to consider that "art" in it's most general term can be "anything"... a piece of poop smeared on a board can *technically* be called "art"... but I, for one, am not gonna shell out $30,000 (or any $) for it...

then you get "critics" and so called "experts" in on it and they build it all up thus making some people think it has some kind of merit or value (while other "art" doesn't) then the gravy train really gets rollin'...
it more about marketing ($elling) something as something meaningful then just making art for art's sake...

dunno, even tho' "art" can be anything, not all of it worth anything and which are and which are not "worth anything" is, of course, subjective...
so like whatever art you like but don't expect everyone else to follow along (or pay for it)... like these naked people photos... to me, um yeah, whatever. looks like pics of some naked peeps on some ice, big whoop... next please.
>> Anonymous
>>420114
This is real art. At least by my definition art involves creation via actual skill which is constantly improving in the act of expressing an idea of interest or meaning, to one's self or others. I do digital art for a living and am able to paint, draw, ink, in addition to the digital versions of said tasks. I personally can't stand when some interloper pulls some ridiculous stunt and calls it art. It's a slap in the face to anyone who has honed their skills in real art or anything else. There isn't a single person here that couldn't have taken those pictures. And the reason why that disqualifies it as art is because a person’s precise artwork is something that only they should able to produce. Even pencilers who copy others don’t come up with the exact same thing. However with these pictures once the people were gathered anyone could have clicked the button on the camera. So what’s this guy’s skill, logistics? lol
>> Anonymous
>>420381
Yet we don't have anyone here taking exactly the same pictures in the same magnitude. Your logic kind of backfires, it's not whether you "can" or "can't" do something, it's more about if you _actually_ *do* or *don't* do something.
>> Anonymous
100 years ago this was not possible.

Think of it in historical terms. This is modern art. This is art possible because of our time. Get used to the fact that art progresses. Don't get stuck with your pens and canvases. Think out of the canvas (lol). Get creative.
>> Anonymous
>>420392
My logic backfires? Based on your criteria anything you do is art. I realize figurative interoperations of literal things are all the rage in today's idiotic relativist society, but not everything you do can be considered art simply because you make a point of doing it. Twisting the definition of things is just an excuse to glorify something that takes no skill to do and is basically a farce.
>> Anonymous
>>420399
"but not everything you do can be considered art simply because you make a point of doing it."

really?! who says? the "critics"? the "experts"? your art school prof? why should I take anything they say with a grain of salt?

there is no "real" art and "not real art"... it's ALL subjective... it's all "Emperior's New Clothes" on some level...

I can claim that my NOT doing anything is my artistic statement.... that the very act of NOT creating art can be called "art"... I think I can have a gallery showing of *nothing* - and ya know, someone somewhere would prolly buy into it and think it was great.
again, I'm not paying money for it, it's stupid (to me) but it IS a form of "art" and can be called "art" as a general term.
>> Anonymous
>>420408

>really?! who says? the "critics"? the "experts"? your art school prof?
No. The dictionary. Regardless of how relativist fucks like yourself twist things there are literal definitions of the words we use.

>it's all "Emperior's New Clothes" on some level...
No it's not. There was a point to that story, and you obviously missed it.

>I can claim that my NOT doing anything is my artistic statement.... that the very act of NOT creating art can be called "art"... I think I can have a gallery showing of *nothing* - and ya know, someone somewhere would prolly buy into it and think it was great.
again, I'm not paying money for it, it's stupid (to me) but it IS a form of "art" and can be called "art" as a general term.
You could say it but it wouldn't be true. Calling something art isn't what makes it art. Once again, there is criteria outlined in the definition of the word 'art', that makes it a literal term.
>> Anonymous
farce is "Art" too!

"...is just an excuse to glorify something that takes no skill to do and is basically a farce."

funny, b'cuz this is egg-zak-talley the point I was making by saying "anything" can be and is "art"... but I, personally, wouldn't pay money for (i.e. glorify) most of it (including these naked peep pics as I'm thinking there really isn't much "skill" involved) - yet there are always others who might and do... and good for them... that's their bidness.

how are these naked peep pics any more a valid or meaningful artistic expression then my poop smeared on a board? is it b'cuz this photographer is somehow "famous" and I am not? that's all marketing... and marketing is a bunch of BS...

is it because somehow it took "skill" for this guy to get all those people to stand there while he took a picture and it took apparently took "no skill" to take a shite and smear it on a board?

I'm not really buying that - both literally and figuratively - I think there are uncountable number of photographers who could have easily done the same thing - they didn't only b'cuz this guy happened to think of it first...

...cont...
>> Anonymous
>>420419
...cont...

I went to art school and sat thru all the lectures blah blah blah about how this or that "Artist" is so great b'cuz of this or that and yet this other artist is just crap b'cuz of this or that blah blah blah...

it's all bullshite man, the truth is that in, reality, especially these days, and what's "all the rage", anyone can be an "artist" and anything can be called "art" - but that doesn't mean you have to like them or what they do (or don't do as the case may be) or even think they have talent - artistic or otherwise or, most of all, pay any money for it...

"art" it totally open to interpretation... it's totally open to subjective opinion... some think that some's opions are more valid then others but it's not really the case....

anyway, I myself look at a lot of "art" and think it's garbage and took no skill (as I actually have some amount of skill at drawing but it's olde school style, not this new hip crazy stuff) but I don't and wouldn't deny that in some circle somewhere that "garbage" actually is "art" to someone...
>> Anonymous
you really think so? that there is a defined, rigid definition for what, specifically, "art", ALL "art" is and what "art" is not. no matter what... no other forms of human expression outside of that DICTIONARY definition exist that could fall under the general term "art"...
really?
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
phew, sure is ENORMOUS POSTS in here...
>> Anonymous
"there is criteria outlined"
but many do not follow or subject (limit) themselves to that rigid outlined criteria... and they make something that I would still call "art" (again, "art" in it's most general/loose term)... but, at the same time, I most likely would like it or pay anything for it).

are you arguing somehting like the meaning of "theory" as it's unsed in general vs. it's use in scientific research?
I could see that - having been to art school, I could see that some, within the "art world" definition of "art" could draw clear lines of what is art and what is not art -- WITHIN the "art world" that is....

I just have a problem with "the art world" - IMHO "the art world" is full of crap and elitism and of course marketing BS...
and I'm a trained artist saying that - I'm calling bullshite on my own field - "bitting the hand that feeds" so to speak...

just out of curiosity, what is this "outlined criteria"
that so easily discards my "art" idea of having a gallery show of "nothing" or my "poop on a board (number 22)" "art"?
>> Anonymous
>>420428
yeah sorry about the word wall... just trying to get to the bottom of this "outlined criteria" that says that some tings are "art" and other things are "not art"...

I mean I went to art school and I don't recall it being so rigid - in fact, I was one of the ones calling bullshit on a lot of the "art" being made by other students and even most of the profs but I stopped short of saying what they were doing WASN'T "art" -- at some level...
I didn't like it, I didn't think it took much or any "talent" in some cases for them to do what they were doing but I still considered it "art"...
>> Anonymous
>>420431
There are about 16 definitions of 'art' on dictionary.com ranging from objective to subjective, the latter meant to accommodate the type of thinking you are referring to. However when I say there is a definition of art I mean that once upon a time there was, and that to me original definitions are what count. The literal definitions of words are a good reminder to people who get carried away with figurative interpretations to the point that a word loses meaning.
>> Anonymous
These photos suck balls. If the word 'art' is this open to interpretation due to sheer misuse of the word, then maybe people need to tighten up that definition.
>> Anonymous
"misuse of the word"

really?
>> Anonymous
>>420447
you're kidding right?
>> Anonymous
>>420381
"I personally can't stand when some interloper pulls some ridiculous stunt and calls it art. It's a slap in the face to anyone who has honed their skills in real art or anything else."

logic backfires b'cuz you are putting yourself (and your skills) at some higher level of achievement then someone who "just takes pictures"... or does something else that doesn't involve paint, draw, ink etc.


however I actually agree with you up to the point that you call what you do "art" and those "picture takers" and whatever else someone may be doing "not art".

there is no line - only the line you choose to make and it's perfectly OK that you make your line and you put these pics on the other side of that line

also photography is a form of "art" just as well as painting, drawing, etc. - has been considered such for a looooong time...

that guy who put huge pieces of red cloth around those islands - that was "art" - not my personal idea of art but it was art. oh how the people raved on and on about how this or that it was... whatever... but ti was still a form of "art"

same for the guy that "planted" a shitton of umbrellas somewhere (could have been the same guy, I dunno)... again it was "art", again, not my personal idea of "good or talented" art but "art" non the less...

guess your (and my) skills would be considered "traditional" art skills - painting drawing and the digital form of the same.
but I wouldn't outright say that umbrella guy wasn't creating some form of artistic expression just as this naked peeps pics guy wasn't doing the same...

but I would say that IMHO, both didn't take much if any "skill" and I don't like either of them.

but it's still "art".
>> Anonymous
>>420450
your definition is too narrow.
I'm thinking "art" goes way beyond the dictionary or art school definition. even I don't like it but it does and I can accept it... tho' does kinda' peeve me off a bit when these interlopers actually get paid tall coin for their crappy "art" but I'm still saying it is "art".

it's like that freedom of speech thing we enjoy - I don't like what a lot of people have to say about a lot of things but ya gotta defend their right to say it... but they have to do it on their own dime - also peeves me off when these interlopers get federal funding (my tax money) for making their [crappy] form of "art"...
>> Anonymous
>>420450
>>420440
too much to copypasta here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

but generally it pretty much says that pretty much anything can be art in some form or another...

but then again this is Wiki - can't trust it can we...
>> Anonymous
>>420440
so you sir, are talking about "traditional" art and the "traditional" meaning of what "art" used to be...

olde school art required some real skills and training and practice etc etc...

now-a-days, like I said, someone can slap poop on a board and call it "art"... and you are correct in that poop on a board most certainly is not olde school "traditional" art.

but again, by today's wide open standards it is "art".

so you just hate today's wide open standards/interpretation of what "art" is... in many cases I right there with you. most of what I see being called "art" is unskilled crap - but that's viewing it from olde school standards...

funny, with each new wave/style of art, the previous generation hated and dismissed whatever it was...
it's really no different today.
>> Anonymous
>>420468
I agree, but as you pointed out, there is a noticeable decrease in skill, at least in certain types of 'art'.
>> Anonymous
>>420515
well, decreases in "traditional" art skills maybe...
or maybe there are just sooo many people who have traditional skills that no one is really going to stand out these days - then add that traditional art isn't what's hot hip and cool so even less chance for anyone with these skills to stand out...

based on the fact that the population has exploded many many fold since the days of traditional art - 1400s? heck even since 16 or 1700s.... always seemed to me that way back then if you had some talent and were able to developed it you could have become a known famous artist (like all the ones we know and study today) much easier then trying to do the same thing today... current popular styles aside.
>> Anonymous
/copypasta
'Art is anything that takes a significant skill and insight to create, and which carries within its medium the means to express this skill in a way interpretable to an observer, thereby conveying it as emotion or insight.
Art does not need to be understandable by -everyone-. Not everyone will be able to see the structure, or derive the essential meaning, of a work of art. However, anyone or anything of sufficient intelligence will be able to interpret it as art, and appreciate it on some level.
Real art has criteria. It is an expression of emotion, skill and thought in combination, and can not do without either of them. Art that is emotional and skilled but lacks thought is doodling and uninspired. Art that is skilled and thoughtful but lacks emotion is dispassionate and empty. Art that is emotional and thoughtful but lacks skill is shoddy and without definition and refinement.
Real art is art. It is an expression, a thing in itself, that is -felt-. It is not everything that is thought-provoking or colorful or intriguing. -It- should be all of those things, but not all of those things are -it-. -Real- art has criteria, that even if hard to define are still -palpable-, and thus somewhat evident even to the unschooled.
And you know what? All this post-Dadaistic shit, this 'modern art', with aluminium sculptures shaped like phallic screwdrivers, pig fetuses, color inversions of celebrity photos, random word poetry, music made up of obnoxious industrial noise or words written on toilet seats? It's shit. Utter -shit-. Because everyone can -feel- that it's shit.
It's just that some pretentious, egotistic motherfuckers get their jollies by saying otherwise.'
>> Anonymous
>>420557
tis true
>> Irrelevent... Anonymous
moar nudes
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420557
the problem is that who is deciding if a particular piece of art lacks emotion or whatever else the criteria is supposed to be? and why would/should I believe them at their word? it's just an opinion... opinions, everybody's got 'em...

this seems really vague... still leaves it wide open to one's personal opinion/interpretation...

just the word crafting of this definition really seems elitist/snobby/highbrow to me - that instantly turns me off to whatever they have to say...

of all the pop art and modern art that I hate there are a handful of pieces I do like - one being Roy Liechtenstein's "WHAAM!"... basically just an enlargement of a panel or two from a comic strip... actually he did alter a lot of the specific details from the original comic strip but the general layout and such is all the same... we can probably say that it didn't take much talent to reproduce the comic strip, probably say it's not too thoughtful or emotional so by your copypasta definition it's not "art"... yet a musuem has it on it's wall, a reputable museum at that... so who made the call and do you take their word for it that it's official "art"?
personally, I like it and wouldn't mind having a copy hanging on my wall... I'd even go so far as to say I'd pay [*reasonable*] money for a good reproduction...
actually someone here on /hr/ a good while back was working on a vector version of it but never finished - or I missed the posting of the final version... whatever, if I really wanted to spend the time I could easily do it myself...

anyhoo, still think that today art is pretty much anything but anything isn't necessarily "good" or "skilled" art.

but some people will always want to draw the line and want to put things into nice neat boxes - if anything than to just make themselves feel better then the other guy...
>> Anonymous
LESS TALKING, MOAR GROUP NUDITY.
>> Anonymous
funny in art school I got into a lil argument with the prof essentially this topic... was a painting II or III class... anyway, my painting was more like a large album cover illustration (as my major was Illustration this made perfect sense) and that was what I was interested in doing as a job - things like album covers... everyone else in the class was doing "modern art"... one girl [poorly] made a huge huge canvas and proceded to cover it with black and dark green paint... spent weeks and weeks just going over and over the black and green. critic day day and everyone including the profs was just gushing and fawning over this huge black and green canvas - when it came to mine... no one liked it - said it was too "illustrative" (which to me was a compliment) and on and on blah blah blah...
the whole thing was complete bullshit. at least what I was painting took some skill to make it look like something recognizable... anyone and I mean ANYONE could have painted a huge canvas black and green but I dare say no one else in that room could have done anything like what I did... had a lil discussion about it with the profs later and basically told him that... anyone can slap a couple colors on a canvas, make up some story about it representing depression or some other moody emo crap and it was complete bullshit, complete "Emperor's New Clothes" that everyone thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread...
especially funny that later some guy approached the art school to find someone to paint a logo/emblem on the side of his WW I airplane he was building... the prof came straight to me as he knew all the other jokers in the class wouldn't have the real skill to do something like that.
>> Anonymous
you might miff all the photographers out there as the real hard core ones feel it takes heli-skills to take art photos... understanding all the camera settings, framing the shot, bracketing the shot, f stops, lenses, blah blah blah...
not just anyone can grab a camera, press the button on top and call themselves a "photographer"...
>> Anonymous
/hr/ - Philosophy of Art Discussion
>> Anonymous
>>420631
God yes, thank you. Those fucking artfag shills just love to push their bullshit without even understanding what they're doing.
>> Anonymous
>>420631
I get the same thing. I did movie poster illustrations in a Drew Struzan/JC Leyendecker traditional illustrational style for my college classes, and some students were bored with it automatically just based on the idea that that it is an "old" approach to art, and I am not breaking new ground, expression-wise. So what? I expect that attitude now, but when they bitch that they cant find work or buyers for their unique art, I'll be working on more commissions.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This guys is ripped.
>> Anonymous
>>420744
I play the world's smallest violin for them...
>> Anonymous
>>420631
>>420706
>>420744
Been there as well. I remember back in high school even then my art teachers tried to steer me away from cartooning, illustration and digital art, in favor of abstract and all sorts of phony modern crap. I was in my early teens at the time and I remember knowing that I would probably be the only person in those classes to go on and actually make money on my work while enjoying creating characters, environments, stories etc. I never took any post secondary because of all the horror stories I heard (i.e. that it just wasn’t conducive to any traditional art or in my case art descending from the traditional). Instead I just did my own thing and ended up getting a job in the game industry making the same amount of money as guys who had tons of schooling (and debt).
>> Anonymous
An avalanche with alot a death and blood would be great there! Can someone make with it?
>> Anonymous
I don't know if this is Art (OMG Art! Art! Art! fart! Art!!!)

But anyway, i like to watch nude healthy people, just like humans, and not in a disgusting porn.

ya know what i mean?
>> Anonymous
People can enjoy whatever "art" they want. They can enjoy it on whatever level they want, for whatever reason they want, and that's fine. People who try to argue about what sort of art others should like are cocks. I'm not usually one for "modern art" (as vague a term as that is), but if someone else likes it for whatever reason then great.
(I'm not usually one for "modern art" myself, but

>>421066
Quite agree. Moar (non-porno) nudes!
>> Anonymous
>>420744
Im in my last semester at college for fine arts and design. Its so full of shit, I could craft the nicest chair ya know that looks like an actual chair that you would purchase and its get slapped down. but if i made that same chair out of literal trash id be praised as a god for ground breaking work. All these ignorant dali wannabees are not going to make it in real art/design world.
>> Anonymous
For me it’s not a question of whether or not it’s ‘art’, since it’s become such a subjective term, and what’s in a name anyway? I also know that people do have the right to enjoy it, but therein lies my qualm: I don’t believe them. I think they are posturing themselves. That doesn’t mean I should try to stop them or set them straight by outing them as vacuously, pretentious, uncreative fools (even though they probably are). It just means that they’ll never have my respect as artists. If they are entitled to public expression of their garbage then we are just as much, if not more, entitled to criticize it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>421169
I will add something though, and this IS a judgment, so no offence in advance. In my experience when you create artwork in which the subject matter is grounded in the tangible directly or indirectly regardless of stylization of embellishment, this link to reality, no matter how fragile or blurred, provides even the laymen spectator a means by which to adequately judge. By creating art that is completely chaotic in nature and secretly has no point, the artist is willfully robbing the viewer of their right and ability to critique. If someone scoffs, the artist will simply retort that they ’don’t get it’, which of course they don‘t in that there is nothing to ‘get‘. In my opinion, this is the act of a meager ‘artist’ sneakily attempting to exempt his/her self from scrutiny.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
So much of this discussion is purely academic...I recall the first day of art history in college where the whole day was spent answering, "What is art?" and we kept referring to that discussion through out the year. But outside of the academy, in the "market", none of it matters. There are so many audiences, consumers, 'experts', and critics who have so much to say...
Like the above discussion, this is all very subjective. It ain't ancient Greece anymore...
>> Anonymous
>>421180
It's only subjective to the viewer. It has to be, since we can't read the artist's mind. However for the artist him/herself it is not. These are my albeit negative remarks:
>>421169
>>421175
If you strip away the rhetoric the point is simple:
That if art is defined chiefly by expression (which by all definitions it seems to be), then like all genuine expression it must be honest. If it's not honest, then it's not genuine expression. It's what we refer to as a lie. An artist who honestly expresses feeling, thought, etc. in their chosen media is just that, an artist, regardless of the outcome or the opinions of others. However a person who consciously plots to deceive, shirking the acquisition of skill, putting forth the minimum possible effort, and calls the result ‘art’ in order to profit from gullibility, is nothing more than a charlatan.
As I said, only the artist knows for sure whether or not his/her intentions are honorable, and for the viewer it remains a subjective matter. All the same that doesn't mean that this sort of charade isn't incredibly obvious in certain sad cases, because it most certainly is. Making a judgment in such cases is the right of the viewer and can hardly be viewed as brash or ignorant. People like to be dazzled and sometimes confused or even tricked within reason, but no one likes to be conned.

Sorry for linking that all to your post (>>421180). It’s my preexisting feeling on the subject and it wasn’t really meant to be aimed at you.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
crazy hips
>> Anonymous
>>421288
Hips /= ass.
>> Anonymous
>>422119
I believe you mean:

hips != ass
>> Anonymous
>>422140
Actually, 1/hips = d/dx e(ass)^x.