>> |
Anonymous
>>129862
No, you are only trying to adapt the meaning of art to what you think it's art. You are trying to objectivize (sp?) art, which is totally stupid.
Art cannot be defined in one only way. More so, you didn't tell me how Samura isn't art and Makoto Aida it's art.
If skill doesn't matter in art, you are trying to say that until the impressionists we didn't have art? What kind of reasoning is that?
Now, define art. You cannot define art, you cannot say that Samura, Aida, Brown, Slocombe or whatever isn't art because you would be trying to impose your definition of art over my definition of art.
Picasso isn't less artistic than Rembrandt, Manet isn't less artistic than Kandinsky or Bouguereau... There are different interpretations of art, different motivations to do art, and art adapts to the needs of the artist (give a political message, exalt beauty, be abstract, express feelings, whatever).
To try to chain the freedom of art to adapt it to your preferences is seriously retarded.
|