5 ms·
You misunderstood my question. I asked, "Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non
by phoe-krk 7y ago
You misunderstood my question. I asked, "Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent?", with a stress on the "I".
I find it worthwhile to listen to people who describe what touches them and what they are indifferent to. However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point of view, which I personally find silly due to the fact that art is an inherently subjective experience.
- coldtea 7y ago>However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point of view, which I personally find silly due to the fact that art is an inherently subjective experience. I don't think that's settled. For that matter, I don't think that's true.
- ulisesrmzroche 7y agoIt’s not inherently subjective. There’s good and shit. Like how there’s good code and shit code.