> I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. You are

> I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. You are letting them off too easy. Have you ever seen a photograph that looks like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAAeM/9fYC580Og5E/s1600/beksinski_artof_03.jpg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAA... ? Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/media/File:Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Abtei_im_Eichwald_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/medi... ? Or https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb42610152017d94da8b0.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb4261015... ? The modern styles void of any aesthetic appeal are by far not the only ones photography has not supplanted. The layperson may be excused for thinking art's only goal was photorealism, but when coming from experts, that is a deliberate lie, used to ridicule anyone that dares complain how beauty was excised from the modern art world.