4 ms·

Is it still art, if it cant offend anyone anymore?

• cratermoon 3y ago
  If it afflicts the comfortable or comforts the afflicted, it's art. If it does both, it's Fine Art.
  • whatshisface 3y ago
    Who in power did Rembrandt afflict?
    • JKCalhoun 3y ago
      (Of course we will assume that Rembrandt's works are art.)
    • andsoitis 3y ago
      > Who in power did Rembrandt afflict? The Nightwatch was controversial because of its unconventional composition and departure from traditional Dutch painting conventions. His “Bathsheba at Her Bath” caused trouble too. Hendrickje received three summonses from the Reformed Church to answer the charge "that she had committed the acts of a whore with Rembrandt the painter". She admitted her guilt and was banned from receiving communion.
      • whatshisface 3y ago
        They should go back to having arbitrary and tightly held beliefs about how paintings should be so that nice things can be fine art again.
  • otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    Most art is for communicating the sublime (i.e., the proverbial "ceremonial purposes" of archeology), not for something as base as comfort.
• justapassenger 3y ago
  Is sneaking in to take naked photo of someone and publish it a photography?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• swayvil 3y ago
  It's a gradient. On one end it's invisible. On the other end it literally flays the flesh off your bones with offensiveness. These filters that we're creating are a tool for tuning the feed. We'll want that when we really get the tech dialed in and start creating parrots ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story) ) and divinity-importing-mandalas and such