2 ms·
Commercial art? No, can't be art. Illustrations? Only if unpublished during the artist's lifetime. Commissions? Certainly not. Political art? No, just no. Relig
by musicale 2y ago
Commercial art? No, can't be art. Illustrations? Only if unpublished during the artist's lifetime. Commissions? Certainly not. Political art? No, just no. Religious art? Are you kidding me?!
Any arbiter of the arts will find that these handy guidelines readily facilitate the elimination and/or downsizing of unnecessary galleries and other non-art collections.
- scyzoryk_xyz 2y agoBoo - All I did was confirm the ick while acknowledging that we can, in fact, enjoy a cool thing for what it is - an ad. See, that’s the thing about this POV that the term “art” is placed on some sort of pedestal and then all the other forms are then compared against it. “How dare you say [other thing requiring effort] is not art!” Art !== artwork An element of art is that it functions for its own relationship between artist-work and maybe somewhat the viewer or participant. It’s neither better or worse, it’s just something separate from all of those ideologies. It just is, they just make it. They place it in museums so we don’t have to bump into each others’ egos. I will reiterate my belief: it’s foolish to wrap up art with corporate, religious or institutional patronage.
- musicale 2y agoI think you've explained your belief. But a definition of art that dismisses Michelangelo, Da Vinci, et al. seems unlikely to resonate with many artists, art historians, or art galleries/museums. On the music side, we'd have to dismiss The Beatles, Bach, Mozart, and probably most of the greatest composers and musicians of all time.