4 ms·
> nearly all of the art anyone sees See comment above.
by Terretta 1y ago
> nearly all of the art anyone sees
See comment above.
- estearum 1y agoYes you're just restating my thesis but with the air of disputing it.
- WhyOhWhyQ 1y agoBuddy your thesis is that art does not exist because of capitalism. That is a ridiculous 'thesis'.
- estearum 1y ago... what? Not sure how you got that, but no, that's not what I believe. Here, I'll restate it: > Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold. > Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.
- ricardobeat 1y agoWhich is why the original comment you replied to characterized it as content and not art. But this has gone pretty much full circle already.
- estearum 1y agoSo apparently: The Sistine Chapel: Content, not art The Mona Lisa: Content, not art The Guggenheim: Content, not art David: Content, not art Geurnica: Content, not art Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67: Content, not art I understand why the original comment said it, and my response is a simple explanation as to why the original comment was very obviously incorrect.