3 ms·
... 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
by 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.