No.8178
what takes precedent in determining what is or isn't art? what the creator says it is, or what everyone else says it is?
i make drawings and paintings from time to time. i don't consider them to be art, although i colloquially refer to them as art sometimes because that's just the blanket term most people use for this stuff. i just think of my stuff as paintings and drawings. just because an image was rendered by a person doesn't mean its a work of art, sometimes its just an image. not all drawings are art. not all paintings are art.
i am in no way comparing myself to him, but what would you think if, for example, rembrandt said that his paintings weren't art, but he still had the same reputation he has now as a great artist? would his stuff still be art even if he insisted that they weren't?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8179
Art history and art semantics are a fucking stupid discussion to have when the kind of stuff lauded as high art these days are often "ready made" pieces of shit and/or trash presented by people that have been dangling from Duchamp's nuts for the past century. Call it whatever you want, it is what it is. Focus on what you're about and what you want to do and let everyone else suck a dick for all you care.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
