/fa/ - Fashion

>>11390793
Yeah probably, this part especially:
>Context. Very little art is simply "pretty".
I knew it was typing it but I was too lazy to put in the effort to reword it. it's not even true really, it implies that critical content takes precedence, when it's really distinguishing 'beauty' from simple 'prettiness', acknowledging that content is a factor in that beauty (ie knowing the narrative behind a painting contributes to understanding it, but you don't need it to feel its emotion).

also seeing it in person is relevant. they're paintings, not digital drawings - I've not seen anything but malevich's sketches in person but the brushstrokes in black square are brought up in every commentary on it, if it's anything like rothko, i can see how it's relevance.

I'm surprised 4 separate anons defended me for being a pretentious cunt. that's never happened before. pretentious & cunt is pretty on the mark, though don't conflate smugness and wrongness, pleb