/fa/ - Fashion

>>12933486
>Art is literally just expression through a medium.
Everything is an expression through a medium, doesn't make everything art.

>Tacking on subjective qualifiers, like "exceptional", to that definition is self defeating.
Not if you have any idea of what constitutes art beyond preferences, tastes, feelings and all this other horseshit.

>Is it technical ability that makes art give you feels?
But we're not talking about what gives you feels, we're talking about what constitutes art.

>The masterful craft of modern art was in the tactful execution of an idea
It is not simply the execution of an idea that makes something art, but the means by which it is done. Otherwise instruction manuals would be considered art.

Protip: Art is a label used to signify a set of exemplary works. Some artworks are better than others relative to the level of complexity involved in their constitution. Complexity is determined by a famlily resemblance of relative conventions and techniques. Not entertaining any other posts unless I see some worthwhile arguments against this very basic definition.

>I almost called out that Numen guy for using the term 'modern' to qualify Mark Tansey. I just don't get why they insist on spreading their personal opinions when it just shows in their every sentence that they have never opened a book on history of art.
I'm not talking about art in the context of paintings, I'm talking about the concept of art. You can remove "modern" from that sentence if you like