/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4928763
You really are a brainlet holy shit. You didn't even refute any of my points.

A drawing of a photo realistic apple, person or tree is an objective thing you retard.

>Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

So yeah, you're wrong and retarded. Objective doesn't mean perfect. If you are drawing an person, to a photo realistic standard, there is an objective standard you are drawing from that is not subject to your personal opinions or believes. What's so hard to understand about that.

And the point still stands, just because there are instances of politics in art, doesn't mean that art is political. In your own example you have to twist and add shit to turn a drawing of a tree into a political statement, even though it's inherently not political it's a fucking tree.

You're jumping through so many leaps of logic "because a drawing is not perfect its subjective, because it's subjective it's subject to the artist personal opinions, because it's subject the artist personal opinions it's subject to their politics, therefor the tree they drew is political. That's the level of retardation you're on and it's built off of layers of false assertions and and assumptions. Even if something IS subjective that doesn't make it political, you'd have to include all opinions or ideas a person has under the umbrella of "politics" to make such an absurd statement.

The fact that you're calling anyone else a troglodyte or bringing up intellectuals is just sad irony.