/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3220957
>Seurat
Again, you are just providing more and more artists that used the refined language of art to convey their own interpretations of hamartia (the tragic human flaws) and the human tradition. None of these people did anything like Malveich or Duchamp, the wonders of the Nazca are literally highly refined drawings that fall directly in my definition of art

Michaelangelo criticising the status quo wasn't a "fuck you patriarchy I'm going to stick spaghetti in my ass", it was his vision of a better world and more sympathy for human nature conflicting with the austerity and contradictory nature and callous punishment meted out by the church.

>modern "artists" appreciated old art
Yeah, that doesn't refute my point. They are conceited because they see this language, refined across centuries and (in my opinion) elevated to extreme heights in their homeland of Europe, they see the same established language used to express the ethereal subconscious that was used in the cave paintings of Lascoux, the same language used by the Maya, the ancient ice age Pagan art like the Löwenmensch Lionman, the Egyptians who influenced and formed the foundation of the art of the Greeks who influenced and formed the foundation of the art of the Romans, onwards to the heights of Michaelangelo etc, they see all this incredible language and think they're superior for rejecting it and starting their own "language" (which is impossible to read with any clarity, it is entirely subjective, hence why my sandwich could be called "modern art" if you projected enough psuedo emotional invective onto it and gave me millions of dollars and awards).

>>3220960
No it's not. It's pigment on a board. There is nothing figurative or sculptural about it, it is graphic design with some message attached. It uses none of the language that Miro was conversing in. If I belch, then write a treatise of the deep meaning of my digestion, does that count as Music to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach?