/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3310835
>you can just imply that you deserve it by making up deeper meanings for your work. Genius, right?
Pretty much yeah. That's what most modern art is m8. Hammer a knot to a wall and sell it to a money launderer for $2 million or whatever. The ONLY thing that matters is the subtext. Your infantile understanding of "skill" stopped being important like 150 years ago, with the invention of the camera. People like to buy art when it gives them something to talk about. A PERFECT hand-drawing of a face, with no "deeper meanings," is worth nothing to anybody. It's not "art." It's "practice."

The most famous portrait in the world is primarily remarkable for the inherent ambiguity behind the expression and mystery about who the subject actually is. It isn't regarded for being a perfect or flawless execution of technical skill. It's a frumpy woman kind-of-smiling in front of a generic background. Genius. Right.
>But uh oh. You ran into a problem.
I like how you openly think about yourself as "a problem." Solid sense of self you got there m80.
>You can fool some people
BUT NOT YOU! You know all about how to lie. You trace and say you hand draw! You claim to be an artist and have nothing to share! Can't shyst a shyster.
>but anyone with the same hobby will see how hollow you are.
We don't have the "same hobby" friend. And how much would you say you're projecting? On a scale from "a bunch" to "entirely?"

You've already self-identified as "we." While compulsively refusing to demonstrate ANYTHING to demonstrate that you "deserve" to. The reason I keep engaging with you is that there hasn't been a more "hollow" anon here. You try so hard and for what?
2 of 3