/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3589571
>these two posts confirm to me that you did not understand what I meant, and it is most likely because you have never experienced it. You have never experienced art afaiac.
k
>Your understanding of "what is art" is therefore without substance, insight, respect, admiration all of the emotions it is supposed to stir up.
Your understanding of "what is art" seems to just be negation and contrarianism tbphwyf.
>You think art is a game anyone can play
It IS a game that everyone plays regardless of what any of us "think."
> because you have never had an experience that humbles you by the artists profound insight and ability to communicate it with a medium.
whatever you say bud.
>that is what art is
no that's what "good" art is.
>and frankly you are treating it like it is a concept without legitimacy.
There are plenty of perspectives that argue easily that all art is "illegitimate." On a cosmic scale literally everything we'll ever have done is. Philosophically there are thousands of years of debate about what, if anything, is "legitimate." I come from an absurdist perspective. We create the games we play. We give ourselves meaning.
>I am not impressed.
idk who you are.
>Making art is an actual skill.
And I'm literally the most skilled memeschlock artist in human history. it's lonely here in outer space.

>>3583533
You wouldn't.