/lit/ - Literature

>>10721790
>defeats the object of art entirely.
>So he indeed does have nothing to do with art.
no, defeating the object of art has EVERYTHING to do with art.

>if you examine more closely what some art critics have said with complete sincerity about art since Duchamp, there's much less to laugh about then.
I don't honestly care about what art critics have said since Duchamp, I care about what Duchamp himself said and did. Duchamp made a discovery about the nature of art, the boundaries of art, by making pieces that may or may not be art depending how you define art. that's an observation, an experiment, relating to art. it's not Duchamp's fault that art can't be defined, that's just something that he had observed and pointed out.

>Their form is extremely weak to me; they have insignificant form, borderline formlessness. I don't share your education. I'm not amused by mental jargon.
you aren't talking about whether or not it's art here, you're talking about whether or not you like it. you've decided the form is insignificant because it doesn't do anything for you personally.

borderline formlessness is still form, for one thing, a set of colours and shapes that produce a visual effect.

and I'm not sure why you assume that my personal enjoyment of art is to do with mental jargon, either, because in fact it is simply to do with art itself and the whole range of things it can do. I can assure you that I have genuinely loved paintings that you would downright loathe, for nothing other than their arrangement of colour and form. and I mean loved them while standing in front of them in a gallery, by the way, not just loved the concept.

our tastes are different. that doesn't mean that what you like is art and what I like is something else. we both like art, but we like different things in our art. I bet we can find a things in common though: pic related?

>Explain to me how something is part of the visual arts if it has nothing to do with the visual arts?
he has to do with the visual arts because he is experimenting with the experience of viewing, which is central to the visual arts.

>His crap only makes sense if you consider it from the perspective that he was interested in making a mockery of the arts.
he's making a mockery of the attempt to define art, because there is no definition of art, as you yourself are showing by arguing yourself round in circles, first claiming that art is purely aesthetic, and then that it depends on tradition, defining art as significant form and then significant form as... your personal taste.

>The "realists". The people who clearly care about the artform they work in.
to take just an obvious example, it's pretty clear that Rothko cares deeply about painting, precisely because he produces visual effect using only paint, paint that looks like paint, not pretending to be anything else.

>>10684231
Ophelia for reference.