/lit/ - Literature

>>13195549
If I were to hazard a guess as to why you think that isn't art it would probably be along the lines of "this artist blindly copies his forefathers and fail's to create what he truly wants". Right?
Partially, I agree. If what you see in the artist who made that is true, it isn't really art. For it to be art the artist has to communicate his emotions.
However, I think what you so arrogantly overlook is the possibility for an artist to feel genuine inspiration from the works of Michelangelo or Bernini. To express this inspiration and his own personal feelings in a unique piece is no doubt good art. To literally copy a statue (as there are many copies of famous statues made) is not art.
I think tkmz is very artistic for example but expresses an extremely unhealthy mind in his art.
Some modern art is genuinely awful though, despite being untraditional. There is no value to drawing a mustache over the mona lisa or concept artist Photoshop wizardry that rearranges premade assets and struggles to show the artists personal touch
tldr; fuck you roger scruton is based????