/lit/ - Literature

>>6141998
>Not using the google search function to fix your files name

>>6049523

I agree with your point of view. In the century since Duchamp pulled down his pants, took a squat, and shit all over Western culture the majority of self-respecting artists have continued to innovate. And were it not for Black Square, you'd be correct.

But we don't live in a world without Black Square, we live in the world with it. And in that world "art" doesn't just mean Jackson Pollock and hyper-realism. When we as a culture decided to allow a signed urinal and a crudely drawn black square to be classified as "art", the flood-gates were opened. Skill and craftsmanship, aesthetic appeal, emotional resonance, none of that is important now.

In the world created by the painting you're a fan of, the only thing that matters is the intent. Every smeared turd on the wall, every dick drawn in a bathroom stall, every tree with a name carved into it, if it was done with the intent to cause a reaction of any kind in the person observing the piece is now a piece of art.

And by the criteria for what constitutes art that you yourself endorsed by posting that black square in this thread, modern art is a cultural wasteland.