Is a scientist with an interest in art less intellectual than a pure scientist because the former wastes time with non-science? Assuming both have the same IQ.
no, just because someone doesn't devote all of their time to science and math doesn't mean anything about their intelligence. In fact, studies have shown that people who take an interest in art have a higher-than-average intelligence.
>people who take an interest in art have a higher-than-average intelligence.
"higher-than-average intelligence" implies you aren't at least a hoodrat nigger or Indian poo-in-the-street caste, but that doesn't say anything about comparisons between highly intelligent individuals.
Art is gay anyway. Drawing pencil sketches etc. as a hobby to decompress is fine, but looking at pretentious shit in art galleries and acting like it's super special is stupid.
What pisses me off about the art community is how they will dismiss inspiring and detailed modern digital artwork and wank over shitty historical art or post modernist rubbish just because that's what's taught in their curricula.
Being cultured is liking whatever is the most elitist or fashionable to your hipster faculty in meme departments
Rather than understanding the line they tout but never seem to follow: "Beauty is in the eye of beholder." Such fucking double standards. Hypocritical hippies.
Fine, art is dead. I agree. I always knew my cousin doing a 'fine art' degree was fucking pointless, dumb bitch.
>as a group
Indeed, they all have to work together to do the same work as one white man.
I see intelligence as the capability to solve problems, and smart people interested in art sems to be more creative, the creativity which is used to solve problems in a more effective way. People who only stick in facts tend to be less open minded.