>originally intended as a critic for modern art being literal

>>1908226
>it was just a prank bro :^)

>>1908226
>people defend it is not shit
>don't get that they are the exact type of person being called shit
oh the irony

>>1908226

>>originally intended as a critic for modern art being literal shit

thats not entirely true, it was more of a questioning of what art even is and in what context ot even exists, in the spirit of arte povera and duchamp, things like 'everithing a artist does/makes is art', which then developed into 'everithing anyone does is art' and also in a sense it was a way to troll critics, not in the sense so much of trying to be insulting to them but to sort of make a exemplary demonstration of how the whole system works and what it would do with literal shit just cause it was conceptualised into 'art'

there were many such shenanigans in conceptual art, and a whole movement questioning the concept of art

>>1908262
>but to sort of make a exemplary demonstration of how the whole system works and what it would do with literal shit just cause it was conceptualised into 'art'
So if an artist points out that critics will eat up anything labeled as art, because an artist made it, it's profound.
But if a regular person points out that critics will eat up anything labeled as art, because an artist made it, it's just the philistines acting up again.

Or, in other words, it's meaningful only as long as an artist says it. How deep does this go?

>>1908226
Being criticism of modern art doesn't make it any better, that still makes it shit because I don't give a fuck.

>originally intended as a critic for modern art being literal shit

source?

>>1908262
and for this reason it is inaccurate to say modern art is about making low-effort objects in order to sell, when so much of modern art (at least the conceptual artists) attempted to escape commodification and the art market