Art...

ok w/e bud

>>2355395
>it's an art thread
Everyone below this post and above this post are plebs who don't get art.

Art is an anagram of rat. Really makes you think.

Why is the cucumber on top of the bun?

american

File: 1486853841721.jpg (69KB, 1719x1719px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1719x1719px

>Entartete kunst

>>2355395
It's called money laundering.

DUDE ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE LMAO,

>>2355514
dude art is objective (my tastes just happen to be objectivity good) xd

>>2355527
objectively*

why is art so triggering to you fags?

https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
Is this guy right?
Ignore the pro Israel video this same channel made, focus on this

>>2355544
no

>>2355454
God is an anagram of dog. Really makes you think.

>>2355552
Can you point out where he's wrong fag?

>>2355395
Yes it's art. Dog shit on a plate is art. Doesn't Mean It's good art!

>>2355544
>conflates modern and contemporary
>argues for objective standards but never outlines any
try maeks u thenk

>>2355395
i like looking at this object, what does that make me?

im glad it exists but the system that created it makes me feel sickly

its shit that art cant exist in isolation, modern art is self concious of this to the point of autism, shameless commercialsim has almost become the bubble that protects it from reality in a perverse way

ALL art is inconsequential faggot shit prove me wrong pro tip you literally can't.

File: Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg (244KB, 968x1024px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 968x1024px

Is this the point where it all started to go wrong?

>>2355555

>>2355963
isnt dada supposed to be satire of how retarded art is?

>>2355839

Prove yourself right first.

File: 1486785645320.jpg (476KB, 1920x1087px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1920x1087px

>>2355395

>>2355986
The trouble with satire is that sooner or later somebody comes along who doesn't realize that it's satire, then they take it seriously and everything goes to hell.

>>2356029
>>2355986
>>2355963

The point of Duchamp is that he challenges the idea of what art is through satire

1) Art does not necessarily have to be made. Anything can be promoted to the status of art by the artist.

2) Art can be mostly about ~ideas~ and still be art

>>2355544

>Beauty is the sole quality by which an aesthetic object can be judged

How can you be this retarded

Art

File: 1438151576404.jpg (650KB, 800x1195px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 800x1195px

>>2356450
fuq

>>2355489
All art or does it just happen to be just the stuff that you don't like?

>>2356029

>meaning should be spoonfed to the masses

no

File: CompositionwithRedBlueandYellow.jpg (707KB, 1012x1022px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 1012x1022px

good art

>>2355963
What really differentiates Duchamp from later imitators is that duchamp could express the meaning and motivations of his art through (by artist standards) plain language. We know what the idea is behind readymades because he was more than willing to explain what they were for anyone who wished to interview him on the subject. It's hard to get anything of the sort out of artists today. Oh sure, they'll explain everything in interviews, but in impenetrable and often contradictory language.
Though of course I do not know if that's the fault of artists or simply that they are artists in times like these.

>>2356881
So touching, so deep...

Give this man ten million dollars!

>>2355996
>serves no purpose other than itself
>consequential in any way

>>2355544
>Can't tell the difference between a Pollock and his workshop apron.

You expect me to take this video seriously?

>>2355395
Are you implying that there could be any art greater than hamburgers?

>>2356914
Artists tend to be pretty clear when they're the avant-garde because it's on them to prove that their art is a response to the art that came before. Contemporary art isn't really the avant-garde anymore even though it draws heavily from post-formalism. That's not to say there is no good art being made currently but there's no real direction for it to be headed.

A big fake burger in a gallery has more to do with art than 19th-century paintings of women I can tell you that much.

The purpose of art is to cause reactions and make people think. The fact that you people get upset at looking at a signed toilet and discuss whether it is art or not makes it art. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or beauty.
Something becomes art at the exact moment when someone talks about it.

I am not an artist, I just stopped being mad at stupid shit people do.

>>2357464
>The purpose of art is to cause reactions and make people think. The fact that you people get upset at looking at a signed toilet and discuss whether it is art or not makes it art. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or beauty.
Your brain on cultural marxism

>>2356914
>>2357041

this is why high fashion is great, the good ones actually explain their stuff and it makes sense. rick owens' exhibitions are a great example

>>2357468
He's wrong but so are you.

>>2357494
Is he? Most if not all the people who I've met whom defend modern "art" seem to be indoctrinated one way or another into Marxism.

>>2357507
Marxism is a nazi conspiracy theory, it doesn't exist.

>>2357464
>The purpose of art is to cause reactions and make people think.
Awful definition buddy, think about it for five minutes.
>It has nothing to do with aesthetics or beauty.
Beauty? Sure. Aesthetics? Dead wrong.
>Something becomes art at the exact moment when someone talks about it.
This contradicts with your first line though

>It's another mouthbreathers who jerk off to baroque paintings cherrypick things they don't like thread

>>2357507
He's wrong in thinking art is for reactions and making people think is cultural Marxism.

>>2357512
False

>>2357518
He just pointed out how the faggot sounds like a brainwashed Marxist, which he does.

>>2357539
But he doesn't because Marxism in the arts does not result in 'art to make u think'

>>2357507
>>2357539
>everything I don't like is MARXISM!
fuck and I thought you faggots couldn't bubblewrap your opinions on art any more

>brainwashed cultural marxist
Nice arguments you got there, now fuck off to /pol/.

>>2357541
You are right, but it does end in uninspired shit being called "art", because Marxist don't have standards to which measure objectively, or rather they don't comprehend the relationship between skill and art (hint: they are practically the same)

>>2357548
>everything is marxist
How deluded are you?

>>2357543
I never said that, and that's neither an argument, care to share something of value instead of bitching?

>>2357550
You don't seem to be able to read or comprehend English friend, I've never said that

File: 1473095429821.png (433KB, 360x408px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 360x408px

>>2357548

>art can be judged objectively

How can you be so right about postmodern garbage and then miss the mark so hard? Jesus Christ.

>>2357548
The contemporary art we see today is the capitalist appropriation of a Marxist avant-garde that petered out at the end of last century. The skill and craft of art to the avant-garde (and really all art since the Renaissance) is based entirely on its theory. A bunch of bricks lined up in a gallery is good art; there's theory behind it based on the logical conclusions to formalism, in itself the logical conclusion to purity in painting. Contemporary art has no avant-garde and its struggling to find a theory. A burger is bad art.

>>2357560
It can, don't you remember that "art" comes from the Greek skill? Artist are meant to be skillful, and skills can be measured objectively, this is a fact.


https://youtu.be/rKhfFBbVtFg

>>2357551
You never said anything of value, even assuming you were the first poster I quoted. What sort of "argument" is "most if not all the people who I've met whom defend modern "art" seem to be indoctrinated one way or another into Marxism." Please substantiate this or make an argument of value yourself.

>>2357548
>objective standards
There's that phrase again. Will you be the first poster to actually outline any? Or will you just allude to the feel-good notion of them without providing any.

>>2357567
That video is bogus but not nearly as bad as his Picasso one.

>>2357569
I was agreeing with the guy that the group of people I've seen defending modern "art" are Marxist, nothing more.

Art is s skill, this are works of art that required skills honed by many years of practicing.

This is art, this are artist.


https://youtu.be/rKhfFBbVtFg

https://youtu.be/WKRKrpz09Fk

>>2357567

It is meant to be skilled, but you can't judge that in art. Sure, you can identify shitty art, but let's assume you have two pieces of good art. How do you "objectively" judge them to see which is better? This isn't sports where scores and stats show superior play, or durability and utility like smithing, etc. So what exactly are these objective criteria that you can use to decide what art is good or bad? All I can think of are things that are open to debate.

>>2357573
That's because he is objectively measuring the skill put into that painting

>>2356973
>>2356448
>>2355574
Are you guys memeing or do you really disagrew with him? I think he's completely based and just speaks common sense + truth. I'd like to hear what problems you have with what he said in the vid

>>2357582
Just because you are an ignorant idiot who can judge art, doesn't mean it can't be judged.

See the links posted above, to see how you can actually measure art/skill

>>2357580
I'd rather not waste time watching a youtube video that you've posted a link to instead of formulating your own argument to support your opinion.

>>2357580
Death of Socrates is famous because it invokes istoria, and Las Meninas is famous because it seems to question the nature of painting itself. It's not the skill of the rendering that makes something high art but the quality of the artistic theory. So history paintings ranked higher than portraits and landscapes in the Academy because they had more to do with a general truth of existence, and eventually it was realised the artist could evoke this same truth without relying on the mechanistic copying of sense-data.

>>2357596
My argument was already made in simple English, those links are what we call EXAMPLES.

Lmao, idiot.

File: 127434249438.jpg (1MB, 1280x945px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x945px

Art.

>>2357606
>Art is a skill
So say Malevich gets his brush license or whatever for being a demonstrably good artist. Then goes and makes black square. What happens?

>>2357602

You do realize there are thousands of paintings portraying Socrates death and royal families, tight?
So no, history doesn't make them relevant or good.
You know why these two paintings are above all others?

Hint:Skill

>>2357592

I asked you. Yes, clearly art can be shit. But I said assume you had two good pieces of art. How do you objectively decide which is better? Because it all comes down to taste.

It's like cooking. There is no objectively best meal. What tastes good to me may taste like shit to someone else no matter what skill or time was put into it. Same with art. We can agree that postmodern art is pretty shit and lacking in any creativity or skill, but that doesn't mean art can be judged objectively since you have yet to lay down any objective criteria to judge between two different works. Or account for different taste. Some people may like art that makes them think or fills them with awe, some may like art that is realistic, some may like surreal art, some may like happy scenes, some may want darker, etc.

Clearly a sandwich isn't art, but that doesn't make whatever you think is good art the only objectively good art there is.

>>2357616
Brush license? WTF are you talking about?

>>2357625
You can like literally SHIT (cropofilia?) But that doesn't make shit art or good...

>>2357632

That didn't answer my question. I asked for you to explain what the objective criteria for good art is.


Let's make it simpler. I have a Picasso, Bob Ross, and a drawing a 5 year old kid made. How do I judge them objectively to decide which is best and does not boil down to my opinion or subjective value of them?

>>2357622
There are thousands of paintings executed skillfully that aren't as famous as Death of Socrates or Las Meninas. The point is they're used as examples to highlight trajectories in art; changes in theory that coincide with new ways of thinking about the world (Neoclassicism) or early uses of self-reference in painting (Las Meninas). Why does no one analyse still lives, even though they are rendered skillfully and truthfully to nature -- arguably even more so than any of David's or Velasquez's works? Why is it that art was suddenly transformed when artists in Florence starting writing not only about the simple craft of making the work as it had been practiced for centuries but theorising how to make it a good work, i.e. what qualities should it have?

>>2357642
I've already explained what art really is, if you want examples I've already posted them, the Socrates death and Las Meninas videos explain the greatness of those two words of art, from the use of light to the meaning behind the simetry.

Check both videos, learn something new.

>>2357632
>Brush license? WTF are you talking about?
I was being dismissive, I'll rephrase into more autist-friendly literal terms.

Kazimir Malevich was a practiced draughtsman, comfortable with the human form, had a demonstrable ability to paint within the bounds of conventional for the time. He honed his craft as an artist. With that foundation he goes on to paint most famously Black Square. Is this still art, despite you probably not liking it? Should his status as an artist be revoked?

As an aside, what is the cutoff for what should or should not be considered art; impressionism, cubism, ab-ex...?

>>2357655
The qualities it "should" have is just skill, and that's what makes art good, the skill behind it. For a painter it goes from using light, to forms and even the idea skillfully portrayed.

Care to show me a Death of Socrates better than JLD?

File: 1474764099633.jpg (63KB, 250x323px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 250x323px

>>2357656

So, you have no objective criteria and are just pissed that a sandwich is art then. I feel you and get that, but then cut your stupid shit claiming art is objective when that argument falls apart because people can easily value different things in art.

Postmodern bullshit being paraded around as art doesn't mean you have to be a reactionary faggot who thinks art is objective. That and you clearly can't even name shit that would be objective so you're clearly spewing shit you have little knowledge of.

>>2357676
Because people value different things in art, that makes it subjective?
, Yeah feelings are not a measure for Worth, lmao. No wonder you still don't understand the point I'm making about skill, you are pretty stupid.

Warhol predicted this.

>mfw anti-modern/pomo retards still don't get it

>>2357674
The skill in rendering theory. Light and shadow, drapery, anatomy, expression, etc. are all a specific theory of art. If one is not attempting to create an illusionistic painting, one should not be judged on the failure to render an illusionistic scene because it is not a lack of skill that results in an absence of illusionism but a decision not to paint it.

>>2357669
If Picasso took a shit in the middle of a museum it wouldn't be art just because it came literally out of him.

Same for every artist, his measure as an artist come from his art, the skill he uses, a simple square that anyone can do or think is not art, just like shit in s Museum

>>2357692
Except if it was an exceptionally skillful shit it would be art?

>>2355556
Atheist is an anagram of a theist.
Really agitates those synapses.

>>2357691
>skills
So you agree there are skills involved.

Would you agree that some artist are more skilled than others?

Der Zeit ihre Kunst
Der Kunst ihre Freiheit

>>2357696
There's no skill in taking a shit

>>2357692
OK, so black square is not art. Where is the line, objectively speaking?

>>2357684

Yes, that makes it subjective. Because if someone doesn't give a fuck about lighting, what value does a picture utilizing it have for them? Maybe they like those cats painted by a schizophrenic and don't give two shits about a historical figure dying. Art is only worth what people think it is worth.

If you want objective worth, it's worth the paint and canvas it's on and that is it. What makes it more than a cheap paint and canvas combination is the value a person places on it. And that is entirely subjective. Yes, skill is necessary, but just as there is no objectively best cook that everyone will like, there is no objectively best art. Because these are things that people seek out for different reasons. They all want something different out of art.

And sentimental feelings is what makes art valuable. Because objectively it is paint on a canvas and cheap. What makes it anything but that is us seeing what the artist did with it and going "I like that" and putting a value that is very much subjective onto it.

>>2357700
I never doubted skill was involved, just that art is more than skill as I have been describing for a while now with evidence you won't acknowledge.

>>2357706
Artist where the first to draw correctly human anatomy for its study by doctors and medicine.
They where able to recreate the human body thanks to their skills, you are trying to argue that if someone didn't like those paintings for whatever reason, they would lose value.

That's the most retarded thing I've heard about the subjective measure of arts, lol.

>>2357702
There's no skill in drawing a line either. It could be that the skill involved in shitting has not been a subject of consideration because Vasari didn't publish Lives of the Most Excellent Shitters in 1550.

>>2357716
What could be more important than skill regarding art?

>>2357722
A line, yes no skill whatsoever there, a painting however takes A LOT of skill, specially paintings Ike the ones i mentioned.

>>2357720

Except that is a retarded example because clearly that art is valuable to doctors. So, the doctors would value pictures of anatomy a lot.


Try harder, kid. Because you're just shitting the bed now and making a fool out of yourself.

>>2357726
The realisation of theory, which is what I've been saying.

>>2357730
But it's worthless for the rest of people, if for example a farmer deemed the biology illustrations worthless for him, wouldn't make the art worthless in itself.

So no, you are still wrong, feelings are not a measure of worth, lol.

>>2357729
Drawing underpins most painting, in accordance with central Italian theory (Venice and the North had different ideas of art) that influences David. Composition and line, rather than colour. Drawing a line is easy, taking a shit is easy. Composing a line takes skill, composing a shit takes skill.

>>2357737
Explain in simple English what is realization of theory and why is it more important than skill

>>2357669
>what is the cutoff for what should or should not be considered art; impressionism, cubism, ab-ex...?
>>2357703
>OK, so black square is not art. Where is the line, objectively speaking?
Please answer.

>>2357742
Well you are now jumping from drawing a line to composing with lines, do I need to explain you the difference?

File: 1413450754395.jpg (38KB, 425x420px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 425x420px

All the pomos in the thread need to ask themselves a simple question.

Is art better or worse after skill was deconstructed from it?

>>2357744
You wouldn't have skill if not for theory telling you how to make a work of art skillfully.

Theory, the ideal (the divine), history, ideas of nature are all linked in the history of art. That's where they got their 'objective' value from, and why history painting is higher in the hierarchy of genres than portrait, landscape, still life, and genre scenes.

>>2357739

It does not matter if the art is worthless to other people. The art does have zero value to a farmer, but it has a lot of value to the group the art was made for: doctors. You are just proving my point that art is subjective. Because it means nothing to a farmer and everything to a doctor.

>>2357751
Painting a black square is not art, Cubism as depicted by Picasso is.

>>2357761
Worse

>>2357755
One presumably has to start drawing a line in order to compose a figure that appears in a scene (and is painted over). Composing a scene is just the extended drawing of lines, skillfully arranged. Composing a shit is just the skillful arrangement of shitting.

Objectively there are some shits that are just dumped out and other shits that are carefully constructed and controlled. If Picasso were to create one of these latter skillful shits in the middle of a museum he could be said to have created an artwork by the skilled manipulation of shit, in comparison to the unskilled treatment of shit by non-specialists.

>>2357766
Not that guy, but again with stupid definitions? Art isn't about the worth it has to other people. You're making nothing but circular reasoning and feeling smug about it.
>>2357778
What's the aesthetic imprinting in that supposed artwork?

>>2357770
This is good, a lot of space in between though, how do you feel about de stijl for instance?

>>2357782
The shit manages to have the face of Jesus.

>>2357764
Well now we are getting into what makes art an skill, and what makes an skill a skill.

I like it, but I will need to think about this one further, and I'm about to go out, I'll answer you later anon.


>>2357766
If a farmer deems for example the Sixteenth Chapple roof painting "worthless" doesn't make it so just because his opinion.

>>2357778
>>2357785
Respond to you guys later too, I'm late already.
Loving the discussion btw, anons.

>>2357772
So why do pomos keep deconstructing?

Do they think they'll find anything other than nihilism?

>>2357782

>Not that guy, but again with stupid definitions? Art isn't about the worth it has to other people.

If it isn't then you should pay cheap for art because it is paint on a canvas. That is it. If what people think of it doesn't matter, then there is no difference between a great work of art and a guy who throws paint on a canvas haphazardly.

>>2357790
This is not an answer, sorry.

>>2357796
>If it isn't then you should pay cheap for art because it is paint on a canvas.
What? Do you even have a basic idea of economics?
>That is it. If what people think of it doesn't matter, then there is no difference between a great work of art and a guy who throws paint on a canvas haphazardly.

Again with the circular reasoning. Stop assuming that art is subjective to validate that art is subjective.

File: 1474844433272.jpg (101KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x600px

>>2357791

>If a farmer deems for example the Sixteenth Chapple roof painting "worthless" doesn't make it so just because his opinion.

Exactly. And that opinion is subjective. Art is subjective based on the value a person puts onto a particular work. Jesus Christ...

>>2357793
The complete opposite; they'll find the Absolute.

>>2357807
>they'll find the Absolute.

Highly doubtful. Finding the Absolute requires that you actually believe in something sacred, which they don't.

>>2357805

I've yet to see any objective criteria for art. Use my example from before. I have a Picasso, a Bob Ross, and a drawing a kid made. How do I objectively measure which is superior? Because to be objective there must be no taste or opinion involved. By saying art is objective, you are placing it in the realm of science or math where an outcome is clear and cannot be disputed. And by being objective a person liking different art must be demonstrably wrong.

So, by what measure are we judging it? And it cannot be "skill" unless you have a very clear definition of what skill is that someone can't just say some other work of art took more or less skill.

>>2357815
That will only be sublated.

>>2357825

Actually, fuck that example. I have American Gothic and a Mona Lisa. Which is superior? Because in terms of skill American Gothic must be more skilled. There are two people, a house, a pitchfork, etc. That takes far more skill than just the upper body of one woman. But would most people think so? Probably not. And why not? Because the Mona Lisa has much more intrigue, it has much more value to people beyond some nebulous idea of skill and because art is not objective, but is subject to taste much like food is. If X food tastes like shit to you, it isn't objectively good. Neither is art which you just don't like objectively good art. These are things entirely in the realm of opinion.

>>2355963
did someone really piss on it?

>>2357825
>By saying art is objective, you are placing it in the realm of science or math where an outcome is clear and cannot be disputed. And by being objective a person liking different art must be demonstrably wrong.
You not only have no notions of economics, but of math either.
There's more in existence than total measurable sets.

>inb4 more examples that don't see the point
Omnis comparatio claudicat

>>2357866

Okay, so given I've still yet to see objective criteria for art, I realize that you're just floundering now. It seems that in your rush to dispute postmodern art, and rightly so, you took on the "art is objective" flag which clearly is not a defendable position. Because if it was so objective you'd be able to give some criteria that did not boil down to subjective opinions. Just as other objective things are demonstrable, so should this. And neither one of you has done so. The closest was a youtube video talking about qualities of art, not the value of said art or where it comes from. Truly a pathetic showing, mate.

>>2357877
Your arguments make no sense. Just because I haven't provided a subjective criterion doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Why do I even keep arguing with you? You're not only poorly Cultured, but also too assured of your position to understand how many logical missteps you make in every post.

>>2357884

You said art is objective. I wasn't asking for subjective criterion, but whatever these objective ones are. To claim art is objective, clearly there is something demonstrable that you could show me.

But the fact that you had to go "but you cant prove it isnt!" just shows how lost you are. You couldn't even give a single example or try to refute my examples when I gave a few different works of art that could be compared. Try harder, because all the posturing and latin phrases, and ad homiems to boot in the world won't change the fact that you didn't even have an argument beyond "you cant prove it isnt! It doesn't work for arguments for god, and it certainly won't work here for your "objective" art.

>>2357825
Use which one required more skill as a metric.

File: Creación_de_Adán_(Miguel_Ángel).jpg (53KB, 640x291px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x291px

>>2357806
In my example the farmer's opinion doesn't change the "worth" of the work of art
>If a farmer deems for example the Sixteenth Chapple roof painting "worthless" doesn't make it so just because his opinion.
This is clear and in plain English, and you seem to agree with me on the first sentence
>Exactly. And that opinion is subjective.

The Farmer's opinion is, subjective, but then you go on the complete opposite

>Art is subjective based on the value a person puts onto a particular work. Jesus Christ...


Anyway, I've figured it out where we defer and where my argument can be made in favor of art/skill, later when I'm in my PC I'll write how art and skill are not subject to the tyranny subjectivity, which already reigns unopposed amongst the ignorant and mediocre.

>>2355544
>Ignore the pro Israel video this same channel made, focus on this
I would've but then you told me to ignore it.

>>2355395

Art is just a craft with an asthetic eye placed by the crafter, onto which maybe an audience can find and debate.

People can't appreciate art if they're never exposed to it. Simply put, modern art puts people off because people don't have an eye for it.

People put anything "Classical" on a pedestal. Whether it be art, music, cuisine, or anything. It is a buzzword, one that gives the impression that this "classical" thing must be the medium in its truest form. How can modern rock be rock if it doesn't embody the same styles of the "classic" rock of the 80s?

It's this very principle that limits people's perception of art. They're only shown "classic" things, and those things end up being the benchmarks for them.

>>2357785
Oops, it was late, should have said something like "is de stijl defined as art?", though I just thought that if you publish your methodology I could do it myself. It would be interesting to see, for instance, which Turner paintings aren't actually art.

File: modern art.jpg (318KB, 815x748px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 815x748px

>>2355395

File: woman-parasol-madame-monet-her-son-7_3039.jpg (323KB, 1280x1614px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1280x1614px

>>2361028
>modern """"""""art""""""""

>>2355395
fart

>>2361028
art is a spook

>>2361028
So this is the power of Egoism

>>2356881
i like this

why do i like it, will someone explain

This post is art.

>>2355963
the problem with dadaism is that it's a concept real similar to, let's say, 4chan: now 4chan in ~9 years, if still alive, will be basically the shitty art that nowadays tries to imitate the concept of dadaism, while the concept of dadaism is really ephemeral and can not last this long without being exploited and emptied of its meaning because it's no more something "new", "fresh", a "scoop", something "shocking"

اللهיהוה道π

¿$$?

OP here, why is this thread still alive??

>>2363143
It reminds me of old comic books, maybe that's it.

>>2361028
that is not what stirner meant at all

standardization is practical and so, of all things, it is one of the least likely to be a spook

>>2357588
He says there are objective standards. He doesn't list them. If he were to list some, they'd ultimately be subjective.

You can't argue for objective standards without relegating to God, and saying God defines what is art and what isn't is stupid even for religions people.

>>2363208
>le stirner was advocating le kantian universal maxim meme

>>2362214
NGV

>>2365413
Yeah, spent most of the afternoon there the other day, went upstairs in between a couple of laps of hockney

>>2356973
This

I'm not even an artfag and I could tell immediately