Now that the dust has settled, is it art?

'no'

No one knows what it means, but it's provocative.

I don't think the dust has settled at all and no it isn't

File: 15d8eb1c-b176-4551-8243-9c5eaf774a69.gif (253KB, 609x332px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 609x332px

>>2455830
It's a crucifix in a jar of urine created by a Catholic to deliberately test their sensibilities.

Not all art has to be a technical masterpiece, something executed simply can often have a more effective punch, especially with the right timing and presentation, and leave a lasting impact.

If at least one person calls it art it is, at least in some sense, art.
However, objests of art are valued, appreciated, or loved not because they are art per se, but because they are beautiful, insightful, interesting, or in any other way worthy of appreciation.
Therefore, there's nothing wrong in dealing with disgusting, insulting, or ugly art in the same way as you would deal with any other disgusting, insulting, or ugly object or act.

Yes.
Anything can be art if it's presented as such.

>b-but muh poo poo & pee pee

If you don't connect/identify with it, that's a-okay.
There's literally nothing wrong with disliking a piece of art.
The problem is fashy-babbys trying to outlaw everything that's not muh pretty pictures.

>>2455830
I often wonder whether kidnapping some "contemporary artist" and beating him/her into bloody pulp, while filming it all, would be considered art if one says it is. Hell, I would even write a manifesto or something for this thing.

>>2455830
No.

>>2455917
It could be. I'd dismiss it for the edginess, personally.

File: IMG_1381.png (966KB, 537x1160px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 537x1160px

>>2455830
Literally anything can be art

>>2455830
No, it's sacrilege.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhpTIqx9Jg

Yes, just gross and immature art

>>2455830
It's edgy for the sake of getting the artist known. He knew exactly what he was doing

From an aesthetic perspective it's a legit 10/10