How do we define what a 'Master' is in our post-modernist

>>2926864
Objective criteria don't change. The status quo is yet to be renewed.

>>2926867
It's not objective at all you knob. Plenty of artists were considered masters in their time and later were brushed aside and knocked down a few notches, and some artists were derided in their time and later considered masters.

The term gets thrown around a lot these days and I feel has lost some of its meaning. In my opinion it should be held reserved for only the most highly skilled/talented/original artists of all time.

>>2926874
>it should be held reserved for only the most highly skilled/talented/original artists of all time
So basically you saying you can't be a master while still alive or what? Like some kind of saint status? That's fucked up, mang.

Is there some agreed-upon governing body or official title that gives people "master" status? No. Society and academia collectively impart the title to people who deserve it.

>>2926877

Nothing in his post said anything about dying anon

>>2926877
>So basically you saying you can't be a master while still alive or what

thats not what he is saying at all..

>>2926884
>Is there some agreed-upon governing body or official title that gives people "master" status?
Why yes! You too can be an ARC Approved Artist™ or Living Master™! All it requires is the fee for submitting your application, a set up fee, membership fee, an several more fees if you wish to update your gallery!

>>2926889
No but "of all time" implies you have to have a certain amount of time to reflect of an artwork's merit, especially if it should stand the test of time. (Which, obviously, can only be told by letting time pass.)

One only achieves master hood when they have seen the peak of their soul.