Could heinous acts be justified under the guise of art? Could

>>2945112
been done

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs-qpVwKRU4&t=8s

start at 21:30

>>2945112
I think the definition of art is broad and vague enough that it could count. After the last century basically if you declare something as art it is considered art. Just because you can technically define something as art though doesn't mean it's good art, and it wouldn't be a legal loophole either to get out of murdering someone.

Kind of a stupid thread and a stupid question.

>>2945112
No. Art is dead.

Can shitposts be justified under the guise of art?

What do you mean justified?

If you cut off a great painter's hands and tell the judge it was art he'll just laugh at you and maybe send you to mental ward instead of a prison.

>>2945128
>a stupid question
I think it is quite an interesting question. Either you are really stupid, or I am.

>>2945186
I mean culturally justified.
Artistic expression is such a volatile energy that I suspect if one was to become completely engrossed by its lure, that it could be difficult to stop anything and everything becoming somekind of "beauty", and thus one would lose all other bearings... Such as: reality

>>2945217
I think it can be interesting to discuss what defines art, but the way he is framing it here makes it seem like he's just an edgelord that is trying to laugh at it being art or something.

>>2945173
not but trolling coud

>>2945126
right click and copy url at current time. dumb nigger.

>>2945112
>ivantheterrible.png

Podesta confirmed for /ic/ shitposter

>>2945248
underrated post

>>2945112
It's called being pretentious. The only good art is the one that's build on technique and forethought.

>>2945112
"Anything that evokes emotion is art"
So to some it would be; to some ratemyshit.com is a gallery of art. It's all subjective, sadly.

>>2945112
No. You would be correct to say that sort of thing would be "under the guise" of art and not actually art.