>"rap" >art Why do people think that every little

music is barely art
why do you even talk about rap? it's not even music, thus it's even further from being art

File: arté de Xavier Dolan.webm (3MB, 742x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 742x720px

Is this art?

my dick is art

>>74206501
alright, i have a pretty long winded response to this. rant inbound:

no

>>74206501
"Art" isn't synonymous with "good" you fucking retard. There is such thing as bad art, believe it or not.

Every example you gave could be art.

>>74206557
no

but the film as a whole is art

you wouldn't call a photo of a 1cm by 1cm piece of the Mona Lisa art either

>>74206626
i'm sure loads of people would, lmao

File: art.jpg (53KB, 853x475px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 853x475px

Is this art?

File: art, according to mu.png (1KB, 23x18px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 23x18px

>>74206632
>>74206632
>i'm sure loads of people would, lmao

>Not art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGENt7UbSyw

PUBLIC NOTICE: THIS THREAD IS NOW A GALLERY

ALL SUBSEQUENT POSTS ARE ART, AND PART OF THE EXHIBITION

ENJOY THE ART

>>74206663
that'd fit right good in an modern art museum alright

>>74206663
this is unironically good art, anon

>>74206659
only if they start eating eachothers asses

>>74206663
>he doesn't get it
Top pleb

Literally anything can be called art as long as some institution says so. It's not up to any of us to decide, but highly nepotistic gallery owners and academics. However, how relevant really is the distinction? I'd argue the distinction between good and bad work is the one we should focus on

>>74206501
pleb

>>74206616
elite

>>74206808
you too, elite

>>74206808
>Literally anything can be called art as long as some institution says so.
Sure, and you could call literally anything a dog too, but unless you want the word to be meaningless there are obvious limits on what a word describes.

>>74206501
grow up

>>74207503
I can't think of anything more childish than being unable to discern art from not-art.

>>74207574
Thinking art can be objectively identified is definitely more immature though

>>74207617
>Thinking dogs can be objectively identified is definitely more immature though
See how silly this sounds?

>>74207489
That's an awful analogy, my man. "Dog" (the word) has a crystal clear definition that is basically immune to misunderstandings. "Art", on the other hand, couldn't be a more polemic concept. Also, "dog" refers to a being in the world, meanwhile art is a way to qualify a being

(you)

How are video games not art? They're written out and creatively developed and popular music has just as much studio input as popular video games. And indie games, just like indie music, is usually made with creative and artistic freedom

>>74207655
>>74207639
It would be a better analogy if we were trying to objectively identify "cute dogs." Some people think pugs are cute, some think they're ugly. "Cuteness" just isn't a 100% objective quality.

>>74206501
Fix your nigger brain you doofus.

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

>>74206708
They do, if you had seen the movie. Was an aight flick, but overhyped.

File: 7EA92FDB-2355-4293-872C-2F66754B6E1C-6515-0000099EF1F42067.jpg (370KB, 510x795px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 510x795px

>If I scribble a few lines on a piece of paper, that's not art.
Sure it is, you could be making Ovskum album art that way

>>74206501

>Video games are not art

why not?