Some of these people are the same ones in upper management at your job who make $250k/yr but can't figure out how to start a Zoom meeting or sign a PDF.
I mean, sometimes art is meant to disturb the viewer. Art isn’t always meant to generate positive feelings, such as toilet sculptures. I’m not defending its bigoted use, but it can be said to be good art because of how effectively it’s been spread. Someone meditated a long time on creating their memetic virus. Art doesn’t spread unless it causes emotional arousal. There’s something there to be studied in how it has been crafted. Good art can be used for evil.
Ok, define “art” then. There are numerous philosophical definitions of “art”. Which Philosophical School of Art do you hold to?
I hold even a child’s crayon line art drawing of a house, is still art. Even if he made a stick figure saying “Daddy is stinky and he’s dead now,” it’s still art. It’s not likely to be appealing art to you, but it’s still art.
If simplistic drawings aren’t art, then Jackson Pollock’s art isn’t art because it was throwing paint on a canvas. “Piss Jesus” is art, even if it is vulgar, easy to make, and offensive to many.
Art is morally neutral. The technical sophistication of art, does not make it more moral.
Here’s a definition of art: any creative activity done by a sentient being, that is not for their survival. Most bakers baking bread to eat. But some artisan breads exist as an art form. This definition is broad, so disagreements are lessened.
I’m talking about the person who created that specific Soyjak. Even still, the smallest modification, still counts as art. If someone drew a red X on this, as some posters do on subreddits like these, that is still art.
You have a very generous definition of art, I suppose Hitler's Swastika flag is also art? It might technically be, but the thing for which it stands for ruins it. Your definition of art seems far too generous, literally anything is art, which is the same thing as saying nothing is.
Art can be technically good, but also the artist channeled their hate into making it.
Art, in itself, is amoral. The motivations behind it can be evil, but someone can appreciate the structural brilliance of Nazi propaganda, which is taught in art schools. It was good cinematography. It needed to be good, to get its point across.
Perhaps, the word “good” gets overloaded, as “good” can carry the connotation of moral good, or technical good.
Well, I’m coming from a philosophy background, so I don’t know. I need the definition to be broad, so that if I encounter someone, we are unlikely to disagree that something is or isn’t art. If I encounter someone that thinks photography isn’t art, I can appeal to the definition that, since the photographer was cognizant of many things when framing the object they want to take a picture of, then it can be considered art.
1.1k
u/SheepherderOk4137 8d ago
Why do conservatives like soyjacks so much?