It’s in the other thread. By now both are so long and interwoven that I lost track of where I said what. Here’s what I said for reference:
I know that if taken to its limit, my argument would become elitist. I’m not trying to go to that extent; my problem with this video is that the guy takes his argument far too close to the limit. It’s not like late Renaissance or classical art is the only possible pinnacle - there are infinite possible expressions of the principles of human aesthetics that don’t necessarily conform to the biases of the European Renaissance. I often find that something a little more abstract is more appealing than something that tries to be a photorealistic rendering of the world.
But at the same time, I’m not willing to accept just anything as art, merely because it has been signed by an artist. I do feel that doing so diminishes the enormous effort that “real” artists have put into their work, by comparison to things that seem no more than a lazy call for attention with no artistry - no mastery of a medium, no skill being applied - behind them.
I hope I’m getting my point across? It’s not even that I object to these things - it’s that I find the juxtaposition difficult to accept.
