Quote:
|
Originally Posted by $5 submissions
But how do you counter the allegation that "art" is manufactured by "elite critics"? Whether its Matthew Arnold (1800s) or Clement Greenberg (he pretty much made Abstract Expressionism "cool")? Is there an INNATE basis for art? In essence, WHICH reality do we believe?
|
Art is totally manufactured. I think Picaso's works are pieces of shit. However, someone, one day, way back when, said his work was genius. Someone else agreed. Then more people agreed. Now his works are priceless.
I may also think Shakespeare is a hack. So what if someone, one day, read into Hamlet and found some deeper meaning based on a certain phrase. Then someone else "realized" a deeper meaning in "How do i love thee". Pretty soon you have school systems teaching Shakespeare in English class because he was a genius.
Fuck that.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" -- that's what should define art; pretty much what 2HP was saying.