>>10772482It's a bit hard to explain. I can link it if you want.
>people still go to museums and galleriesSure, but it isn't a requirement for viewing them like it was in the past. It could be said that, since people have computers on them 24/7, distracting them from what's in front of them, they're less thoughtful than they were. But I don't believe that. Like I said, I think it depends on the person. And I'm sure there were people who used it the same as those couples are using them now, with little thought to what they were seeing. Besides, someone who isn't more than an onlooker may not be able to put into words why they like a piece, but they still feel something about it nonetheless. And isn't that what art is?
>is art [...] declining as the years go by?It's hard to argue it's in decline, since there's more art than ever. And although the modern sense of 'marketability' is different, just about all artists of the past had some form of patronage or another, so they couldn't just make whatever they wanted to. It's always been heavily influenced by money, in other words. However, you don't often see the kind of stunning portraits you'd see then - the kind that look damn near like a photo, if not better, because there's a certain life to them you can't get thru film. Whether this can be considered decadence or simply the natural change in direction I can't really say.
Have you ever seen a digital artist's work in progress? While it's become vastly more streamlined than it was, it's still a feat of its own worthy of note.
>It's not silly, why would it be?Comix are usually associated with children. So, while the medium can be used in rather mature ways, it's still hard to escape that perception of it.
>I did not know that they dumped entire comics on /co/.It's tradition. It's the main reason I use it nowadays too. Of course, it's better to be there while it's happening. But this way, you won't have to use some sketchy site to read it.
