>>14009913and what exactly are my pretensions?
a painting that is technically proficient alone is not enough
a sketch by a robot is technically proficient, that doesn't make it good
a work of art can be technically amateurish, but still qualify as being brilliant by sole virtue of the soulful quality it has
I'm not talking about 'meaning' in the primitive way you mean; what I mean is it has to 'mean' something:
>beauty>form>feeling>emotion>experiencea work of art is an artefact which encapsulates a part of someone's soul
it has to MEAN something, even if it conveys no message
