>>4101889>Why? WHY? You can't answer. You just keep repeating it.Because art is conscious creation.
>Because: It is irrelevant to the result, it is irrelevant to what you see. It can be imagined into and out of existence after the fact. Only the end product of art can be judged. Nothing prior to your viewing or experience of the art has anything to do with it unless the history of the presentation is intended as part of the presentation, capiche?When the end result betrays the process behind it, yes you can. An obvious snapshit is an obvious snapshit. See the picture in
>>4100900.
And the concept that art has to be beautiful is the most backwards I've seen in the entire thread. Take the grotesque baby from David Lynch's Eraserhead, for example. It's not beautiful in any way but it's a work of art nevertheless. Or take much of the imagery in Dalí and Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou. It's shocking imagery but undoubtedly art. In fact I would argue that unlike the world of still photography, nearly all of cinema is art.
>The way art was made is irrelevant to what art is, because that is an optional and often unavailable part of the experience you have when experiencing the art.That's only the case with photography and that's why its status as an art has been debated from the start.
>I reckon you are not an art critic. You are an artist critic. The lowest of the low, the smallest souled of the buggiest men. Art is beyond you, you compare penises.kek, I reckon you're coping.
