>>4109932>You are beyond tautology.Yeah, tautology is beneath me.
>degenerate artFunny, if snapshits can be considered art at all it's degenerate art because only a degenerated, diluted definition of art could ever mean
>Art is beauty. Full stop. Not up for debate. Any other definition is propaganda that justfies satanic degenerate works. Creativity, but not art.If art is not creation but beauty, how can you call Winogrand's ugly pictures "art"? In what way does this snapshit "glorify God"?
>Furthermore the definition is ludicrous. You can assign a real or imagined creative process to anything after the fact especially if the guy is dead. The creator themselves can claim a creative process after the fact. It's unprovable and irrelevant to what is before you. Is it beauty or is it not?It's clear cut when it's self evident. Photographs don't exist in a vacuum and all his undeveloped stuff is damning evidence. I'm also not the first to compare him to a monkey with a camera, I'm not alone in realizing the random nature of his work.
>Art is beauty. Nothing else. You can labor and be as creative as you want but it will not be art just because you worked on it.We agree that labor doesn't make art. Winogrand's work took tons of labor, and it doesn't make it art.
>I defend this position by claiming that art is defined by god, in the bible, and artistry is given to humans by god for his glory. The word of the creator of man, the earth, and the universe has more authority that a nerd writing a dictionary by asking his favorite people what each word means, I'd say.And who are you to call yourself a vessel of God's word? When did you ask God what art meant to him and when did he reply so we can all see it?
