>>4094270It's not just over his head, he is being deliberately obtuse. It shows that he knows full well that his arguments have no merit.
Art is not some sacred chalice that only those who say the right prayers may partake of. It is not owned by the Museum of Modern Art, it is not owned by the Tate or the Louvre. It is not owned by over rated, over priced art schools nor pompous critics and reviewers. Those are all just business concerns who are more interested in product than in art.
Art is democratic. Democratic and free
Art is open to everyone from the day they are born until the day they die and they are free to use it a vehicle to express themselves in whatever way that moves them and in whatever medium they see fit. As has been the case since primitive man first mixed blood and ash or whatever it was and smeared it on a cave wall in the vague shape of an animal.
This of course means that there will be a lot of art that anon doesn't care for. That is fine, he won't ever know of its existence, it wasn't done for his benefit and he is free to make his own choices anyway.
It also means that neither art nor the people that create it are special. A tiny handful will go on to become renowned for it but for most others it is just a hobby, a way to relax after a shitty week at work, perhaps to exorcise their demons or croon their feelings to the object of their desires. But it is every bit as genuine as Van Gogh or Picasso or Gursky or Crewdson. It just doesn't have the same market value.
Unfortunately for anon this rips the rug of self-appointed artistic elitism out from under his feet. It enrages him because, as a nophoto in an age where every man and his dog are clamouring for attention, he has nothing else to separate himself from the herd.
He could always get a camera and find satisfaction in producing his own work. The problem he has with that is that he knows full well that he can't create anything that meets his own definition of art.
