>>12054157If you're just going to keep making shit up, I'm not going to continue having this conversation with you. The reason the Mona Lisa is in a museum where as macaroni art isn't is because most people find more value in the Mona Lisa than in macaroni art. Does that make the Mona Lisa objectively better than macaroni art? No, it actually doesn't. The parameters for judging art are arbitrary and are only based on things which commonly people find appealing. Things like symmetry, balance, composition, etc. However, these things do not actually make them better, even if you were to attribute these qualities values based on how symmetrical, how balanced, or whatever the piece is. The reason for this is because people will still have an opinion as to whether or not they like it, frequently because of how importantly they rank the different parameters on which you could judge art, or because they have certain predilections in terms of the way they judge art.
For example, if someone's favorite color is blue, they'll probably like a painting that has a lot of blue in it. Possibly because they like the color blue. Is blue an objectively good color? Of course fucking not, it's a goddamn color. People like what they like.
So yes, you can judge art, based on arbitrary parameters, and you can even say "most people think x is good", but that doesn't make it objectively good, because, once again, that's not what objectively means. I'm going to repeat this again. That is not what objectively means. There's no empirical way to judge art because of the very nature of art. The same applies to Pokemon.
As to me calling you stupid, I wouldn't do that if you weren't so up your own ass.
