>>29401354It's nice that you want to force a higher ground under yourself in lieu of an actual argument since you obviously haven't got one, but I happen to be very familiar with the terminology that is central to my profession regardless of how much you want to wrongfully classify illustrations, character portraits, video game packaging and whatever else as being in league with the produce of a Pierre Huyghe, Bill Viola or Anish Kapoor. And I know you don't know those names because I know you know absolutely nothing about art and what it means because if you did then there wouldn't be a retarded shitpost there for me to write this in response to.
>alone in your definition solidifies even incomplete sketches as potential art formsI don't know what you're trying to say here. First off 'art form' is a non-term since a work of art can be made with literally anything at all. Some of the more famous works include shit in cans, a photo of a crucifix in a jar of piss and a woman who got loads of plastic surgery. A work can be made in any medium, all that matters is that that medium suits the concept and helps accurately portray it without distraction to the audience.
>meaning that some random anon's sketch (ie; an image meant to communicate an idea) fits in that strict usageWell that really depends on the idea meant to be conveyed, the effectiveness of its message and the fidelity with which it is understood and how intentionally it was carried out. Later, then, comes the worth of the idea or any deducted points for derivatives and what not.
Example:
>>29400590A crude scribble of what I know is meant to be a rendition of a specific Pokemon. There's nothing going on, it's just random parts of its anatomy with nothing being signified except the desire for the scribbler to be praised for drawing it. There's nothing there, it's vapid.
>>29401553Art and drawing are different words and you can't stylise 'art', it's not even almost possible.
