>>8070146>I’d argue Jacobsen's use of grotesque imagery is a deliberate artistic choice that serves to challenge traditional aesthetic norms and provoke deeper contemplation.It's like a conversation in reverse. I literally addressed this and dismissed it in the comment you're replying to.
Almost like I knew the bullshit you were going to spew before you spewed it, because American "education in art" is actually just an act of memorizing a script of apologetics.
>The comparison made to exhibitionism is, I think, a misinterpretation of Jacobsen's intent.See
>>8070139 where he LITERALLY says it's about "self exploration of his body." He's waving his cock on the parade float and you lack the spine to admit what it is.
>Artistic legitimacy is not granted by consensus but by the ability to stir dialogue and reflection.No, it's granted by a small group of gatekeepers that investors take their cues from. Everyone downstream from that are useful idiots.
>Jacobsen's work has undeniably achieved this, as evidenced by the strong reactions it elicits.You're arguing for a piece of human shit on a coffee table being art, as it elicits a "strong reaction."
>To deride his art as valueless is to miss the opportunity to engage with it on a deeper levelThe "deeper level" of his public exploration of his body? There is no deeper level. He's a pervert.
>and to recognize the broader spectrum of what art can represent.It represents nothing but the artist's mental illness and the degree to which people with money have no taste and/or use pop culture garbage like this as a tax-free investment. And apparently the degree to which indie bands will supplement their mediocre albums by putting this disgusting kike's "art" on the covers.
I could give a shit about consensus. My opinion on the matter of American consumerist pop art is correct.
AI has killed this pathetic industry, and it is an industry, and I'm thrilled about it. May he starve.
