|
|
rosehiptea (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} rosehiptea) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} unfunny_fandom, |
Re: *dons art major glasses*
I'm not an expert on art theory myself, but I personally think people are allowed to be offended by something even if it's art. I agree that calling a photo of cosplayers clowning around "art" is pretty debatable. But even if you want to define art as "something somebody says is art" and include virtually anything, it doesn't make whatever it is automatically OK. I've never quite understood that argument.
I'm sure I could find any number of examples of something that's pretty undeniably "art" but I think whoever created it should have thought twice and done something else. (Being generous, here.)
I'm not an expert on art theory myself, but I personally think people are allowed to be offended by something even if it's art. I agree that calling a photo of cosplayers clowning around "art" is pretty debatable. But even if you want to define art as "something somebody says is art" and include virtually anything, it doesn't make whatever it is automatically OK. I've never quite understood that argument.
I'm sure I could find any number of examples of something that's pretty undeniably "art" but I think whoever created it should have thought twice and done something else. (Being generous, here.)
Post a comment in response:
