I understand what you are all saying. You think I'm not getting it, but I do. You keep asking me what the objective, fundamental rules/laws/etc. of art are. Where is written the constitution that outlines the instructions one must follow to create art? Now, I could give you the list here, in this forum; but then you would all say "That's not objective; that's subjective. That's your own, personal list of what makes art great for
you, and you apply it to all works of art. That list doesn't have to be the same for everyone." Now, I understand that. Truly, I do. I see where you're coming from. All I have to say is that many people view art incorrectly. And there's nothing I can do to prove that. It's like trying to argue objective morality (which I don't agree with, personally). It's impossible to do so. Where is the instruction manual for morality? There is none. I understand what you're all saying. But I just don't think that you can't view art so liberally. Art is something sacred, something that just simply
has some inherent qualities, and if you neglect these, the work is disqualified as art. There's nothing I can do to explain this, because you all view art so liberally. "Art is subjective, anyone can create it." That's fine. But there is a reason we are aware of the art we have. There is a reason it has survived. And there is a reason that so much has been lost, neglected by most; because it wasn't art. It didn't meet the qualifications. It didn't last. It didn't fit into the pattern. It didn't have value.
I'm fine with people losing respect for me after this. It's just been one long, drawn out argument. I honestly didn't expect to be called stupid so many times; but whatever. It's the internet. I have my opinion, and I've given it.
You're just so fucking wrong. A chair can be made with instructions, art can't because IT IS SO MANY THINGS. A chair is, contrary to what you seem to believe (and maybe you're wrong in this way about art too, since you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding basically everything about art...) ONE thing, a specific thing. Art is a concept, an intellectual gathering of a MASSIVE amount of media created by human beings over many, many millenia, functioning in a huge amount of ways in as diverse ways as it functions. Certainly the chair analogy is stupidly off-base, and you can clearly realize this. Anyone with basic motor skills can create a chair with instructions. You can't be instructed on how to make art. And art doesn't necessitate practice to create it, either; don't even try fighting me about this because it would just be fucking impossible.
Okay, this chair analogy has gone far enough. People need to look at how it originally came up. Dodens said something along the lines of "How come people need to care about art in order to create it?" I then asked "How come people need to care about chairs in order to become a carpenter?" or something like that. I used the analogy to demonstrate purpose. People don't create something unless they see a purpose for it. Someone doesn't create a chair for a society without asses.
Later, no country asked me how I would describe a "great" chair. I gave him an answer, but then I said that you can't really judge chairs in the same way you judge art. The chair analogy was mutated. I used it originally in a very different context: evaluating purpose.
