>>16084750 PB
>we aren't held to the limitations of those that would impose limits on creativity
well, that right there is the crux of the problem…. "artists" NEED to be held to a universal and unbiased standard.
A SENSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE QUESTION "WHAT IS ART?"
the first requirement is a TESTABLE definition of art, and there is only one, to wit, ART is a physical manifestation of a vision in the mind of an artist. i really don't see how anyone can object to that. it's really broad, open-ended, and does not a priori disqualify any art FORM or STYLE.
but here's the key… in order for anything produced to be considered art, we must KNOW that the "artist" is CAPABLE of faithfully rendering that vision.
that is quite easily accomplished. a painter must be able to faithfully render photo-realistic quality paintings of any random test subject.
the same would hold naturally need to hold true of sculptors, carvers, and every other sort of artisan.
let us take Picasso as an example, because his most famous works are wildly expressionistic and not photo-realistic. BUT, he was a child prodigy. when Picasso was 4 yrs old, he was able to paint anything photo-realistically. therefore, when he painted abstract paintings, we KNOW that he was faithfully and accurately rendering a physical painting of the "artistic vision" that he had in his mind.
the "vision" is the true art, and it MUST come before the physical rendering. simply throwing buckets of paint at a wall, and calling whatever comes out "art" is BULLSHIT. the "artist" did NOT envision the PRECISE result before hand, THEREFORE IT IS NOT ART. it is mental masturbation, and likewise the phony critics who anoint themselves the final arbiters of what is and is not art.
since the overwhelming majority of "modern" artists cannot pass this simple, unbiased, and MEANINGFUL test, the shit they produce IS NOT ART.
see how easy that was?