Yea Forums can not recover from this

Same way we're biologically wired to have children with the opposite sex but there are gays.

Critics are the jews of the world.

wow deep, reminds me of this

Attached: eef.png (640x715, 278K)

they don't get it

wat

A critic wrote that

Critic here.

We're actually bitter worthless twats who wish they were capable of actually creating something themselves.

1. Completely unequivocally false.
2. All art is born out of imitation. Great art is born out of imitation plus innovation.
3. While the critic does define and rate these things, their value is absolutely meaningless to anyone but themselves and like-minded individuals.
4. This one has to be a joke.
5. Most critics are failed artists, and it shows. In conclusion your image reeks of critic cope.
History barely remembers critics. But great artists remain in the collective consciousness for generations and generations. Compare how many random people off the street know of Roland Barthes to William Shakespeare.

Help me decide who is more worthless, artistic critics or artistic college professors?

People who talk about art on Vietnamese basket weaving forums

they both educate people about art, but critics are making shit up as they go along so I'd say they're the most worthless

Based.

Heh heh heh yeah totally, I'd hate to be one of those sad sacks... *gulp*

Attached: 1576465112143.jpg (1440x1308, 443K)

I'd say /ic/ btfo but to be honest nobody good or remotely art savvy visits /ic/.

contrarianism

I hate niggers

>falling for the creativity jew
Just chop wood if you're a man and sew clothes if you're a woman. If my family ever needs evening entertainment, I can fart out a symphony your Bachs and Mozzarellas ain't ever heard of, and my wife's squirrel impressions are a riot.

define critic

Obviously written by a critic.

Someone who evaluates art. Artists and audiences qualify along with conventional writers of criticism.

Attached: 1581279438226[1].png (754x766, 1.46M)

yeah that one post and everyone on tv will think "good point, well made' and just stop posting here
they'll close Yea Forums for sure now

[Post a Reply][Return] [Catalog] [Top] 31 / 4 / 26 / 10[Update] [Auto]
Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[a / c / g / k / m / o / p / v / vg / vr / w] [vip / qa] [cm / lgbt] [3 / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / qst / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Edit][Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
About • Feedback • Legal • Contact

Attached: 558.png (194x259, 7K)

...

no shit art is worthless if you only care about yourself

absolutely based

but all this says is that our memeing on movies is more valuable than the movies

That image is wrong, it grants me the power to criticize it and so i choose to disqualify every statement in it based of that power granted to me.
Better luck next time pal.

>2. All art is born out of imitation. Great art is born out of imitation plus innovation.
WRONG
good art is born out of REAL EXPERIENCES

Attached: 1359254076574.jpg (741x1024, 227K)

Its called SHIT TASTE for a reason

This is a though call, critics preach their opnions while as professors do the same but then they give you an exam to see if you "learned" (aka agree)
I'd say professors are worst based on that, you can dismiss a critic but if you dismiss the professor he fails you in class.

Attached: vagifart.jpg (710x532, 174K)

Erm... and how do we represent those real experiences? (Here's a hint: it rhymes with limitation)

Great art is purely subjective, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Though good art is somewhat objective based on a number of pre-established standards that really just reflect what appeals to our human brains.

It' actually literally over for OP.

this but the critic is me and only me

Attached: 1572708880834.png (500x300, 42K)

so you're saying great art can be objectively revolting?

Just because there are exceptions to a rule doesn't mean there's nothing driving the norm. We're driven to on average have certain preferences, with a normally distributed variance.

yes, look at the holy mountain or fritz the cat

>all the plebs ITT that don't know about based "why can't I marry a 10 year-old" critic Scaruffles
What a bunch of chodes, the lot of ya

nice meme movies

there straight up lying some of the time
this

Accurate until the last sentence. 'Art' doesn't really exist in any objective manner. There are a billion different definitions of what constitutes it. But ultimately, it comes down to whoever perceives it. What is just a random string of rocks to one person is a brilliant metaphor for social issues to someone else.
Without people to view the art and qualify it, it is most definitely the case that it can't be said to exist.
Having said that, the observer (or 'critic' as if critics are the only people that can perceive art) didn't create it. They didn't mould or do anything other than interpret it. And that's not the same thing.
To push this to its extreme, if there was a random rock formation that had existed unnoticed for a millennia, that people just ignored; and then some 'critic' wrote a paper about how the rock formation was actually a brilliant piece of art and caused everyone to suddenly agree with them - the critic still wouldn't be the author of that art piece.

based

yes, that was the point i was making.

what, nothing?

>good art is born out of REAL EXPERIENCES
So, imitations of real life?