Is manga art?

True art is divorced from any didactic, moral, or utalitarian function.

Whatever retard

That's wrong and you're dumb

Yes?

>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

>the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

Sometimes

Attached: 1447408645488.jpg (1000x761, 170K)

God, that's cringeworthy.

To think I used to like Hacker x Hacker

You're clearly mentally inept. Go back to your shonenshit subreddit and stay there. HxH isn't for brainlet normalfags like you.

Attached: Heart foreshadowing.jpg (2146x1040, 331K)

is sex better than anime ?

that's even more cringeworthy.

Golden Kamuy definitely is.

This idea has poisoned modern and contemporary art.

Everything that evokes emotions or shares the soul of the creator is art, my friend.

anything can be art, and arguing over what is or isnt is retarded. you should be asking if it achieves what it set out to do, not if it fuifills some arbitrary condition

Outside modern art trash, if your standards tell you fucking fantasy books are art then manga will be, at least in your tiny brain.

Yes, but not the manga you read

>tfw booked a ticket for that

Attached: 1554129089524.jpg (436x467, 27K)

Good for you.

It can be. Just like every other medium

Based trips of death

this

Now THIS is epic...

I wish I could go to a Golden Kamuy exhibit, that sounds pretty neat.

I hope you get jihadid you anglo scum.

>implying braindead neoclassical fetishism is better

The idea of the artist creating art for the sake of it is a purely bourgeoise delusion born in the 19th century and propagated by legions of self important failed "artists" turned critics who wanted to have some sort of moral highground to validate their bullshit.

At no point in actual history artists created art that didn't have any didactic, moral or utilitarian function, architects didn't create the Parthenon for free in some kind of mystical fever about astract forms, the Sistine Chapel isn't art just because it's made for literal indoctrination and propaganda, Mozart didn't write Operas for free, he wrote them because he needed money to not die in the streets like a rat.

Pretending art has ever been not at the service of "low" purposes like making money, advertising some kind of patron or commissioner or to prove some kind of point is the delusion of simpletons who never actually held a pencil in their lives or studied history and history of art.
The idiotic search for some kind of moral or ideological purity, especially in art, is completely misplaced and the sign of a deranged, compulsive obsessive mind detached from actual reality.

Attached: 1555883887579.jpg (387x368, 20K)

Are you implying it isn't good retard ?

You are evaluating art in a time vacuum, as expected from a classical pseud.
Everyone that has read about art theory knows that the value that a certain art piece has is inherently divorced from didactic, moral or utilitarian function because the functions it has are defined by language and society itself (which are ever-changing entities) instead of the will of an artist and his patrons.
The only thing more cancerous than being an art critic is being an art historian.

who cares, whether something is art or not doesn't tell anything meaningful about a work other than what social value it holds for the person defining it as such. every other qualities of a piece can be described without even using the word. literal normalfag filter

...

based opinion

>the Sistine Chapel
Was painted against the author's will, always begrudgingly, and only because he got paid good money.

>...but is it art?

If you idiots fall for this 2000+ year old bait....

Yes, because the one thing better than art is art you can masturbate to.

Attached: Erina Reading Her Doujins.gif (390x414, 172K)

Anything created or done by humans is art. Me taking a shit is art, WWII is art, the recent Sri Lanka bombings is art.

>comic books
>in a museum
for what reason though, to boost profits?

Fuck off you pretentious shit eating mongrel.

based and nenpilled

>マンガ

Attached: 1445870104524.png (396x384, 193K)

I'm not but whatever you want to push to validate your own inane ideas.
>Everyone that has read about art theory knows that the value that a certain art piece has is inherently divorced from didactic, moral or utilitarian function
What supposed inherent value is in something like the Merchant of Venice when you take out all of those things? A few fancy lines on a piece of paper that sound nice when you read them out loud?
What supposed inherent value is in the Laocoon or the Pietà once you take out something so basic as the didactic function to teach people about the myth or parable itself?
Is something like the Pantheon not worth of being called art because of its intrinsic moral, didactic or utilitarian functions to you? are the Empire State Building or Fallingwater House less deserving of being called artpieces than the egiptian pyramids or the Nabateans temples in Petra?
Technicalities only go so far, art is by definition didactic, moral and utilitarian, pretending otherwise is what makes YOU a pseud, not me, and when you do take out all of those values from any art piece you inevitably end up with only its HISTORICAL value as a product of their time, which you also seemingly despise on top of it all.

So no, you haven't read anything about actual art theory, nor you know anything about history of art or like art, you, like a lot of mouthbreathers, like to "talk" about art as a mean to get some attention on yourself.

Attached: 1553894545765.jpg (640x480, 162K)

Anything can be art. Even someone's diarrhea. Not that I agree with this crap but that's what artfags believe.

Oh except anime and video games. Because fuck you according to artfags.

Anything is art once someone considers it art. If I pick up a rock and say "This is art" then it's art and nobody can come up with any meaningful argument as to why that is not the case. However, this does not mean that all rocks ARE art, they just CAN be art. So anything can be art, but not everything is art.

what did they mean by this

I hold that opinion but I don't get to express it at all since I don't hang around with people retarded enough to claim shit art isn't art.

Rocks picked up off the ground generally aren't art because art requires an artist. I guess you could consider God the artist of a rock shaped by its environment.

Everything can be art

fucking based

Attached: Tsechad.jpg (388x707, 57K)

even unconventional stuff like shin-chan or fukumoto can be considered art

Manga is not art because some artfag said so. But Manga is art because some other artfag said so.

Yeah that's bullshit. The only people who don't believe anime and video games are art are boomers. Maybe an artfag wouldn't consider them high art, but they wouldn't say they aren't art at all.

The artist is simply nature.
Just like some RNG can make art so can nature.

are you an idiot?
Find out in ONE easy step! The answer might surprise you (but not anyone else you obvious fucking retard)

HOLY BASEDOLA

ya seethe?

Attached: 1554868145213.jpg (1024x768, 100K)

You are evaluating art pieces as if they were historic artifacts instead of semiotic objects. In fact, you are basing your entire argument on a mindset that has been obsolete since at least 100 years ago.
Namedropping famous buildings and pretending that they hold an inherent artistic value because of the context and purpose where they were created is silly and ignorant. An artwork only has value because of the common agreement of society about the actual meaning of the signs that compose it, the original intent of the artist is irrelevant.

An example: Cabinet of Dr Caligari was created as an allegory to German-commited atrocities during the first world war, but society as a whole now praises it as an exploration of sanity and the perception of reality. Why? Wasn't the writer's purpose to show the behavior of the German military authorities? Is society wrong for not evaluating the film according to the author's intended didactic and moral purposes? Should society refrain from analyzing themes that were not intended by the author?
In fact, your whole argument falls apart when you consider anonymous authors. How do you even evaluate the original didactic/moral/utilitarian function if you don't know the context where the artwork was created?
The author is only responsible of putting signs (words, images, sounds, forms, etc) together, society is the one responsible of giving those signs a meaning.

>art is by definition didactic, moral and utilitarian
By that definition, The Waste Land, The Pisan Cantos and Ulysses (the three most important art pieces of the previous century) are not art.
Do you even know the meaning of the words you are using?

Also, more than half of your post was a bunch of shitty ad-hominems and pretending you know more than me, which is pretty embarrassing.

The artist is the person who picked it up, it's not that complicated.

Yes. It and anime is the best kind of art.

Could've just said yes you know.

Attached: Gold Keys.webm (1280x720, 2.9M)

Anime and manga in general is art but VEG is anti-art.

Yea. It looks so amazingly good that it bullies other artists to suicide.

no

manga is sequential art

Maybe. If you consider "popular culture" to be true culture and think the word "art" can be used to describe products devoid of the prestige and purity usually asociated with it, that is, using words without their meaning, then yes.

You'd be mostly wrong, but not completely wrong. If some art faggot bothers you too much just quote this guy or namedrop Murakami and make up some bullshit about it being possutomodan.

Do you really need to book a ticket far in advance ? I'm going to work near London this summer and I figured I'd just show up and get a ticket for it on the site