Discuss

>the value of art depends on the values of the art
sounds about right.
>most art is born as imitation, not innovation
sure, but the word born seems to connote that it grows up into innovation? "created" wouldve been a better word.
>the critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it
sure, i'll buy this argument too.
>the artist is merely a vehicle for the [...] critic.
this is where it starts to go off the deep end. completely removing the agency from the artist despite theyre the ones creating the art is stupid. you could rework it to say "the artist can be used as a vehicle" but to reduce a human to a tool is absurd.
>the critic is the real artist
sounds like complete insecurity right here.

>>the value of art depends on the values of the art
im fucking illiterate

the literal only part of your post which would be controversial in the context of this thread

>the value of art
Yes, subjectively
>most art
Yes
>the critic defines innovation and rates it
Artists are absolutely capable of seeing innovation too. Critics and artists share this
>the artist is merely a vehicle
No. They can be a vehicle but getting carried away
>the critic is the real artist
He was just saying this to be provocative. Utter shite.

at most, one could argue that the listener is some type of "interpreter" of art, which ties into his first point: "The value of art depends on the values of the art critic."

The notion that the creator of the art bears no responsibility for their creation is ridiculous.

Art critics have no inherent authority. Art forms emerge over time but people still create the work which is judged as valuable or not.

Also, how can Artists not also be critics and so that they revise their work if they find it lacking in certain ways?

>The notion that the creator of the art bears no responsibility for their creation is ridiculous.
Technically they don't though, if we suppose an artist have to choose between, "giving the public what they want" or doing what seems right to him, an artist is just a product of it's time trying to lead with what the real world imposes him.

so determinism?

you seem to fundamentally misunderstand a few things
art (the label) and value of art are given by others, not the creator. art only exists when a community agrees that something is art; it otherwise only has value as a physical object with no transcendental cultural value (artistic value).
"the critic is the real artist" means that the critic, who is the one which ascribes the label and value to the physical object, is the one who is creating the "message" of art. in effect, the critic (as we understand them) is the one who is really participating the most in the intangible processes which define art as a whole.

tl;dr - the "artist" makes a thing while the critic is the one who gives the thing value

Yes, in the sense that our free will is given to us, and while some can reach personal goals by whichever ways they managed to, others become frightened by it(freedom), and could only wish to live without it.

I apologize for my bad english:
-I don't think that an art work has an inherent, objective, and concrete aesthethic value because no art work serves a practical purpose in daily life, if anything, it's subjective value could be somewhat grasped by the aesthethic literacy of the "listener" (if we're talking about music).
-What is "most art", or "innovation"? How is the act of immitation not an act of innovation too?
-Innovation in art, true innovation at least, cannot be grasped until it's innovation can be seen in future art work tendencies, therefore the role of the art critic is merely to serve as a frame of reference of the innovation against the predominant aesthethic preferences of the time (embodied by the critic), by a figure like the art historian, who could come closer to his idea of the figure that "defines innovation" but not quite.
-This idea of "the artist being 'merely' a vehicle minimizes the role of the artist or the artistic experience to a mere exchange of ideas between -for example-, the listener and the music critic, which is absurd because while such discussion exists, it is merely a by-product of the artwork created by the artist, and because the artwork itself is the vehicle for very different discussions, the importance of the critic is secondary against the direct experience between the artwork and the expectator.
-This idea of the critic being "the real artist" negates the fact that the artistic experience is an aesthethic one that varies deeply, reduces the function of the artwork to a mere exposition of ideas by this "valuable" figure (the art critic) to the culturally uneducated masses. It's systematically oppresive in it's nature, somewhat arrogant coming from this self-proclaimed art critic, and seriously wrong.

(8/8 gr8t b8 m8) / 10

Attached: 5eb.png (480x600, 206K)

He's right when he says the critic is the real artist, and I'm not trying to be edgy about it.
An artist without a critic doesn't make art, since art needs a critic to become art. Like how John Cage argues that art only becomes art once we frame it (with a literal frame, a duration, a place, etc). In this case, art only becomes art once the critic rates it (or frames it).

Also, forgot to add The critic is also the real artist because a single art piece, by itself, means nothing. An art piece only has value when compared to other art pieces, and its then that, when the critic rates art by comparing it to other art, that art becomes art.

>"the critic is the real artist" means that the critic, who is the one which ascribes the label and value to the physical object, is the one who is creating the "message" of art. in effect, the critic (as we understand them) is the one who is really participating the most in the intangible processes which define art as a whole.
>correct, but the error in that statement lies with 2 simple facts;
1. every listener has their own unique appreciation and interpretation of the art
therefore, the critic only gives something artistic merit to themselves. the rest of society is unaffected by how the critic responds to the art

2. the art would not exist without the artist
this is the obvious fact that scaruffi was blatantly displaying ignorance toward. none of the music he reviewed would exist had he been the only man alive, dismissing the notion that he is the "artist" (a.k.a. art maker)

>art would not exist without the artist
Art would not exist without the critic.

The critic doesn't play any role in framing the work of art. A painting it's still a painting whether one critic liked it or not, the same can be said about a book, videogame, movie or music album.

Attached: Hewgj2FZj1q5vvfAyJCsmg_Thumb1.jpg (1200x705, 130K)

Yes it would. Every musical piece in existence would still exist had Scaruffi not been born.

You just described what defines music.

>A painting it's still a painting whether one critic liked it or not
A painting is a painting if the critic sees it as one. Otherwise a painting is just paint on a canvas. Same goes with music, it becomes noise.

But Scaruffi is not the only critic. If NO music critic existed then art wouldn't exist.

???

The critic merely serves the purpose of imposing the aesthethic preferences of the social order which conceived him. He has a function that is completely separated and I dare to say in opposition to what we could say is the "artistic experience"

Again, if this critic wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be able to call any "art" art. Art becomes art once it gets touched by the critics criticism.

MOM ME READ SKAROFFE AGAIN

Attached: 3345634gf34g34g.jpg (588x823, 81K)

Would it really exist?a recording of vibrations with a "code for people to understand", stored by record labels owned by cunts, music is has the same value of our posts if it is not analysed by someone capable of reason, the critic.

>An art piece only has value when compared to other art pieces
But how did they do it with the first piece of art ever, then, if there was nothing to compare back then?

>A painting is a painting if the critic sees it as one
A painting is a painting if it's presented as a painting, the figure of the critic appears much later after this process to merely give his judgment of value on the artwork (good/bad, ugly/beautiful, etc). You seem to think that we live in a 1984-like society where a group of "thought police" like figures (the critics) decide which artworks will be seen as such, and an artwork without a critique or review will not have such regard, which isn't true.

There was no such thing as a first art piece, in this scenario. But when you compare two non-art pieces from an artistic point of view is when those non-art pieces become art.

>if it's presented as a painting
And its the critic who does this.

>to merely give his judgment of value on the artwork
Calling something art or not is a judgement of value.

>when you compare two non-art pieces from an artistic point of view is when those non-art pieces become art
The concept of non-art or "artistic point of view" cannot anticipate the concept of art

>the critic is the real artist

oooof what a bitch lol artists put themselves out there the fuck does he do

>1. every listener has their own unique appreciation and interpretation of the art
not relevant
>therefore, the critic only gives something artistic merit to themselves.
which is then refined by other critics and distilled through people who listen to the critiques of the critic
> the rest of society is unaffected by how the critic responds to the art
the "critic" in this sense is the one who interprets the art. we're not discussing professional critics exclusively. this isn't a long-winded "pitchfork is legitimate" argument
>2. the art would not exist without the artist
nonsensical
the "art" only exists because others label it as art
the "artist" only exists as an artist because their output was given the label "art" by critics

patently false and betrays a shallow understanding of how art is defined in the first place

> the figure of the critic appears much later after this process to merely give his judgment of value on the artwork
lmao you are so close to understanding why you're wrong
the label of "art" only exists when it is applied by other people. without critics (which you are mistaking for a very small subset of critics) the Thing is not Art. it's just a thing. "art" necessitates a social / cultural value transcending simple pragmatic function- this value is defined via the community which applies it.

So music was invented by the critics.
Every piece of art ever in the histry of humanity has been invented by critics

Attached: 1556229000492.jpg (400x400, 20K)

Music is by definition vibrations, which is "organized" following predetermined rules, that are perceptible to our audition. so any source of sound which offers sensorial communication, in any form, to the listener (which takes the role of critic following it's own beliefs and values)

If by "critic" he means the consumers in general and the value they attribute to the art, then sure. Art is shaped by how people perceive it. If he means only the ones who write and publish their thoughts then no.
The "the critic is the real artist" bit is a bit absurd to me, though. You could argue that the art has no meaning without someone else to give it meaning, but that's an incredibly arrogant way to phrase it.

The mistake here is putting art critics on a pedestal above the rest of society, as if their opinions matter.

He's right tho

This guy gets it But it can, because aesthetic predates art, since we see it in nature.

>So music was invented by the critics.
Correct.

>Every piece of art ever in the histry of humanity has been invented by critics
That's right.

Before the critic's existence, music is not music, it's noise.

>Music is by definition vibrations
No, that's blatantly false. A sine tone is a vibration and is not necessarily music.

>following predetermined rules
Such as?

Their opinions do matter. You listen to the music you listen to because some critics indirectly (or directly) told you to do so.

see >the "critic" in this sense is the one who interprets the art. we're not discussing professional critics exclusively. this isn't a long-winded "pitchfork is legitimate" argument
it'd be super dope if people read the threads they respond to

did you miss the part where I explicitly defined "critic" in the same way this guy did or do you just want to feel good about shitting on people over meaningless garbage you absolute faggot

>did you miss the part where 1/2 of my post was 100% unnecessary
sure didn't

"art/not art" is not a very convincing judgment of value.

>without critics (which you are mistaking for a very small subset of critics) the Thing is not Art
If we take art as a sole expression (because the expression of communities of people is a more broad cultural manifestation that, guided by an ideology, is separated by the core-concept of subjectivity that the critic also needs to exists) then such framing lies on the artist, take Duchamp's urinal for example. Therefore the framing of "this is art" happens long before the social/cultural (and you didn't incluse 'ideological') values of the community apply to it.

>"art/not art" is not a very convincing judgment of value
But it literally is, and its the critic who determines this.

>oh wow two people wrote similar things minutes away from each other? this is unacceptable. completely unnecessary. I must let everyone know.
Sorry I took more than two minutes to write my post and couldn't read yours you insufferable retard. How about you teach me how to read and write two different things at the same time?
It's like it's your first time on this website.

Attached: 1550340191584.jpg (229x282, 12K)

>Before the critic's existence, music is not music, it's noise.
So, then, if I listen to an ablum that came out today and hasn't been reviewed by a critic yet, (or maybe never because it's an underground indie group).
Am I listening to music or am I listening to a bunch of noises?

All true except the last point. Art is created to be observed by the critic which may be the artist themself. But the critic only creates his own impression/interpretation of the art which is made by the artist. 2nd point is kind of irrelevant to the argument being made here.

you are the critic

Depends. Are you a critic?

>But the critic only creates his own impression/interpretation of the art
Which includes determining if such creation is art, so yes, the critic is the real artist. The critic is the last step from turning something into art, which is why we can claim that the critic is the real artist.

>If we take art as a sole expression
art is defined by mutual intelligibility within a community
i.e. that which people agree is "art" becomes "art"
the label itself signifies a value which transcends simple pragmatic function (e.g. a sculpture has ascribed value which transcends its use as a paperweight)
the framing of "this is art" happens alongside the social/cultural framing of value. context dictates status (art / not art) and, following that, dictates value (good art / bad art)
if I say "this is art" and everybody else alive says "no it isn't" then it is not art.
i could also argue that value judgments happen alongside "art" judgments but i think that this is bringing the argument into the weeds

to re-state, context dictates arthood and the value of art. duchamp's works showed that the content itself is ultimately irrelevant by subverting old ideas of what made art.

>(...) because aesthetic predates art, since we see it in nature
True, and we (as artists) apply a judgment of value to concentrate certain aesthethic virtues of nature into the artwork, as a means of expression and to create a certain aesthethic effect, which is to be perceived by the senses of the individual who willingfully submits to the contents of the art work, you see how the ideology7values of the critic play an irrelevant role here? Therefore the judgment of value, while relevant socially and culturally, should not be seen as an integral part of the aesthethic process, such a thing can only lead to oppression.

Also, "non-art" and "artistic" are neologisms that derivate from the core concept of art.

>mfw I invented music

>Depends. Are you a critic?
I am now, I guess

Attached: a2b.gif (300x262, 1.84M)

>You listen to the music you listen to because some critics indirectly (or directly) told you to do so.
Speak for yourself.
Fair enough. The more appropriate word here though would be audience, because that’s essentially what this definition equates to.

Why are we separating artists (as in people who produce art) and critics? Can't we say the artists are critics themselves? It's not like they make music in a vacuum.

Attached: ya beb.jpg (1391x2048, 481K)

>Which includes determining if such creation is art, so yes, the critic is the real artist
the critic is the judge of its value but the artist creates that value consciously

>The critic is the last step from turning something into art, which is why we can claim that the critic is the real artist.
which implies that both the artist and critic are required in the formation of art

critic = someone judging the Thing
artist = someone who made the Thing being judged
just a simplification necessary to make these conversations intelligible

Point being why can't artists be critics of their own art?

>we (as artists) apply a judgment of value to concentrate certain aesthethic virtues of nature into the artwork
This isn't a trait inherent to all artists, so that's not really true.

>"non-art" and "artistic" are neologisms that derivate from the core concept of art
So?

>mfw I invented music
You didn't. Other did thousands of years before you did.

>Speak for yourself.
I'm speaking for you here. Tell me what your ten favorite albums of all time are, and I will tell you which critics you follow (consciously or not).

Audience and critic is not the same. An audience spectates. A critic judges.

>Can't we say the artists are critics themselves?
Not necessarily.

>the artist creates that value consciously
Not necessarily.

>which implies that both the artist and critic are required in the formation of art
Of course, but the artist only becomes an artist through the judgement of the critic.

>why can't artists be critics of their own art?
Who said they couldn't? I mean, Scaruffi is an artist himself, and not just as a critic, you know?

> the artist creates that value consciously
nope. the artist creates a Thing which the critic gives value. value is not inherent to the Thing.
>both the artist and critic are required in the formation of art
the artist is created by the critic via the critic's recognition of the artist's product as art. the critic is the more important of the two.

intent vs interpretation which is a different argument altogether
they can be critics of their own art, the main argument is that their singular opinion of their own art is of little importance by itself

You're arguing with the same people believing in jews controlling the world

>Tell me what your ten favorite albums of all time are, and I will tell you which critics you follow (consciously or not).
So cute, you think yourself to be some sort of intellectual don’t you.
>Audience and critic is not the same. An audience spectates. A critic judges.
If your audience is not doing both then you’re playing to a brick wall or to a group of brainless meatbags.

funnily enough the poster you're replying to has an understanding of art more in line with reactionaries and right-wind pseuds than normies or actual art historians

>the label itself signifies a value which transcends simple pragmatic function
No artwork was created to serve a pragmatic function.

>if I say "this is art" and everybody else alive says "no it isn't" then it is not art.
It's art because for you to say that something is art you must've had an artistic experience (including the context in which you were submitted to the artistic object) that was as real as the one you would've had with an artwork that was accepted by "everybody else alive", your subjective perception cannot be negated or disqualified

I love how you refuse to name your ten favorite albums because that means admitting you were wrong.

>If your audience is not doing both then you’re playing to a brick wall or to a group of brainless meatbags.
Happens much more often than you think.

No?

>No artwork was created to serve a pragmatic function.
Architecture is not art? Interesting. Which school do you go to?

>I love how you refuse to name your ten favorite albums because that means admitting you were wrong.
Hardly. I’m just not here to entertain pseudointellectual teenagers.
>Happens much more often than you think.
Then get a better audience.

>No artwork was created to serve a pragmatic function.
you misunderstand the argument to a frankly embarrassing degree
the simple pragmatic function of a composition can be defined as
1. a piece of paper to write on
2. a set of instructions
value given to that composition as "art" means that it transcends the simple pragmatic function and elevates it to a level of cultural importance via the label "art"
you can likewise observe architecture (which is an art) and the simple pragmatic function of a building being subservient in many cases to the artistic value of the building.

second part of your post is rambling that i suspect is addressing a point im not making
"art" as a label (distinct from good or bad) is socially derived. this is irrefutable.

based user using examples before I can write them out

>I’m just not here to entertain pseudointellectual teenagers.
What are you here for? From your posts I would have assumed that was your goal, actually.

>Then get a better audience.
We are not talking about my "audience/critics" in particular though.

my top 10 is mostly obscure oi!, which critic do I follow?

>I love how you refuse to name your ten favorite albums because that means admitting you were wrong.
it's because nobody wants to blogpost their desert island albums for some reddit spacing blowhard

all true takes except the last one being utterly retarded

>What are you here for? From your posts I would have assumed that was your goal, actually.
To make a single statement putting down art critics as hacks that should be working minimum wage jobs.
>We are not talking about my "audience/critics" in particular though.
We’re talking about a hypothetical passive audience that doesn’t judge or take in the music it hears. If you’re running into that problem, you’re playing for the wrong people.

>all true except [the summary]
big brain post right here

Depends. Which ones are they? Also, keep in mind that, if you submit false information (those are not your actual favorites) you will get a false analysis. I hope you don't mind this.

And yet you take the time to ramble about subjects tangentially related to the subject.
Also, that's not reddit spacing. Lurk moar.

Wrong. Read the thread.

>To make a single statement
I mean, sure, but statements are pretty boring if not justified. Might as well not bother typing them out.

>We’re talking about a hypothetical passive audience that doesn’t judge or take in the music it hears. If you’re running into that problem, you’re playing for the wrong people.
Again, this isn't about the music I play. Someone else can have an audience to the music of an artist that's not me.

>If by "critic" he means the consumers in general and the value they attribute to the art, then sure.
No, he probably means 'published left-leaning academics.' Those are the only people who "matter" in the eyes of other rich leftist academics.

>goes from a to b
>that means b is the summary
not how it works

>but statements are pretty boring if not justified. Might as well not bother typing them out.
As if your long winded arguing and rambling is very entertaining.
>Again, this isn't about the music I play. Someone else can have an audience to the music of an artist that's not me.
If you still think the “you” in my post is referring specifically to your current, past or future audience, and not to whom it may concern in general, then your IQ is a lot lower than you think it is.

>most art is born as imitation, not innovation
Art is always imitative and innovative, but I'd say it's kinda correct regarding the artists' intentions

oh wait I just read the rest, nevermind

lmfao the last line is a straight up summarizing of every bullet point laid out
let me guess: you're buttblasted because you put "artists" on a pedal stool

I'll name two so I don't make myself too identifiable, Skullhead - Odin's Law, The Last Resort - A Way of Life
try to name name an actual critic I follow. You'll probably find it difficult because I don't follow any.
don't move goalposts by mentioning scenes or movements that shaped my taste, this is about critics.

no I actually agree with scaruffi for once but you can't just say a conclusion is a fucking summary because that's not what a summary is

>he probably means 'published left-leaning academics.'
No, he means critics. He didn't say "published left-leaning academic critics", he said "critics".

B directly follows from A though.
All humans are animals (A).
John is a human (A).
Therefore John is an animal (B).

>As if your long winded arguing and rambling is very entertaining.
It literally is. I'm sure of it.

>If you still think the “you” in my post is referring specifically to your current, past or future audience, and not to whom it may concern in general, then your IQ is a lot lower than you think it is.
I know what you are trying to say, I'm just making fun out of your terrible terminology.

lmaooooooo please elucidate what is wrong with the last line that wasn't wrong with the others

>It literally is. I'm sure of it.
Get that narcissism checked buddy. It’s not doing you any favors.
>I know what you are trying to say, I'm just making fun out of your terrible terminology.
When in doubt, claim in jest.

>Therefore John is an animal (B).
That's not a summary. It's a conclusion.
Did you miss the part where I said I agree with him? Just because I said it was a summary doesn't mean I think it's wrong you brainlet.

This is true, and thank you for noticing it. But for that same reason we need to confront the ideas of such captive minds.

I don't identify myself with right-wingers or reactionaries.
Taking away simplicities like "left and right" societies, regardless of their predominant ideology, exercise cultural power imposing moral judgments of virtue like good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc. Through the figure of the "critic", that's why it is important to expose its lack of significance and irrelevancy during the artistic experience. Because then art is reserved for both creation and enjoyment to a priviledged minority with the access of education and exposition to 'high' cultural life. Negating the forms of expression of different ("uncivilized") cultures labeling them as non-art because they're invisible or demerited by this minority. Far from a right-winger position, I would now like to know your political posture on the subject.

>Architecture is not art? Interesting. Which school do you go to?
It can be artistic, for sure, and I'm not putting artistic as a lesser category than art, because the great artistic achievements of architecture are of the highest aesthethic virtue. But it's pragmatic function for me makes it not consider it as pure art.

Why are you asking for my academic credentials? That's a rather shameful display of lack of intellectual composure

>Get that narcissism checked buddy.
What are you talking about? It's entertaining because it entertains me. This doesn't make me a narcissist. In fact, it makes YOU a narcissist since you are expecting me to feel the same way you do as if you were the center of the universe.

>When in doubt, claim in jest.
You got nothing else to say then?

>That's not a summary. It's a conclusion.
I know. I'm not the person who said it was a summary. Yea Forums is more than one person, you know?

>Just because I said it was a summary doesn't mean I think it's wrong you brainlet.
>all true takes except the last one being utterly retarded
let me guess: it wasn't you

Herbert Egoldt

It wasn't. I thought that was clear when I said I agreed with Scaruffi.
Even if I disagreed with him, that's irrelevant to the point I'm making. You know this, you're just a disingenuous faggot.

>It's entertaining because it entertains me. This doesn't make me a narcissist. In fact, it makes YOU a narcissist since you are expecting me to feel the same way you do as if you were the center of the universe.
Entertaining a single person makes not entertainment.
>You got nothing else to say then?
Not much to say in response to “I was merely pretending to be retarded”.

hahahahahaha alright man it "wasn't you" and you just came in for no reason other than to argue semantics ;) gotcha

>Entertaining a single person makes not entertainment.
Says who?

>I was merely pretending to be retarded
You are the one who was acting retarded, I merely followed suit.

>Says who?
Says your own ideology, actually. Here you are the artist and I am the critic (I am judging your posts).
>You are the one who was acting retarded, I merely followed suit.
Is saying “no u” in a long format the best you could do?

a dilettante with unwarranted self importance, what else is new

Entertainment is not necessarily art though, so it's a different issue.

>Is saying “no u” in a long format the best you could do?
I just think its hilarious how you don't realize how entertaining this is.

I'm arguing semantics because you completely dismissed the guy's point by saying "lol ur disagreeing with the summary ur dumb" even though that's not a fucking summary and you were being a disingenuous faggot. Nothing ticks me off more than people completely dismissing other's points with completely made up shit.
>I'm a human. I'm also an animal. Monkeys are animals. Therefore monkeys are humans.
>"I agree with everything except the last part"
>LOOOL YOU FUCKING IDIOT YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH THE SUMMARY HOW DUMB ARE YOU
I also like how you also completely stopped arguing against the one and only point I'm making (because you realized you're wrong) and started resorting to saying I'm samefagging as if that actually makes you right in any way.

Attached: 1556686607626.jpg (470x293, 62K)

>Entertainment is not necessarily art though, so it's a different issue.
Hardly the point I was making.
>I just think its hilarious how you don't realize how entertaining this is.
Nothing is more poetically sad than the madman who makes jokes only he laughs at.

next level cope on display

Attached: giphy.gif (480x265, 3.47M)

>106 replies
>24 posters

>Hardly the point I was making.
You will need to substantiate your points better then. I can't keep guessing what you are trying to say because you keep using inaccurate terminology.

>Nothing is more poetically sad than the madman who makes jokes only he laughs at.
But you are the one making jokes here?

>You will need to substantiate your points better then. I can't keep guessing what you are trying to say because you keep using inaccurate terminology.
Tell me more about your “accurate terminology”. I want to know what goes on in your little head, what kind of fantasy land with fantasy laws you’ve built for yourself.
>But you are the one making jokes here?
Another no u? This isn’t even trying.

There it is. At a loss for words. Only buzzwords remain.
You know, I feel bad for BTFOing you so hard so I'm gonna let you get the last word.

Attached: 1506642679350.jpg (650x650, 137K)

>see a shitpost
>start laying into it
>get btfo
>start posting smug images
dude

>merely pretending
every single time without fail

>Tell me more about your “accurate terminology”.
For starters, try not to argue that entertainment is necessarily art (unless you justify yourself first, if you actually believe this).

>I want to know what goes on in your little head, what kind of fantasy land with fantasy laws you’ve built for yourself.
I take it you are a big fan of the Joker from the Batman series, right?

>Another no u? This isn’t even trying.
You keep making good jokes like these though. This reinforces my hypothesis that you are a big fan of the Jokes. Was this also you by the way?

you lost as soon as you replied to >hehe dude I'm not taking this seriously even and I totally won here's a brick wall of text about how not-mad i am and how i won

-The Critic is defined as an audience or observer who judges the Thing's value

-The Critic's judgement elevates the Thing into Art.

-The Artist creates Art consciously or unconsciously.

-The Conscious Artist judges the value of the Thing during the process of creating it. He fulfils the role of Critic during the process, and only becomes the Artist if he finds his own work to have value.

-The Unconscious Artist is only an Artist when the Critic defines his creation as Art.

Attached: 1548546906245.png (758x802, 849K)

Nailed it. 10/10

>see a low-quality, low-effort post
>start laying into it
>get btfo
>start posting smug images
>desperately claim that anyone who cringes at you is secretly mad
dude

Don't get me wrong, I'm furious.
I'm completely right, though.

>For starters, try not to argue that entertainment is necessarily art (unless you justify yourself first, if you actually believe this).
Nowhere did I argue that. It’d do you well to not extrapolate statements where there are none.
>I take it you are a big fan of the Joker from the Batman series, right?
I don’t like capeshit.
>You keep making good jokes like these though. This reinforces my hypothesis that you are a big fan of the Jokes. Was this also you by the way?
So not only are you absolutely delusional, you’re also a schizophrenic who thinks everyone disagreeing with you is the same person. I’d like you to explain to me how it’s possible I made that post when I made less than a minute after.

...

you aren't and i honestly can't fathom why you are getting mad about low quality semantics arguments on Yea Forums
like of all the things

...

where do you think you are

i mean i get it but you'd have better luck if you actually picked fights that you could reasonably win

are you samefagging? is being an epic troll being right now?

>Nowhere did I argue that.
You implied that by making the analogy between art and entertainment using my logic. Your analogy of my logic was wrong because art and entertainment have fundamentally different properties under my logic.

>I don’t like capeshit.
Sure, but that doesn't negate what I said. I know that Joker fans don't necessarily like capeshit. Same goes with fans of Watchmen.

>you’re also a schizophrenic who thinks everyone disagreeing with you is the same person
You are making me laugh, user.

everyone who isn't you is the same person in disguise

he's not wrong tho
that's not a summary

thanks im majoring in english and gona flip burgers after that

Attached: 1539366800720.jpg (657x527, 47K)

>You implied that by making the analogy between art and entertainment using my logic. Your analogy of my logic was wrong because art and entertainment have fundamentally different properties under my logic.
Thinking that everyone uses a broad stroke on everything in every instance like you do must be a very unpleasant way to live life.
>Sure, but that doesn't negate what I said. I know that Joker fans don't necessarily like capeshit. Same goes with fans of Watchmen.
So I take it you didn’t read the very obvious implication in that statement then. Cool, glad to know you’re either mentally retarded or autistic
>You are making me laugh, user.
Glad to be of service, bringing laughter to the mentally disabled is my way of charity.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/summary

what is that supposed to prove

>covering the main points succinctly
>the last bullet point does not cover the main points succinctly
hmm

>must be a very unpleasant way to live life
Talk for yourself, as I live a pretty happy life so far.

>So I take it you didn’t read the very obvious implication in that statement then.
I did, I'm just saying that your statement doesn't necessarily negate the fact that you like the joker. I know you tried to imply you don't like him, but come on, let me make fun out of you a bit more.

>bringing laughter to the mentally disabled
But I'm not mentally disabled, user. What a rude thing to imply as well.

>use the definition for the adjective
>when the noun form was used
hmmm

guys STOP FIGHTING and go JERK OFF

>an abstract, abridgment, or compendium especially of a preceding discourse
>is not an abstract, abridgment, or compendium especially of a preceding discourse
hmmmmmmm

>Talk for yourself, as I live a pretty happy life so far.
Hard for someone that has their every need taken care of by their tard wrangler to not be satisfied.
>I know you tried to imply you don't like him, but come on, let me make fun out of you a bit more.
If that’s your idea of making fun then your insults are milquetoast at best and no different from regular statements at worst.
>But I'm not mentally disabled, user. What a rude thing to imply as well.
Oh poor you, you want a cookie for that boo boo?

Jokes on you, I'm jerking off to the fighting.

>you want a cookie for that boo boo?
Please and thank you, mommy :3

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridgment

>something that summarizes orconcentratestheessentialsof a larger thing or several things
>last bullet point does not concentrate the essentials of the previous points but rather builds on them
>a shortened form of a work retaining the general sense and unity of the original
>last bullet point is not a shortened form of the previous bullet points

Are you going to keep posting dictionary entries as if that doesn't directly disprove you or what.

>does not concentrate the essentials of the previous points but rather builds on them
hmmm
>last bullet point is not a shortened form of the previous bullet points
hmmm

Yes thank you for repeating what I just said.

The art is separate from the artist's vision, as well as the critic's interpretation. The artist could never hope to be absolutely accurate in their expression, and the critic can never hope to understand the artist's vision. All there is left is the art itself, an irrelevant object to be praised or mocked.
The best critic is the artist himself, but only pertaining to his own art. He who is a critic without first being an artist is just looking in through the window. The process is just as fundamental as the result, and he knows nothing of it.