(September 29, 2011 at 5:07 pm)Phaedra Wrote: *sigh*...another person who doesn't understand art or art history.
Hint: It isn't all about aesthetics.
What constitutes "good" art is entirely subjective. "Good" and "bad" shouldn't even be used when describing art.
I agree. You should use the terms "shit" and "worth looking at." Cy Twombly = shit. Sure, it's subjective. Some dogs eat shit. That doesn't change the fact that it is shit they're eating. Anyone who has an appreciation for fine art is sure to find those scribblings offensive to the very idea. No, it isn't all about aesthetics, but it has quite a bit to do with vision and talent. That charlatan has neither.