This sounds like the kind of things painters said after good photography because widespread.

Instead we got aesthetically original avant-garde art to replace the thousands of low-quality slop portraits that were common in the mid-19th century.

▲

flanked-evergl 8 months ago | parent [-]

aesthetically original, avant-garde, and bad.

▲

amanaplanacanal 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

Some modern art is certainly not to my taste, but I don't think most people would call (for example) the Impressionists "bad".

	▲	flanked-evergl 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		The person I replied to was not talking about impressionists, and I would not call them bad either.

▲

geden 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Bad how?

▲

flanked-evergl 8 months ago | parent [-]

Bad in the sense that it is at it's core a denial that there exists something such as good, and even something such as bad — in almost every sense of the word, whether it be aesthetically or morally.

The human race, according to religion, fell once, and in falling gained knowledge of good and of bad. Now we have fallen a second time, and not even that remains to us.

One of the core contentions of the Christian faith, is that there is something more abhorrent than doing something bad, and that is the denial that it is possible to do something bad. Yet, this is about the only article of faith for our modern insanity.

	▲	genewitch 8 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How much of this has to do with art facilitating money laundering, I ask, rhetorically.
	▲	thoroughburro 8 months ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What an extraordinary take!
	▲	stavros 8 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How is it that?