I mean if you don't know why it's supposed to be good then you can just say so.

Ceci n'est pas une cookie

It looks kinda neat.

it's not good. They know it and we know it but they don't want us to know it.

Conspiracy.

no. It looks less neat than the tile pattern on the bathroom of my workplace. You phony. You big fat Jewish phony.

1) it sucks
2) ICP is in comparison much more respectable
3) it really does suck

Hoes mad.

I am not mad. I was mad at ICP being supposed rap legends. But blue triangle being posed as great art is so silly it's actually strangely comforting.

Is that really the context that makes it good? That its supposed to be mediocre?

That just makes me think, "Heh, kinda neat". Could be counter productive though since if they're trying to do something anyone can do and can only accomplish "kinda neat" then it's a failure, no? Couldn't you potentially say that the artist is mocking the artistic ability of just anybody by saying that's the laughable best they can do?

You're giving them too much credit. It's not kinda neat. It's kinda ****ing boring.

Everyone who likes something that I don't is either ridiculous or faking. Anyways how about those narcissistic artists amiright fellas?

Anyone who looks at a blue triangle and says 'kinda neat' just cause it's meant to be a good artist is a fraud. Plain and simple.

There's also circle too, it has nice colouration, interesting sort of spacial placement, a cold simplicity, and I didn't know who the artist was.

Quit being so insecure.

Oh I didn't realize there was a circle and you like the colors. On second thought you're right it's kinda neat.

Now you're just a conformist.

I went back and looked and I don't even see the circle lol

I see a blue triangle on a white and black background

Boring as ****

That image is striking and highly memorable without having to understand anything about artsy stuff. Just like the soup can painting is just a ****ing soup can but the concept of it having been painted so faithfully seemingly for no reason is memorable even if it's just a ****ing soup can. The painting you posted has none of that striking quality.

I mean I'm not putting that much into "kinda neat". It just looks a bit neat and the minimalism makes the design memorable, even if it's not at all striking. Like I could without interest comment on what I think is good about it without committing to any kind of feeling. Of course the only reason I'd bother to take note of anything is because it's being presented as art rather than just a doctor's office print.

It's one of those edgy circles. Normies call them rectangles sometimes.

Yeah basically. It reminds me of that XTC cover which is neat.

Nah it sucks

This is the red canvas incident all over again - if you have to explain why a seemingly boring painting is good, then it's actually not good

To be fair, I've seen some pretty good stock prints in waiting rooms.

True. For example, the context of modern found artists being in an art world that embraces them makes their work seem as derivative as a still life.

I've seen mass manufactured art in sale in Walmart that is better than blue triangle

Let me think about it and then reiterate it so you will finally admit I'm right

Arbitrary standards of art are whack.

But if the point of the piece is to show what just anyone could potentially do then the painting would have to be able to stand on its own without context because if it were in fact a painting by Joe Sixpack who didn't have any of that context behind it then the only thing there to be interpreted would be its visual appeal. So if the visual appeal amounts solely to "kinda neat" then the painting still only amounts to "kinda neat" but even worse because it fails to showcase what it's trying to showcase.

It's not that arbitrary.

In terms of painting, it's visual the same way music is audio. You shouldn't need an explanation for why a song is good to like it. Either it sounds good or it doesn't. Same way you shouldn't need an explanation for why a painting is actually brilliant.

It's a visual medium. If the visual doesn't capture it then the painting failed do what it's supposed to.

Yeah but that's actually really neat. The textures and colors look twisted, violent, and unsettling.

It is entirely arbitrary but thanks for your input.

Also, art ain't a contest so the notion of "failure" is irrelevant to the conversation.

nah it should just be moving in some way based merely on the actual piece

You're right though I don't like that picture

It reminds me a lot of the crap they had on display at the art gallery I went to with the ex.

I mean is no more arbitrary than any other way if judging art.

But that's context and the painting should have to speak for itself according to the second clause of the eighth law of visual art.

I mean nothing is that simple. The signed urinal isn't anything to look at but as an attack on the art world's entrenched ego it's great. But in that case the context isn't so much an explanation as it is that if you weren't there at the time you wouldn't be aware of how the presentation of the piece was itself the art and so you'd need it explained.

My whole point is that standards for art are arbitrary, so yes any method of judging art based on any such standards are arbitrary.

call me crazy but a signed urinal just sounds like every urinal I've ever peed in

You don't see anything moving about that? Nothing maybe Lovecraftian about it?

so there's not any way to judge art which isn't arbitrary?

And this is why you're right wing.