How broad is your definition of art?

Page 4 of 7 [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

18 May 2017, 11:47 am

except you're not being forced to buy art you don't like. you can pay a small amount of cash for the full experience of a renowned art institution, although many are free and there are often ways to get around paying the full 15$ or whatever. if you are so offended by art you don't like that you can't even just move past it and enjoy what you will from the art you do like, then what is stopping you from not going to museums and galleries all together?

you do have a valid point about the business of art, though. take a local ex-art professor, for a more nuanced example (he was recently forced to resign due to a lawsuit filed by a young female student). he does stuff like remodels the physical landscape of the borders of countries in gallery spaces and is semi famous for it. people dig it. but knowing him, i know for certain that he doesn't give a s**t about border politics, he only wants to make an easily graspable conversation about them and garner support and attention. it's completely fake. he also used grad students to build his pieces for him (a lot of more well known artists don't do much labor over their own work, actually) but he didn't even pay them or anything. they look pretty damn good. he's a two-faced scumbag and his art is transparent and manipulative but i'll still defend it as art and him as an artist any day. would you?

it really comes down to learning to accept that what is art can't be defined by a singular source (aka you), and you don't have to understand the same meaning from it as the artist tells you. once art is released into the public sphere its meaning no longer belongs solely to the artist. you're free to choose your own thoughts but your dogmatic assertion of what is and isn't good enough for you to be considered art speaks for your lack of independent thought outside of the white walled box.



ThisAdamGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2015
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 692
Location: Northwest Arkansas

18 May 2017, 11:55 am

seaweed wrote:
speaks for your lack of independent thought outside of the white walled box.


The same could be said of you, though. Someone shows you crap, tells you its art, you immediately accept that it's art. No independent thought involved, you just bob your head and congratulate them for being an artist.


_________________
Autistic author of fantasy novels. Read them for free HERE!


seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

18 May 2017, 12:19 pm

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
seaweed wrote:
speaks for your lack of independent thought outside of the white walled box.


The same could be said of you, though. Someone shows you crap, tells you its art, you immediately accept that it's art. No independent thought involved, you just bob your head and congratulate them for being an artist.


no, accepting that its art doesn't mean congratulating them for being artists, or thinking its good, or worthy of support. criticizing art is part of the fun, and like i said earlier, i tend to have a very cynical approach to understanding art. in fact if we were to do some black&white experiment like separate pieces of art into such generalities as "good" or "crap" we would probably end up with very similar groupings.

i just don't assume that my contempt for certain brands of art, and the unsavory ethics of some artists, and the commodification of art, and all the elite bullshittery, and my own opinion, mean its not art. it's being open to negative ideas as much as positive ones.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

18 May 2017, 3:01 pm

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
Okay, let me put it a different way for you people...

"The chef says it's food," the waiter tells me.
"But I can't eat it," I tell him.
"That's not the defining feature of food," the waiter corrects me.
"Then what is?" I ask.
"That the chef gets to make a statement,"
[..]

"That's not music," I tell the ticket man.
"Yes it is," he says.
"How is that music?" I ask.
"Because the musician says it is."
"But it sounds horrible! There's not even a rhythm!"
"The musician is making a statement. His music is personal, so it doesn't matter if you understand it or not."
"But I paid money to listen to it."
"Yes you did."
"So the fact that it's not actually music means I should get a refund."
"No it doesn't, sir."
Then I am ejected from the theater.

You see what I'm getting at? Food, music, film, literature, whatever it is you want to call art, none of them expect the patron to put up with this crap. If you're serving food, it has to taste good. If you're playing music, it has to sound good. Only with the visual art, the kind you'll find hanging in a museum, are you expected to throw away your standards and expectations and shell out cash to support what an artist has to tell you is art for it to have any artistic value. There are ways for art to be personal and meaningful, and even weird, while still actually being art.

For example, in my local art museum there's a giant sculpture of a nose. Just the nose, no face. It's weird, but I'll call it art because it's a good sculpture of a nose. The artist obviously put a ton of time and effort into sculpting it, therefore it's art.

On the other hand, that same museum has a canvas painted entirely gray. That's not art. Beside it is a long, long plaque with the artist's explanation of why it is art. It's wrong. Why? Because give me a canvas, some gray paint, and a paint roller, and I can give you a hundred of those in a day. No effort was put into it. Take away the plaque, and nobody would appreciate it. If it stops being art because the artist isn't there to explain it, it's not freaking art.

Likewise, in the outdoor section of that museum, they have a rock in a hole. That's it, just a rock in a hole. The rock hasn't even been sculpted, the "artist" just dug a hole and put a big rock inside it. Had they not put up a sign crediting the "artist" to his "art" everyone would have just assumed it to be a freaking rock in a freaking hole. And, really, that's all it is. A rock in a hole. Not art. Why? Because I, a guy with no artistic ability whatsoever, could do the same thing with a shovel and a friend to help me move the rock.

Do you people get my point now? This is no different than going to a used car lot and being scammed out of a crap ton of money for a broken down car because the salesman used a lot of pretty words to sell it to you. These aren't artists, they're salesmen. Scam artists, if you have to use the word "artist" somewhere. They create worthless, ugly junk, and then sell it to you for a ton of money because they can spin a good enough yarn to make shallow minded idiots think that it's something it isn't.

They think, "Ooh, it's different!" and they equate "different" with "skill" and "quality." Those words should go together, but they are not synonymous. A true artist will create something that is new and unique, but also of good quality. A salesman will throw something together and insist that because nobody has done it before, it must be amazing. And the masses will eat this drivel up, because they're not educated enough to know the difference. Heck, I've got people actually telling me to go read what some art professor says. If a culinary professor told me that a shoe on a plate was good food, would that make it good food? No! So why should I care if some hack in a school tells me that nailing a box of q-tips to a wall is art? I don't. I shouldn't. And the fact that people do listen to them is the problem here.


so. the defining feature of food is edibility. a shoe is inedible? there's a video on youtube: werner herzog eats his shoe. also: leather is actually nutritious and is being eaten in times of famine(cook it first).
so you don't like the food, and the restaurant probably won't survive. I'm not sure what your argument here is.

what'ts the the defining feature of art? - the music without rhythm is not music, so: music has to have a rhythm.
is rhythm the defining feature? does that me beating on a garbage can rhythmically is better music than a vivaldi string quartett - assuming my drumming has the clearer and more distinguishable rhythm?

the nose in the museum is good art- so is a measure of quality, whether it took time and effort to make?
so, if my 4 year old nephew who has little skill or training happens to draw an impressive drawing of... something- but it only took him half an hour- does that mean, it's bad art- it didn't take him long, and he hasn't spent years in training, so it was effortless.

so the rock in the hole is not art, because you could do it yourself without training. so - art needs to be something you can't do without training?

.....
let me try a different angle: art is a form of entertainment. the question whether it's good or bad is one of whether it entertains you. - however, entertainment is very, very dependent on individual taste and education.
and so is art criticism: entertainment.
there can be some enlightening aspect in that entertainment, but it also can be a bit stupid and fun and still be good.
take a look at david shrigley's work- it's a bit stupid, but also really smart, and funny.

finally: music without a rhythm is still music. however, what you mean is:
I don't like music without rhythm.
I like the food that agrees with my taste.

and you are free to leave the used car place. even if a lot of other people like it there- you have the right to leave.
you could engage with it, figure out what the big deal is- but you don't have to.
my nephew hates rice. my sister-in-law tries to feed it to him occasionally, but he won't try. let alone like it if he tried. it's just not his thing. I like rice.
will my nephew call me stupid and complain to the waiter in the chinese restaurant? - not if I can help his education and manners. It might still not change his opinion on rice.

so. just leave the restaurant/concert hall/museum/ used car place.
bye.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


ThisAdamGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2015
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 692
Location: Northwest Arkansas

18 May 2017, 3:24 pm

shlaifu wrote:
so. the defining feature of food is edibility. a shoe is inedible? there's a video on youtube: werner herzog eats his shoe. also: leather is actually nutritious and is being eaten in times of famine(cook it first).
so you don't like the food, and the restaurant probably won't survive. I'm not sure what your argument here is.


So, if you went to a restaurant, any restaurant at all, and they insisted that you eat a shoe, you would do it just because, in some very rare, extreme circumstances, people CAN eat shoes? You wouldn't be upset at all that you didn't get whatever it was you ordered, and instead received a shoe? And were then required to PAY for said shoe? What you're doing right now is taking something that is clearly wrong (and don't pretend like you don't think it is, you know it's wrong) and making excuses for it. Same with the "art" you're talking about. I think that, deep down, you know what you're arguing for is utter nonsense, but you won't admit it and so you keep making more and more excuses. Sure, it's perfectly reasonable for a chef to tell you to eat a shoe because [insert bullcrap excuses here].

shlaifu wrote:
the nose in the museum is good art- so is a measure of quality, whether it took time and effort to make?so, if my 4 year old nephew who has little skill or training happens to draw an impressive drawing of... something- but it only took him half an hour- does that mean, it's bad art- it didn't take him long, and he hasn't spent years in training, so it was effortless.

The nose in the museum is good because you look at it, and it looks like a freaking nose. Obviously, time and effort went into making it. And unless your head is even further up your own artistic butthole than I thought, you're not going to take your 4 year old nephew's drawing and say it belongs in a museum, no matter how long it took him to draw it. The issue isn't how long it took them, necessarily, it's how much effort obviously did or did not go into making it. And more often than not, effort takes time. If your best "art" can be created in a half hour, maybe you should take a step back and look at it with a critical eye, rather than immediately pat yourself on the back and say "Imma gud artist."

shlaifu wrote:
so the rock in the hole is not art, because you could do it yourself without training. so - art needs to be something you can't do without training?

Yeah, pretty much. Even if you're training yourself, your best art should never be something that anybody off the street can perfectly replicate. If it was, what's the point of coming to a museum if I could do literally everything I saw all by myself? I'd save gas and money. My writing is self-taught, but it took me years until it got to the point where it was of good enough quality to show to other people. These "artists" you're talking about have no artistic skill, they just create nonsense and then shame anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'll tell you why modern art is so popular: because as long as you set your own standards, you can safely ignore and and all criticism you receive. What could possibly be more attractive to all the egotistical, easily offended snowflakes in the world? You make, you congratulate yourself, and you close yourself off from any input that would actually help you create something worthwhile.


_________________
Autistic author of fantasy novels. Read them for free HERE!


seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

18 May 2017, 3:40 pm

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
You wouldn't be upset at all that you didn't get whatever it was you ordered, and instead received a shoe?

so you want artists to serve you art that you like? wow dude.

you can choose not to eat the shoe. you don't have to pay for the shoe.

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
Even if you're training yourself, your best art should never be something that anybody off the street can perfectly replicate. If it was, what's the point of coming to a museum if I could do literally everything I saw all by myself?

but you didn't think of it, or do it, or somehow sell a can of s**t for its weight in gold. they did.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 May 2017, 3:58 pm

I feel happy that Bill responded to my question about Joyce, but I wanted to hear the opinions of our self-published author about literature, art, and Finnegan's Wake.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


ThisAdamGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2015
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 692
Location: Northwest Arkansas

18 May 2017, 4:05 pm

seaweed wrote:
ThisAdamGuy wrote:
You wouldn't be upset at all that you didn't get whatever it was you ordered, and instead received a shoe?

so you want artists to serve you art that you like? wow dude.

you can choose not to eat the shoe. you don't have to pay for the shoe.


The fact that you're still pretending that it's okay for a restaurant to serve shoes is the perfect example of what's wrong with your entire mindset.

Look at it this way: I can tell good art from bad just like I can tell good food from bad. If I go to some foreign restaurant, there's not a guarantee that I'll like what they give me. That doesn't mean it's bad food, it just means that it was too spicy, or too salty, or had ingredients in it that I don't like. I pay for the meal and leave. Same with art. Just because I don't necessarily like it doesn't mean it's bad art.

But if a restaurant gave me a shoe, that's just wrong. There is no defense for this, it's disgusting, unsanitary, and the chef should be fired and never given work in a restaurant again. A shoe isn't bad food, it isn't food at all. Screw what the chef wants his customers to think, it would be unacceptable for a restaurant to serve their patrons shoes. Refusing to eat the shoe doesn't mean that you aren't open minded or whatever, it just means you have the common sense not to eat a freaking show. Same with art. There's good art, bad art, and then things that just art at all. Today's "modern art" is not art, it's trash.


_________________
Autistic author of fantasy novels. Read them for free HERE!


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

18 May 2017, 4:14 pm

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
so. the defining feature of food is edibility. a shoe is inedible? there's a video on youtube: werner herzog eats his shoe. also: leather is actually nutritious and is being eaten in times of famine(cook it first).
so you don't like the food, and the restaurant probably won't survive. I'm not sure what your argument here is.


So, if you went to a restaurant, any restaurant at all, and they insisted that you eat a shoe, you would do it just because, in some very rare, extreme circumstances, people CAN eat shoes? You wouldn't be upset at all that you didn't get whatever it was you ordered, and instead received a shoe? And were then required to PAY for said shoe? What you're doing right now is taking something that is clearly wrong (and don't pretend like you don't think it is, you know it's wrong) and making excuses for it. Same with the "art" you're talking about. I think that, deep down, you know what you're arguing for is utter nonsense, but you won't admit it and so you keep making more and more excuses. Sure, it's perfectly reasonable for a chef to tell you to eat a shoe because [insert bullcrap excuses here].

pffh. no. I would have read about the experience of eating a shoe, and decided whether I would want to make that experience. - more often than not, stuff sounds too boring too go see.
but frankly- I'm giving you the license to leave the restaurant, and I give myself the same license. You're argumet is that while I give you the license to leave, I do not grant it to myself.
and for a reason I don't understand, you are upset about that.


shlaifu wrote:
the nose in the museum is good art- so is a measure of quality, whether it took time and effort to make?so, if my 4 year old nephew who has little skill or training happens to draw an impressive drawing of... something- but it only took him half an hour- does that mean, it's bad art- it didn't take him long, and he hasn't spent years in training, so it was effortless.

The nose in the museum is good because you look at it, and it looks like a freaking nose. Obviously, time and effort went into making it. And unless your head is even further up your own artistic butthole than I thought, you're not going to take your 4 year old nephew's drawing and say it belongs in a museum, no matter how long it took him to draw it. The issue isn't how long it took them, necessarily, it's how much effort obviously did or did not go into making it. And more often than not, effort takes time. If your best "art" can be created in a half hour, maybe you should take a step back and look at it with a critical eye, rather than immediately pat yourself on the back and say "Imma gud artist."

shlaifu wrote:
so the rock in the hole is not art, because you could do it yourself without training. so - art needs to be something you can't do without training?

Yeah, pretty much. Even if you're training yourself, your best art should never be something that anybody off the street can perfectly replicate. If it was, what's the point of coming to a museum if I could do literally everything I saw all by myself? I'd save gas and money. My writing is self-taught, but it took me years until it got to the point where it was of good enough quality to show to other people. These "artists" you're talking about have no artistic skill, they just create nonsense and then shame anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'll tell you why modern art is so popular: because as long as you set your own standards, you can safely ignore and and all criticism you receive. What could possibly be more attractive to all the egotistical, easily offended snowflakes in the world? You make, you congratulate yourself, and you close yourself off from any input that would actually help you create something worthwhile.


so, art=effort?
and finally: so the artist does something you don't like, but he does, by his own standards. fine. don't buy it.
if it's not good enough for anyone but his own standards, well, he better not quit his day job.

I don't get your problem. Don't go to a museum if it angers you that the artwork is measured to a standard you don't accept.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

18 May 2017, 4:14 pm

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
seaweed wrote:
ThisAdamGuy wrote:
You wouldn't be upset at all that you didn't get whatever it was you ordered, and instead received a shoe?

so you want artists to serve you art that you like? wow dude.

you can choose not to eat the shoe. you don't have to pay for the shoe.


The fact that you're still pretending that it's okay for a restaurant to serve shoes is the perfect example of what's wrong with your entire mindset.

Look at it this way: I can tell good art from bad just like I can tell good food from bad. If I go to some foreign restaurant, there's not a guarantee that I'll like what they give me. That doesn't mean it's bad food, it just means that it was too spicy, or too salty, or had ingredients in it that I don't like. I pay for the meal and leave. Same with art. Just because I don't necessarily like it doesn't mean it's bad art.

But if a restaurant gave me a shoe, that's just wrong. There is no defense for this, it's disgusting, unsanitary, and the chef should be fired and never given work in a restaurant again. A shoe isn't bad food, it isn't food at all. Screw what the chef wants his customers to think, it would be unacceptable for a restaurant to serve their patrons shoes. Refusing to eat the shoe doesn't mean that you aren't open minded or whatever, it just means you have the common sense not to eat a freaking show. Same with art. There's good art, bad art, and then things that just art at all. Today's "modern art" is not art, it's trash.


unlike non-food, bad art doesn't harm you... so.... leave the museum!


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


ThisAdamGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2015
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 692
Location: Northwest Arkansas

18 May 2017, 4:32 pm

shlaifu wrote:
so, art=effort?

Effort + Actual skill (not "personal meaning") = Art. Look at the crap in museums that they're calling art, and tell me that any effort was put into it. Any at all. Like I said, I'm not an artist, and I could make the stuff they're displaying in there in half an hour, at most. That's not art.

shlaifu wrote:
I don't get your problem. Don't go to a museum if it angers you that the artwork is measured to a standard you don't accept.

It's the fact that people's standards are so low these days that bugs me. The fact that Twilight, 50 Shades, and the like are all so freaking popular bugs me too. People will swallow whatever the "artist" tells them to because of a mixture of having nothing better, and because they're afraid of hurting the "artist's" feelings. And in the meantime, actual artists aren't getting the respect and recognition they deserve because museums are being filled with bowling balls in bird cages and kleenex that have been piled up in an "artistic" way.


_________________
Autistic author of fantasy novels. Read them for free HERE!


seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

18 May 2017, 4:48 pm

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
The fact that you're still pretending that it's okay for a restaurant to serve shoes is the perfect example of what's wrong with your entire mindset.


the shoe analogy makes no sense. i'm not pretending anything you're saying makes sense.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

18 May 2017, 5:04 pm

ThisAdamGuy wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
so, art=effort?

Effort + Actual skill (not "personal meaning") = Art. Look at the crap in museums that they're calling art, and tell me that any effort was put into it. Any at all. Like I said, I'm not an artist, and I could make the stuff they're displaying in there in half an hour, at most. That's not art.

well, for the last century and a half, the effort went into the intellectual part. into the thinking, coming up with it, developin
g a personal meaning to put into.

shlaifu wrote:
I don't get your problem. Don't go to a museum if it angers you that the artwork is measured to a standard you don't accept.

It's the fact that people's standards are so low these days that bugs me. The fact that Twilight, 50 Shades, and the like are all so freaking popular bugs me too. People will swallow whatever the "artist" tells them to because of a mixture of having nothing better, and because they're afraid of hurting the "artist's" feelings. And in the meantime, actual artists aren't getting the respect and recognition they deserve because museums are being filled with bowling balls in bird cages and kleenex that have been piled up in an "artistic" way.


you're mixing things here though- the high-brow art, whee the artist supposedly tells the audience whatever he wants- but, you forget, there's a few factors here: there's galleries, agencies and collectors. If an artist ends up in a museum, quite a few people who deal with art on a daily basis agreed to put this in a musuem. the ten-thousands of starving artists screaming to the world about how great they are while waiting tables- it's not so much about what the artist wants his art to be- it's finding an audience. that's not an easy job.
and: in the museum setting, people don't tell each other to the face that they suck. in any setting that's... civilized these days, no one tells the other that they suck. HOWEVER the museum buyer just won't take the piece, the gallerist and the curator won't show it. the artist has to learn for himself when to quit following his dreams.

people will tell you your writing is great, but won't find time to tead it. rejections always end with "please send us any work you do in the future". they still won't publish your writing. it is a rejection.
sometimes, you'll be just ignored.
no one will ever tell you, to your face, or write you an answer-letter: "we have read your book in its entirety, but we think it sucks".
not going to happen.
after a few years, the rejected author will maybe get the message. or not. from the publisher's point of view: who cares?

regarding low-brow culture: well, it'd need interest in structure and quality and so on - education- but if you overdo it withe education, you end up with people enjoying modern art.
so.
you're upset about people not liking the same things, not being on the same level between high and low brow art that you are on. guess what.
so am I.
we're just on different levels. but getting angry at either direction of the spectrum is a bit pointless.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


PhosphorusDecree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2016
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,405
Location: Yorkshire, UK

27 May 2017, 9:40 am

Let's back up a bit and take another angle: Death to Art!

"I get very worried about this idea of art. Having been an English Literature graduate, I've been trying to avoid the idea of doing art ever since. I think the idea of art kills creativity." -Douglas Adams.

More than the other arts, the visual arts are stuck with this heavily loaded but ambiguous idea of Art (with a capital A). It's a heavily contested idea, too- art is supposed to have some kind of special, intrinsic worth, but we have long arguments about, basically, whether the worth lies in the artist's intention or the viewer's reaction. (See above!) And about whether or not there's a quality bar or style bar below which something can't be considered "Art"- which begs the question, what IS it then?

I think Douglas Adams might've been right to shun the word. So many artists end up chasing the chimera of Artistic Significance instead of trusting their own judgement. Even in the avant-garde end of things, it may be healthier to say "I make installations from junk!" than "I'm an artist!"

(I quit composing classical music for several years, mainly because I was tying myself in knots about what it was OK to write. The answer always seemed to be "something I don't like." Moved sideways into songwriting: a humbler art form where we don't worry about such things. Suddenly I was far happier and more produtive, and the music I created was better too!)


_________________
You're so vain
I bet you think this sig is about you


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

27 May 2017, 9:41 pm

^I can get behind this idea

I'm here, being called idiotic because of the art I like, and worse being told that I only like it because someone told me I should like it. All those fighting words because some guy had a problem with people calling things art. It never mattered. If they call it the Stedelijk no art here Museum I'd still go. Kill art, if you want to, and let people display what they like.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


ThisAdamGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2015
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 692
Location: Northwest Arkansas

27 May 2017, 10:12 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
I'm here, being called idiotic because of the art I like, and worse being told that I only like it because someone told me I should like it.


Please, victimize yourself some more. I never told you you had to agree with me, I merely told you I don't agree with you. I didn't make you keep coming back here to argue with me. If anything, the fact that you did speaks to some insecurity in you that makes me think you actually agree with me, but can't get down from your "artistic" high horse to admit it.


_________________
Autistic author of fantasy novels. Read them for free HERE!