no space said:
...
Sure, you may appreciate art. You may be able to tell the difference between what is and isn't art. But that doesn't mean you know what art is. That doesn't make you qualified to define it, unless you can provide at least some basic premises for your claims.
So, to discuss. How many people here have actually researched this? How many people here have read Hume, Kant, Danto, Beardsley, Bell, Greenberg, someone? Who here doesn't care about basic logic and wants to just throw whatever they feel like at artistic discussions?
...
Your original post reeks of ego. Going to presume you're in college, but I really hope that's not the case. Your condescending behavior would definitely fit the mold of the pompous college student/graduate.
We all understand your frustration, but your handling of it is piss poor. Have you ever seen someone rant about wanting "servers for XYZ game with minimum IQ"? Someone usually comes along and asks "What happens when they decide to set the bar 10 points above your (original poster's) IQ?". Maybe someone has already done that in this thread, but if not then I pose that question to you. You're complaining about uneducated people talking about art with too much authority, yet you're doing the same after only taking a few survey classes in the subject. What makes *you* an authority? You might answer your own question.
I've been an artist since about the same time I could speak. If you need me to back that up, then I can do that but it's the internet and I could just lie anyway. My point is that I've taken maybe one art "theory" course, a long time ago, and I didn't pay any attention to it. For someone to tell me that I'm not qualified to speak about art with my life time of experience creating it... well, I think that's pretty hilarious.
Curious though... would you think a sports commentator is more qualified to talk about football than someone that's been playing it for several decades without ever taking a course in it?
