Every time art is discussed and the character of an artist is brought up or the very meaning of the art piece, if the art is shit, or the artist is a piece of garbage in his personal life, inevitably the "intellectual" normies will come flocking, to defend the art they will say
>oh maybe you just don't get it
>oh well it's not for everyone
(immediately pumping up their own ego, indirectly proclaiming themselves being "better" than others by claiming to enjoy objectively shit art)
or to defend their artist they will claim that
>oh artists are weird people bro
>well yeah he does this weird creepy stuff but he's an artist they're "eccentric"
bullshit. All these "weird artists" are subverters. Good art is objective, beauty itself is objective. I think art can have 2, perhaps 3 purposes given by the artist, which can be interpreted by the consumer in multiple other ways.
1. Beauty, simple high beauty that man can use in multiple ways motivation, simple viewing pleasure, perhaps as an ideal. Think of the statues of Arno Breker, objectively fantastic pieces. What do you feel or think of when you look at Bereitschaft by Breker? or the various Greek God pieces? you see power, you see intelligence even, you see a man above the subhuman in him. You see discipline, you see readiness. And that can drive you.
2. Meaning : a certain idea or feeling being brought forward by the artist, or as a record of history, the examples are countless. For the ideas being brought forward look no further than political cartoons, for example stonetoss' comics. As for historical records, i don't think i need to explain those.
3. Both purposes combined, art can indeed be both beautiful AND have meaning, look at "The Course of The Empire - Destruction" by Thomas Cole, a painting i'm sure many of you have seen before, not only is it an incredible piece of art purely aesthetically, but it also has meaning, it documents the fall of Rome and showcases it visually, the headless statue, the fires, the broken bridge, the people in a panic, and of course it can get man to think upon the course of Rome and that of his current society just as one can simply admire it from an aesthetic point of view.
That is what art is, not meaningless and ugly garbage like picasso's works, that is subversive scum, much like the one that made it.
When you start to have to pretend that ugliness is beautiful and that meaningless shit has some meaning, when in fact it only has any meaning in the artist's schizophrenic mind, like early surrealism, that's when art falls.
Nobody ever had to "get" anything to appreciate Rembrandt or Raphael, people HAD to be indoctrinated to "get" picasso.
Oh, by the way, he was a communist too
