Why should I care about art? genuine question, not rhetorical

How many fedoras are you on

>“We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

>All art is quite useless.”

>unironically thinking he had anything of value to say

He was literally right about everything though

What's his best book

>Implynig Wilde was not the equivalent of a shitposter during the 19th century

If you have to ask this question then there isn't really anything compelling I can say that would convince you otherwise.

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Dorian. Cliche, but Dorian Grey is probably my favourite modern legend.

What are your current interests?
Deadly reminder:Veeky Forums is Art

No it doesn't. You asked for a reason and you got one.

There is literally no value in modern "art" that only gullible museum-goers and patrons see
Prove me wrong faggots

Some modern art is patrician like the cover of velvet underground debut for example.......Faggit

>says art is useless
>makes art
When was Wildes shitposting even trying to pronounce

Why would you bother responding?
>I should let OP know I have nothing intelligent to say
OP doesn't understand or care for the value of art, all you need to do is explain the value of art or why OP should care.

There's value for some, not for others. Same of 'beautiful' art.

>everything I don't like is not real art

Art is probably more important than science.Lets fight

1 + 1 = 2 is that science or art to you?

no one cares about your numbers you fucking nerd bitch

No reason. It's nice to see how an illusion is crafted by certain techniques and the sort of things that are possible on a canvas.

But "Art' as a language-game has degenerated to free promotion of the most successful money laundering system in the world aka "Art".

Why do you think random pieces of shit are given holy treatment? Because the vehicle for the laundering expands its capacity size.

Instead of being able to shuffle $5000, now you can shuffle $5,000,000 because a priest of art ordained it.

t. subhuman philistine

It's both and Newton said it himself
Checkmate gaytheists

The one's who have skill are working in the entertainment and marketing industries.

The "art artists" are just faggots pimped for a name and word salad garbage so they can create worthless pieces of shit that become more valuable as laundering vehicles because of the infinite "impenetrability' of interpretation and the cheapness with which they are produced. The value is ordained by a holy humanities degree possessor.

...

t. subhuman philistine

t. filthy goyim

Art is an avenue to power. See the Medicis

I can't prove you wrong, because you are soaring so high off the smell of your own farts that you think your personal taste represents some sort of objective truth.

What was the last word salad garbage you read? Worthless piece of shit art you've seen? How do you account for art that avoids commodification and thus its place on the art market? If what you say is true, how come some artists are more successful than others? Could it be said that the successful artists are more skillful at using the market? Do you think this is all that much different from art of the past? Who do you think is a good artist?

He's very fond of Warhol

This.Ecpecially music people don't realize how powerful music really is like imagine if mainstream music had a positive message

He's currently wearing 20 fedoras there is always 1 person like this when discussing any type of art on this site look at how shite /mu/ and /co/

What do you mean by book? Essays, plays, short stories? Dorian Gray was his only novel.

It's funny because he technically made art I've noticed most people who say they hate art have a favorite artist

>how come some artists are more successful than others?

the faggots with the humanities degrees writing the fucking propoganda and overseeing the design of wretched exhibits.

> Could it be said that the successful artists are more skillful at using the market?

Part of the con game is promoting a sort of aristocracy and hierarchy of talent out of thin air.

>Do you think this is all that much different from art of the past?

Yes. Humanity has never had such a pervasive entertainment and marketing complex occupying as much cognitive frames as possible. that kind of endeavour takes artistic talent, especially of the technical sort.

It was nearly ten years ago that I read it, but I remember the essay being a heavy dose of shitposting with another part "art for art's sake"
don't know how well my teen analysis + time holds up though

What makes those with humanities degrees more successful than others? How are they able to manipulate everyone? If there is a genuine demand for highly technical illusionistic art, why are there no artists making it, or no one writing about it? Do you think there is literally no continuity between traditional art and the art world today? How do you invalidate any and all claims that there is?

>why are there no artists making it,

Advertising and entertainment you fucking idiot.

...

But in all honesty, I'd bet my life far more on the avarice and stupidity of man versus giving man a doubt.

So everyone has no choice but to eat McDonalds, 'you fucking idiot'?

Your concept of the art doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny. You keep answering less and less of my questions, especially the ones that matter.

If it's all based on lies, it should be easy to dismiss logically any and all claims for a link in artistic practice and theory between traditional art and contemporary art.

So go ahead and do that.

Refer to actual dates and artworks too, briefly.

Fine then.

I'd bet my life that my view on art has far more pragmatic value.

What would you bet on your understanding of 'art'?

Haven't you ever gone to a field and smelled the hay?

The only art pieces with any meaning are going to be vast moral-pedagogical simulations that nations train citizens with.

Everything else is utter faggotry.