>>3530452I mean the making of art is progressively resembling corporacy. Shadman's ostensible ideology may be diametrically opposite to corporate populism but he operates on the same mechanics.
>So now that people no longer have the state or church dictate good art for them and they can choose with their own money you think they are too stupid to know what they want because you don't like their choice?Not talking about the church or state, those are even worse memes than social networks memery. (You probably brought those up to avoid the accusation of being a moralfag or cappie liberal, both associated with redditry.) But what I'm saying is the value of their money is meaningless, when they are influenced by social media's statistics of likes and retweets as well as specific imagery in a way like advertising although there are subtle nuances behind each motive to contribute a statistic. They choose to pay it but the aesthetic intention is not theirs but based on patterns which occur, engendered from sociopathic manipulation. But yes I do think they're stupid when they think Shadman's art style looks good. Although its subjective and a popular opinion may be treated as objective, with enough exposure to art comes taste and better (more refined, only in the sense of precise) taste could be a better opinion.
Reason comes from individual motive, supply/demand is not reason in this sense.
Not even trying rhetoric neither do I think it's smart. Just how I write, it's an attempt to be dictionary-precise if anything.
I do make loli drawings that are nowhere on the internet, do not live in a country where's it's illegal. Art should not give a fuck about taboo which is a religion-propagated conviction anyway. I just care that Shadman with his statistics is creating shit taste in art, in this wicked way which is eerily similar to corporatism.
