>>5630521> just also means you don't really add anything of cultural significance to the art community at largefucking lmao dude. And what has? Kim jung gi has added nothing. I'd argue less than coomer artists. Bunch of pointless pen sketches about nothing. Dave Rapoza? Dan luvisi?Loish? just pop "culture" meme references.Let's not speak of any sort concept art. Art and it's relation to cultural significance is quite literally dead. Thank the Frankfurt school.
Oh I'm drawing tits,something everyone likes, so my art is automatically of lower cultural significance because I'm not touching peoples hearts trough complex industrial design of a Airplane/truck hybrid Mecha. Fuck off. Artists have been drawing tits since the dawn of men.
Sure,what you mean has been stated by Kant. People who only get pleasure from food/sleep/sex are coarse people and low IQ.I get it.
Thus coomer art doesn't appeal to the morally good, in the same way someone who finds beauty and "cultural significance" in say, a sunset, or a nice forest can get pleasure from those things.
More importantly, NSFW artists are not saying our coomer art is high art, or that it has any meaning. They aren't saying anything actually. It's a service.We are trying to make money using the skills we have. Guess what, that's what all artists are
doing.Be it the fags in art schools, the jews in Hollywood or the retards who do "High Art" and conceptual art in snob circles. Why don't you go pester them?
I'm a coomer artist, and I would agree with you slightly in the sense that pornographic images are bad. I'd rather shift into Erotic images and I plan on doing that when I get into a stable income situation. Eroticism is good because is not literal. Pornographic images are bad because they remove any sort of mystery and potential for imagination,and thus ends up being vulgar.
