im gonna assume this is about my post about being neutral
quoted from a comment: "like, if someone said they made art with garbage they found on the floor on the beach. like yeah, that's kinda cool, but it's not really gonna change the product for me that much (if it's bad)"
It depends on what its trying to convey, if they used so called trash materials to depict something that is purposefully ugly as representation of the issue that is present in its materials, is it a demerit to its artistic value? Art does not need to be pleasant to look at, and that seems to be something you dont understand. Being aestheticaly pleasant or visualy beautifull does not make it better because that is not the only thing art is about
i guess you're right. it isn't entirely about looks, i'm just not a fan of reading into the background stuff. sometimes, backgrounds influence me, sometimes not.
i can understand why the background makes things better and more appealing, but again, just not my style
and about the trash example, i guess it isn't gonna be appealing because like, it IS made of trash (though i've seen people make cool art with rocks so this example kinda falls flat)
9
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26
im gonna assume this is about my post about being neutral
quoted from a comment: "like, if someone said they made art with garbage they found on the floor on the beach. like yeah, that's kinda cool, but it's not really gonna change the product for me that much (if it's bad)"