"Men are better artists than women"
- Thread starter brianvds
- Start date
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,816
txomsy
Apprentice of amateur
- Messages
- 235
Troll in search for clicks.
So many Internet posters are today trying to get clicks in their feed that raising obvious nonsense controversies is a desperate attempt to draw attention. Was to say more, but I don't think feeding the trolls is any good.
To clarify, I refer to the video.
So many Internet posters are today trying to get clicks in their feed that raising obvious nonsense controversies is a desperate attempt to draw attention. Was to say more, but I don't think feeding the trolls is any good.
To clarify, I refer to the video.
txomsy
Apprentice of amateur
- Messages
- 235
It is nonsense. Art is a form of expression, The assertion is akin to saying men can express themselves better and more than woment, which history has proven absolutely false in generic terms; if anything one might argue the opposite: that women are keener to share feelings more than men... which I find unsubstantiated as well; and that's only on specific cultures, circles and circumstances.
Anyway, as a form of expression, Art's interpretation and valuation is open, specially when not the result of a direct exchange: how could anyone tell what the author really meant when they expressed something? It'd be like trolling rants, open to a multitude of (mis)interpretations. Even if someone could tell which works were from one subset or other of a population, that would mean nothing about their artistic/expressive/descriptive merits, only about the classifying observer's preferences. Which would in no case be absolute, but just interest-vested assertions.
That any one raises such a proposition shows she's looking to raise a moot controversy to draw attention (and possibly get followers who want to hear that instead of the truth in order to feed her purse on their gullibility). In my dictionary (which is as subjective as I can be) that's -at a minimum- trolling. YMMV.
Anyway, as a form of expression, Art's interpretation and valuation is open, specially when not the result of a direct exchange: how could anyone tell what the author really meant when they expressed something? It'd be like trolling rants, open to a multitude of (mis)interpretations. Even if someone could tell which works were from one subset or other of a population, that would mean nothing about their artistic/expressive/descriptive merits, only about the classifying observer's preferences. Which would in no case be absolute, but just interest-vested assertions.
That any one raises such a proposition shows she's looking to raise a moot controversy to draw attention (and possibly get followers who want to hear that instead of the truth in order to feed her purse on their gullibility). In my dictionary (which is as subjective as I can be) that's -at a minimum- trolling. YMMV.
