>>3173
>So far your argument has been...
0 reading comprehensiion, my argument has not been to prove fundamental art belongs strictly to the right, but that garbage belongs solely to the left.
https://vimeo.com/67556847
The political ideology of old masters matters little to this, as it is a fact that all the garbage plaging the art world is the product of cultural marxism, the basis of liberal thinking, an ideology hellbent into destroying everything.
>by that logic representation isn't creation
I'm sorry that you seriously believe random colors represent anything or are creating something.
>he isn't "creating" anything when he makes a portrait
Yes he is, that portrait isn't going to create itself by dripping some paint over the canvas.
And even then, if you think it "doesn't count" because he's using refference, what hapens when he's doing it from Imagination? You need to be in severe denial and deeply missunderstand the act of creation to really think that also isn't creation "because people, mountains, animals, buildings etc. already exist".
>In fact, I argue that you can only "create" through non objective art
You are braindead my man, ditching all the tools and knowledge we have at our disposal to accurately repressent our imagination, and opting for splashing paint, drawing basic figures or even shapes isn't "true creation","true imagination/creativity" or whatever the fuck you're Implying.
Imagine a god that creates worlds upon worlds with a firm grasp of reality as we know it but still lets his imagination wander and come up with unique life forms and enviroments, now imagine a god that creates shapes and colors because he thinks that's more original and unique, the later is simply wrong.
>"conservative" art rejects creation
Far from that, as it ensures the preservation of the knowledge to truly create, but I don't expect you to understand this, as you seem to believe visual ramblings are worth something.
>>3181
>There are people right now who idolize "left artists".
That's the point, they don't desserve it, it all stems from the perpetuated myth that their work devoid of knowledge, merit and ambition is the same or even better that the work of old and contemporary masters.
The artworld of "the right" doesn't idolize people that do not desserve it.
>Even knowledgeable people.
Doesn't mean anything, there are "knowledgeable people" that believe transexuals aren't mentally ill and that mutilating their bodies is beneficial and succesfully "transitions" them.
The truth doesn't stop being the truth just because the majority, or in this case, "knowledgeable people", believe so.
>Yes, it is.
Have fun painting walls, surely, in this day and age where spraying paint from your ass is considered "art", there's nothing stoping you from bullshiting your way to success.
>Except it was a reaction towards tradition.
To destroy it, learn 2 cultural marxism, nothing happens in a vacuum.
>You can create anything
care to elaborate what is creating pollock or any other color field abstract modern whatever painter?
Don't give me the "it represents a concept" bullshit, I want to know what the smeared shit is supposed to be, literally.