"for a good very shitty time call Donald Trump."

None of the good stuff is real any more.

Who said women are all, by definition, pro-woman? Just as men can be feminists, women can be misogynists.

how disrespectful it is toward women.

is to sometimes offend some. Think about it (also the nature of art.)

Just because something is done by someone who calls herself or himself an artist does not make it art, let alone good art. It's sad that the last century has made so many of us lose sight of this. Just as not all music is good music, and not all literature is good literature, not all art is good art.

And WAAAAAY beyond that, who is to say what is "good" art and what is not?

You may have bought into the nonsense some artists have been pushing for almost a century now. Fortunately, there are still artists out there who realize that art is hard work and an extremely challenging endeavor -- not just a matter of shocking or offending the public.

Have a nice 4th!

just as it is with music and literature.

One day, people will realize how foolish it was to think that everything created by someone calling himself or herself an artist was art.

I'm an artist, by the way. But I'm sure that insulting and attacking an artist for her opinion about art is very satisfying.

Michelangelo is probably turning over in his grave at the idea of being considered the equivalent of the "artist" who thought up (and probably did not even actually build or make) this monstrosity.

You demonstrate the very attitude that sometimes makes me question my decision to return to art. The lack of appreciation for what art really is is depressing. And those who have neither the talent nor the patience to create true art are the ones who benefit.

I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune. You clearly don't know enough about art to realize that you're parroting thoughts that are slowly being challenged by a growing number of artists. You can be proud of yourself for having attacked, mocked, and dismissed one of those artists because she was saying something that was not popular at the time.

F


R


E


E


Y


O


U


R


M


I


N


D

consider that the very purpose of art is to elicit an emotional response. Whether favorable or unfavorable is of secondary consideration. The worst response would be a neutral or indifferent one.

Not all art is equally valuable. In any other field, this kind of thinking would be laughed at.

Insulting minority groups does not suddenly become acceptable if the person doing the insulting calls himself or herself an artist.

Anyway, what I'm saying goes against what people have said for almost a century, so of course I will be mocked and attacked. It's always easier to laugh, mock, and attack, than to think for oneself.

There is bad art and good art. But it is a purely subjective call, always in the eye of the beholder. The passage of time also alters perceptions. Van Gogh couldn't sell his paintings to save his life while he was alive, and died a failure on the basis of what most would have considered standards of artistic success. I for one have seen many museum pieces that would look better placed inside a trash dumpster. Just observations that are not necessarily shared by others. But does that make them "not art"?

<img src="" border="0">

A Japanese artist who made a kayak modelled on her own vagina has been arrested again in a case that has sparked accusations of censorship.

Megumi Igarashi, who calls herself Rokude Nashiko – offensive slang which loosely translates as “reprobate child” – was arrested in July for trying to raise funds online to pay for the construction of a kayak, using a 3D printer, inspired by her genitals.

She was released days later following a legal appeal and after thousands of people signed a petition demanding her freedom.

Megumi Igarashi, known as Rokude Nashiko, says there is nothing obscene about her vagina which is the model for her kayak design.

[link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/03/japanese-vagina-kayak-artist-arrested-again-obscenity|

but no one would say that anything any writer writes, no matter how offensive, trite, or devoid of talent, is literature.

Maybe one day, mediocre and lazy writers will start a movement that convinces everyone that anything that is written by a human with a pen or a keyboard is literature, and that the more shocking and offensive the writing is, the more valuable it is as a piece of literature.

Even then, there will still be people writing great literature, and there will be those who value it and appreciate that not every piece of writing is literature. Those people will, of course, be mocked, attacked, and dismissed on DU.

I dont know why the Great Gardener let him survive after that.

You seem to be responding to a point that was never made -- at least not by me.

In five hundred years, if people feel that this set of urinals "made" by this "artist" is great art, you can come back and tell me I was wrong. I am betting they won't. And in the end, that's what determines what is great art and what is not: the opinion of the public over the centuries -- not the opinion of an art critic or the reaction of a single person, who will almost certainly have moved on to something else a few minutes later.

"...mediocre and lazy writers will start a movement that convinces everyone that anything that is written by a human with a pen or a keyboard is literature, and that the more shocking and offensive the writing is, the more valuable it is as a piece of literature."

I cant really know what you were thinking about, but the reception of the 4th symphony as "Muddle Instead of Music" seems to fit the description perfectly.

Also I would point out that going back in time is a very over used plot device that you nowadays mostly find in comics and cheap tv-productions. According to modern science this very difficult to do.

Music is a perfect example. A lot of people think shitty music is "good" and vice-versa.

WTF??

Mick Jagger might not approve