2 Answers

  1. Art should reflect the context and historical stage of society. Of course, it is still necessary to clearly define what exactly is meant by the word “art”: a purely beautiful image with a fairly direct and clear meaning – or a complex system of images-context-author's story-other things. If the first can exist without the second (read-a beautiful picture without context), this is cool. If the latter exists without the former, it is also OK, there is nothing wrong with provocative art that pushes the boundaries and teases the viewer. It's not OK when people trigger the “if you don't understand the meaning, then you're a fool” toggle switch, because a person doesn't have to know everything about supremacists, for example. In the opposite direction, it also works, I don't understand aggression against any work just because it is incomprehensible.

    In short: art does not always have to be clear and beautiful, it can be incomprehensible, it can be “ugly”, it can be incomprehensible and ugly, as a result, in general, the expression is correct

  2. I hope I won't get blocked for such a picture, but this can serve as an excellent answer to the question posed.

    and here you still need to add some description so that the answer is missed

Leave a Reply