DemonFiren wrote:What makes art art is the artist's intentions.
This is the basis of liberal art, yeah.
But before that in the 16th century the basis of art being beautiful was painting religious symbols. Does that make them less of artists because they didn't have the same intentions as our current artists?
Do you think that a 16th century painter looking at our art will think its art? No, because they did not have the same values. In the future, our art will also be completely different, and it could be so different that we ourselves would refuse it because it doesn't fit our current values of "art". That being that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (This entire idea is very much a new thing, it's ingrained in the modern art rhetoric, this has never been the case for art. Kings and priests decided what things were art before the liberal era, not some stinky peasant in the middle of nowhere, and we still got beautiful pieces of art like the Sistine chapel or the statue of david etc).
It's a recent phenomena that
everyone can appreciate art. Before that it was not for us simple people, it was for the nobility and gentry, and so was voting. This is not a coincidence. Liberalism toughts have painted a whole lot of our culture and its hard to see where the goalposts start and end due to it. We like to think that our society will always be the same, and to be fair, so did the medieval kings. They too thought that in 2000 years there would still be a king at the top with absolute power, followed by nobles and knights contracted to them, with peasants under contract to the knights and lords. They could not understand any other world just like we can't understand a post-humanism/post-liberalism world. Liberalism won't die with a bang, it'll die with a whimper.
