I agree with most everything here, especially that art and social commentary are by no means mutually exclusive. My point about political slogan graffiti was just to take the distinction between art and social commentary to its most extreme. You mentioned in your earlier comment that the “new” perspective on art is that the message is more important than the medium. I was attempting to demonstrate the flaws within that perspective.
You jab at my conservative taste with the poker-playing dogs thing, yet while I’m over here appreciating Impressionism, you’re defending graffiti
Sure, graffiti can be art, like a corncob can be a pipe, but Banksy can’t be Monet. I think we should not conflate timely social commentary with skill in execution of the medium. I hope we can all agree that those are two distinct things, even if some of us hold one in higher regard than the other.Is that a roll of toilet paper he is reaching for?