[fluoridation]

If all you can do is tell me that I can't be right because I'm less educated on art than someone who doesn't agree with me, that just tells me I'm probably right. I'll stand in front of an art PhD and tell them their degree is worthless and a waste of time because it didn't teach to see something an uneducated idiot like me can see.

Sorry, you can't get me to shut up through ad hominem and appeals to authority. You have to actually convince me I'm wrong. Argue your point or don't bother; you're just wasting your time otherwise.

[leocgcd]

Would you stand in front an astrophysicist PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can’t see dark matter and supersymmetry? Would you stand in front of an archaeology PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can obviously see that aliens created the pyramids? You don’t know what you’re talking about. Your idea of art as a purely subjective study isn’t held by anyone with even casual knowledge of the field. It’s like claiming mathematics is subjective because we all have different favorite numbers.

Multiple commenters have used pathos and ethos to argue with you because your understanding is so rudimentary and your ignorance so great that to argue the nature of art with you would be like trying to teach algebra to an ape. You cannot comprehend an actual argument from your starting point.

I for one don’t really like Warhol. I’m a spurned formalist along the likes of Greenberg and Fried, and I think the true inheritor of post-modernist conceptualism lies with Minimalists like Serra, Morris, Smithson, etc. I’m not convinced by Baudrillard, and I think the strongest Warhol is his early and late periods where he was much more concerned with illustration and surface treatment, respectively. I am still not such an uneducated simpleton so as to make the claim that Warhol isn’t art or worthy of art historical study. -This- is what an argument against Warhol looks like. Demonstrated knowledge of art history, methodology, and reasoning. You are claiming people aren’t engaging with you but you lack the fundamental skills to be engaged with. Again, this is like arguing mathematical proofs with someone who can’t multiply two numbers. Read a book!

[fluoridation]

>Would you stand in front an astrophysicist PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can’t see dark matter and supersymmetry? Would you stand in front of an archaeology PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can obviously see that aliens created the pyramids?

No. Obviously I don't have the same respect for all fields.

>-This- is what an argument against Warhol looks like. Demonstrated knowledge of art history, methodology, and reasoning.

See, you're misunderstanding. You expressed an idea in the form of an argument that might convince someone educated the same way you are, of its truth. I simply made an appreciation and then explained how I got to it. It was never meant to be convincing, it was just meant to be out there. And all I got were a bunch of people who said I shouldn't say that, or I shouldn't look at it that way, yet could offer no reason why I shouldn't say that, or why I shouldn't do that. You're doing it, too; you're just telling me to read a book. I'm not going to read a book on art history. I don't have the inclination or time, and my appreciation of art doesn't work like that the way it does for you. I have nothing to gain from reading a book on art, and much to lose. You're the one who thinks I shouldn't be saying the things I'm saying, convince me I shouldn't.

WHY am I wrong in approaching the subject in this manner? Because so far the only problem I see is that it ruffles the feathers of people with art degrees. If that really is the only reason then I simply do not care.

[leocgcd]

>I simply made an appreciation and then explained how I got to it. It was never meant to be convincing, it was just meant to be out there… WHY am I wrong in approaching the subject in this manner?

You’re asking me to justify to you why one shouldn’t flap their mouth about things they don’t know anything about and then stand by their willful ignorance when confronted by domain experts? You want me to convince you that it’s not ok to just spout bullshit and insist that it’s a valid position to hold irrespective of knowledge, methods, accuracy, reasoning, logic, research, justification, experience, etc etc? Lmfao. You’re delusional.

[fluoridation]

You have an indefensible position, got it.

[romwell]

The point here is that nobody owes you a course in art history which would answer all of your why questions when many such courses are available.

You're not entitled to free education from us, particularly - against your will ("convince me"), when there are many resources out there available to you.

We can point out why your opinions are bad (they are grounded in too little knowledge of what you're opining on), we can point out where to get more knowledge.

If you want to learn, you will.

The saddest thing here is not even arrogance, but lack of curiosity.

[fluoridation]

So you want something out of me, but are not willing to explain why I should do it. Okay, then I'm not compelled to do it. I can simply tell you to piss off. I'm not entitled to receive an education from you and you're not entitled to have me not write stupid things.