just an ad means this was an artistic expression inof itself

theres nothing inherently wrong with destruction as an artform

> Why that bothers so many here might also be telling. Why are you being triggered?

Maybe because we are exhausted by this woke bullshit telling us that everything is meant to offend and we should be offended by everything. Maybe because the level of outrage at an ad seems to dwarf the outrage we (don’t) see at things that actually deserve outrage. That our little snowflake society should turn its attention to bigger, real issues rather than let its ego get offended by everything that crosses its path.

I agree with your point about outrage culture these days. But your language indicates you think it’s a political issue for the left (“woke,” “snowflake”). The fact is that both ends of the political spectrum get way too outraged over things these days (they crushed art! He didn’t wear a flag pin!).

It’s not a political issue, it’s a problem with our culture right now, probably driven in part by social media algorithms and systems (upvotes) that reward outrage.

> Put your ego aside and accept that advertising might have a significant influence on a person's perception, reasoning, and judgment...and accomplish it in subtle ways you may not be fully cognizant of. That can also lead to more vast cultural conditioning.

Can you please expand a bit on what you feel should be the outcome here? To me it kind of feels like that the logical progression of your argument is that “any creative work with an influential impact is problematic”. That is a scary attitude that is used all to often to oppress more than provide freedom of thought. Music, literature, art, etc… all are used by their creators to illicit a response of some sort, and most rely on that response as a trigger to invoke a product purchase. Every creative is in the business of sales.

I want art to trigger an emotional response. That’s the point.

> "any creative work with an influential impact is problematic"

No? Any creative work with an influential impact may be subject to critical analysis. You may disagree with the conclusions, but it's hard to disagree with the act of analysis.

Never said anything to the contrary. There is lots of artwork I don’t like and I am happy to express an opinion or critique when asked. I am not morally outraged about it though.

They're not claiming it's problematic because it's influential, just that it's both.

That’s subjective… I didn’t find it problematic at all.

Of course it's subjective.