You're not offering any reason why I should form my opinion in any way other than the way I do, you're just trying to invalidate my opinion because you think how I formed it is wrong, again without offering any reason why that is so. Yes, perhaps if both your and my opinions were informed by the same facts we would agree. But so what? That doesn't invalidate my opinion, and I'm not going to shut up. I'm just going to keep calling out low-effort garbage when I see it. I don't care if it frustrates you. If that lowers your opinion of me I'm fine with that; I also don't have a high opinion of the people who think this sort of trash is deep.

Someone on this thread likened it to watching a boxing match and then complaining that they aren't using their legs. This is a good comparison. I would also compare it to having only eaten chicken nuggets your whole life and then complaining that a serving of foie gras isn't filling enough.

Yes, the foie gras isn't really filling, the boxers aren't using their legs, and the art doesn't look like real life. But your judgement is based on ignorance. You lack the vocabulary to describe what you're seeing-- but more than that, you lack the eye to even see it in the first place. And instead of conceding that you just don't really know what you're talking about, you double down and insist that you're actually privy to some profound truth about art. It can't be that the countless Art History PhDs, renowned critics, museum collections, and artists who see the relevance of Warhol based on years of study and consideration are correct. No, your perspective is greater because you... were dragged to a museum one time and didn't really pay attention? Because you have delusions about "effort" and the difficulty of trompe l'oeil? For fuck's sake, read a book.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

The difference is that I'm not asking you to not write stupid things, but you ask me to explain things to you.

>So you want something out of me

That would be projection. You want something out of other people (an explanation), whereas we want you to get something for yourself.

We get absolutely nothing if you learn more about the subject you opine on. You will.

>I can simply tell you to piss off.

You certainly can. You're not in the right forum for that though.

I did write an explanation up the thread - long enough to not fit into the limits of a single comment on HN (a hilarious limitation for 2024, but I digress).

Please read it.