Proposition: Evaluation of the aesthetic value of art (or anything else, for that matter) is not properly the domain of artists, but rather of philosophers.

Corrollary: The fact that someone is an artist is not sufficient to qualify that person as anything other than a layperson regarding the aesthetic value of art, including their own.


This was sorta prompted by reading through the 180-something posts about the Wonderland submission... so since threadless seems to have an abnormally high number of "artists", I figure this is a good place to throw out the above. Personally, I believe both the initial proposition above and its corrollary to be true. I also just wanted people to yell at me and also maybe I was itching for an argument.

So go ahead! Tell my why this is wrong! Tear me a new one!

You know it's just so much fun to quietly judge a complete stranger's character and social value solely upon his/her physical appearance and the choices he/she has made about which Threadless shirts to spend his/her money on... so I suppose I'm a bit of a hypocrite for indulging in such a guilty pleasure myself while denying others the possibility of using me in the same manner. I should probably do something about that...