/fa/ - Fashion

>>12935983
>You say "protip", but I've never met a professional artist that agrees with your ridiculous and impossibly vague definition.
Maybe you hang around some really dumb artists, not my problem.

>If art is only the exceptional or exemplary, who sets these standards?
A consesus of qualified experts in their respective fields.

>How do you clarify this without more loaded and subjective qualifiers?
Just like a doctor clarifies his reasoning for offering this or that medicine with "subjective qualifiers" (lol), take it or leave it.

>You're painting yourself into a corner and proving how out of your depth you are.
You or anyone else in this thread has yet to refute a single thing I've said.

>How was anything I said binary thinking?
>You don't get to say X is true until you prove it's false.

>I was merely using hypothetical hyperbole to show that burden of proof is on the person making a claim.
>burden of proof
That's a lovely little meta-epistemological claim I'd like you to validate, although if anything the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how anything I've said is incorrect.

>This is pretty basic philosophy (see Russell's Teapot) and the foundation of science.
There you go blowing your cover for that binary thinking

>Or are you saying my thinking is binary because I actually believe that a truth statement is either objectively true or false?
I wasn't saying anything, just laughing at your use of a peabrained true/false dialectic where it wasn't even warranted in this thread

Also,
>objectivity
>truth
>reality
please go to college