>>718104365
I don't know if you're the same anon I was replying to, or if that anon was
>>718103437, but as you can see, I ended up actually conceding right here and admitting I was wrong
>>718104170
Regardless, I'll try to respond in good faith despite my initial anger.
>It could be argued that this began to appear around the time of Toulouse-Lautrec,
I don't quite fully understand your point here. Are you insinuating the separation of art and design began during Toulouse-Lautrec's time? Because I don't see it. Especially since Mucha disproves that, art and design was definitely interlinked even then.
>Warhol was hardly the first person to commodify art. Jackson Pollock's abstract expressionism
I will admit, I got the timeline wrong. But the reason why I am fixated on Warhol, is mainly because for several years in different schools I attended during Middle and High School, I had to endure multiple art teachers who preferred for us to learn from Pop Art like Warhol instead of learning the actual fundamentals. I did not actually learn the fundamentals barring one teacher who actually knew her shit on art. It's something that has bothered me for years, and even if you're correct that Jackson is worse. The question is then, can you not deny that Warhol had arguably a far more impact on how art ended up being taught to future generations?
>Erotic art is practically as old as civilization. It surely wasn't defined by the 20th century
Of course not, but again, if you are that original anon, you should know you were implying otherwise. But again, this got clarified by
>>718103437
>Still ironic you're talking about "predating" when you had the above wrong in much the same capacity as you're accusing the other poster of.
Which poster? The Saucy guy? You can see he barely argues in good faith
>You don't have to reply, this will be my only response.
If that's what you wish, fine. But regardless, it was enlightening to engage in this discussion, so I thank you regardless.
