However, I don't think it's useful to use history to demonize the descendants of the perpetrators. As I see it, it's not individual people -- let alone their descendants -- who are evil. It's arguably cultures that are evil, and all involved are arguably victims.
We do understand that you do not like Walker's art, and seem to be trying to make others feel bad for liking it. Maybe we can just critique the art itself?
On what authority do you define art for all of us? Why does your definition of art have to be all of our definition?
My theory is that people don't actually like it, they just understand that they're supposed to say they like it. Also, I did critique the art itself.
> On what authority do you define art for all of us? Why does your definition of art have to be all of our definition?
My comment expresses my opinion about what art is and what makes it worthwhile. I don't want "define art for all of us" or to force other people to conform to my opinion in any way. But I wouldn't mind convincing other people.
I no longer see any reason to continue this conversation; you're just trying to attack me.
No but I think "would I hang this on my wall?" is a fairly good metric for "do I like this". I've been in situations where I lied and said "I like this art" because I felt socially obligated. My argument is that there's a distinction between "what I say I like" and "what I actually like".
> I no longer see any reason to continue this conversation; youre just trying to attack me.
I'm not trying to attack you. I'm sorry it came off that way.