Imoutocore said:Anjuro said:I figure this is a joke thread but some people be genuinely thinking this which is kinda crazy. Honestly I'm going to go the other way on this and say its crazy to not consider it art,think about it for just a second, pick a painting by a master painter and what determines whether its art is if it has panties in it or not? Whether the painting has panties or not is not even a valid thing to bring up.
Firstly, let me start by saying that I appreciate your attempt at providing a counterargument, but I'm afraid it falls flat on its face. The fact that a painting has panties or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's art or not. Art is a subjective experience that is different for every person. It's about how the viewer interprets and experiences the work, not whether it contains panties or not. So your argument is invalid.
Secondly, you seem to be making the mistake of equating the concept of art with the concept of beauty. Yes, many works of art can be considered beautiful, but not all of them are. Art can be ugly, grotesque, disturbing, or even offensive, and yet still be considered art.
You claim that it's crazy to consider panty shots in anime as art, but you don't provide any solid reasoning for your claim. Instead, you make an invalid comparison between panty shots and paintings by master painters. The fact that a painting has panties or not has nothing to do with whether it's art or not. Art is a subjective experience that can't be reduced to a simple checklist.
Furthermore, the artistic value of panty shots in anime can't be determined solely by their presence or absence. It's about how they're used and how they contribute to the overall work. Are they used to express a certain mood or theme? Are they essential to the story or just gratuitous? These are the questions we should be asking when evaluating the artistic merit of panty shots in anime.
I really don't want to have this discussion but here we go. I find it strange that you state my point " The fact that a painting has panties or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's art or not " verbatim which I take to mean that you agree with me and yet in next 2 sentences you claim that the argument is invalid. I agree with your claim that art has a subjective interpretation by the viewer, I don't see however how this is a counter argument to anything? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm literally saying I don't understand what your point is.