there was nothing to counter. You made not one reasonable point to be "countered", therefore we were just telling you like it is.


>I have a question for you 2 knuckleheads (Lexx and Brew). What
>would you call art? What would you call good art?

Art is whatever the artIST intends for his work to be. That's the beauty of art, it is undefined. It can be whatever the person making it decides it should be. If art was defined and confined to certain specifications, it would be pretty fucking boring wouldn't it? Everything in music would sound exactly the same, all pictures would be painted exactly the same, all buildings would be constructed exactly the same, shit hiphop probably wouldn't exist because, well, it was someone's idea to take the ART of music and change it up to appeal to the ghettos of America. So art is literally whatever the artist wants it to be, and whatever the audience interprets it to be.

If said audience doesn't like said art, they should go ahead and move on to the next piece of art and see if they like that. It doesn't just automatically become un-art because bentagain decided that the artist's (in this case, Common) work doesn't fit into the little box you created for him/her in your mother's basement. To question whether or not someone's work should be considered "art" just because YOU don't like it is sad and pathetic. If you don't like what he's doing, move on to the next one.

I would call "good art" stuff that I like. I would call "bad art" stuff that I don't like. But someone else may consider the stuff that I consider "bad art" to be "good art". Therefore, it's still art. And it's good to someone. Art wasn't supposed to be liked by everyone.

I don't like Common's last two albums either, that doesn't mean they're not "art".