i will briefly outline a little argument for moral anti-realism, or perhaps an argument that "companions in guilt" defences of moral realism are at least a bit misguided without the support of a good argument that these companions really are guilty.

i will briefly outline a little argument for moral anti-realism, or perhaps an argument that "companions in guilt" defences of moral realism are at least a bit misguided without the support of a good argument that these companions really are guilty.
i seem to remember that the wikipedia page for "anti-art" had a picture of that old woman mona lisa with a moustache painted on. it reminded me of drawing on newspapers and magazines with a fine and smelly pen, that pokes holes, making fun of anyone with the temerity to appear. that's all you can hope for!
i never really took the words seriously. i had always had affection for things not normally called art being called art, but that does not seem to me to be anti-art, strictly. to be against art - all art, everywhere, forever - is a far firmer position than the expansion of the boundaries of aesthetic appreciation. it requires a transvaluation of what we are doing whenever we do this thing art: all creation, all appreciation, all of the grand fetishism. perhaps we say art at a certain time got bad somehow, due to money or something, or that it has hitherto all been bad and will get good soon with the absence of some social condition (scarcity, repression, oppression). but then, if the past or future thing has anything to do with this present thing, it is surely guilty by association, in that if it is truly different, it will no longer be called art.
there is a wonder as to what could possibly motivate this, but then again, isn't it clear? have you ever been in a gallery? it all stinks of shit, in much the same way that all private-public spaces stink, and badly! everyone has their own story about how it is somehow inauthentic, sometimes pointed to or theoretically alleviated. this is a sign that they acknowledge that they ought not to exist, and yet they still torment us.
the rejection of all art must not be a project internal to art, but a violent destruction that precipitates a long, long decline into a new dark age. we will produce no more artefacts, archive nothing, kill the things that allow historians to deal with the past. we will force historians and anthropologists to disappear.
what the word "art" picks out in human behaviour will probably still not go away, not because of an innate drive to represent or understand, but simply because the reference we presently pick out is indefinite. art exhibits the looping effect of denomination on action, and so is a part of human self-consciousness, history. thus, the anti-artists must either advocate for the destruction of the sense of art - talking about it, and acting in a way that leads to the illusion there is anything to be talked about - or burning things. i think a bit of both strategies will be necessary
trying to do something, write a bit. i might not keep it up for long, but that doesn't detract from its significance in the slightest. this website is good enough, a bit of a shithole, but perhaps one i deserve.
i'll try to stop reading "in order to write", and start writing in order to read. perhaps. it's hard to imagine not wasting time
do pester me. i'm habitually isolating, and need to practice shamelessness.