Is Ignorance Banable

That's the exact opposite of what art is.

Just because its not skillful or does not look good in your eyes does not mean its bad. Native Art is actually much better than European in my opinion. Paintings are not the only thing in art you know. The natives made beautiful sculptures such as totem poles, and masks as well as interesting paintings

Karakoran, i disagree with your view that art is skill based, but just to counter even your misinformed opinion i will show this



idk about you but to me that looks like it took artistic skill to make.

I had that mistake too, that was made by people wanting to make Native American esk stuff. Really did you think a bunch of people running around for their lives in the Great Plains would take time to build Totem Polls? Maybe. But in every villiage across the Continent? No. It's a stereotype really, there might've been a many Totem Polls, but they weren't everywhere like we think they were thought to be.

Anyway, they weren't all that good. This one has been shined and blah blah blah to look better.

The Masks were meh anyone could've made them and everyone has actually(costumes, anyone?), they only made a few Sculptures, mainly in places that I already said were civilized and all (Mayans and Incas), and the totem poles weren't as common as we think they were. Read above.

Actually it is. Simply putting meaning doesn't make your painting good. You need talent, not just the ability to make shit up.

Do you still not get this? Every culture or group of people will always have their own art, because unlike you, most people value that kind of expression. Just because a plainsman dude lacks the wood to make a totem pole doesn't mean they don't have art. You keep saying that it's skill based, and then ignoring the obvious displays of skill for the natives. In reality, the only thing you're saying is that European art is superior because they had more access to more technologically advanced mediums to communicate their art.

and also Karakoran good European art was not in every town in Europe, so drop the double standard.

Do you realize how ridiculous you just sounded??????? First off, totem poles WERE made with intricate details like the one provided by Inquisitor. That MIGHT be a replica of one but replica or not, it is based off one with a similar design and just as much, maybe even more detailed than that one. Also are you kidding me when you said art is not based on meaning? THat is thee whole point of art. An artistic item that has mo meaning is not art. The Mona Lisa is good because of it's meaning. If it had no meaning, then it would not be seen as the masterpiece we see it as

No, the plainsmen doesn't have art because he doesn't want to make art. He's starving in the plains, why's he going to make a nice painting?

The Natives had every potential to make art, they simply didn't. Either out of not wanting to, lack of personal skill, or because they were to busy starving to death.
Anyway, they made some art, pretty bad art.

Europeans had more complex, more meaningful, more inspiring art. So the styles and resources came to the Natives and they started making a mix of their sorta style and the European style. It turned out pretty well, actually.

Well, every major town. Especially Italy and France, the cultural centers of Europe.

Fool, a painting isn't the only form of art. Every song they sang, every story they told, etc. was art. And get it out of your head that they didn't create works of art because they lacked the easier lives of many Europeans. Where there are people, there is art. It isn't a commodity, and it's the rule, not the exception.

They were similarly made, but with less detail and more crudeness. It wouldn't have those polished woods, for instance.

Art is not based on meaning, it's based on skill. Meaning is just something that acompanies it and makes it better. You can't base something off of meaning, it will be rediculous.

Anyone who went to an Art Gallery and asked for this:
[spoiler:2mhb3xou][/spoiler:2mhb3xou]
to be put up would be thrown out. Unless of course they said it was Native American, and then political correctness and blah blah blah.

But anyway, it was simply worse than European art. Just compare it with your eyes instead of repeating that because it has non-existant meaning that it's equal.

...really? Starving in the plains? do have no idea of the make up of how the plains tribes worked?, they were anything but starving, the plains were full of easy to kill heard animals.

Dude....
There are artpieces from ancient cultures who lived like nomads. Think of Paintings in caverns all over Europe and Africa. Or necklaces. The Natives in America made those. Just because they didn't settle one village and produced great art there like the far more advanced civilizations in Europe did, doesn't mean that they are less artistic. -.-

I have to say, you are pretty ignorant.

They created amazing intricate totem poles and awesome looking masks as well as many other sculptures. And do not say they did not because there is more than enough proof that they did. Just because you dont understand their art does not mean it is not art or for that matter, does not mean it is not good art. Damn I was ninjad four times

I would say more but Link is handling you quite well with a good argument, however this part right here...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, who are you to say yours is superior?

Meaning is the whole point of art

I said this before:

They didn't make that many totem poles and they certainly weren't all super amazing.
Also a few good totem poles in 3,000 years is still pretty shitty.

Masks were nothing to be amazed at. Everyone in the World could make them and Europeans had been in plays for milenium.

Most of the sculptures came from places I already said were civilized. The only real exception was the Aztecs who I still wont consider civilized for sacraficing humans. Not to mention Europeans had sculptures that could still show up the Native ones.

And no, your the one who doesn't seem to understand it. I can understand it, and that's how I know it's not just different, it's inferior.

If you want to compare songs and stories I can go find a shitton of European songs and stories that were better.
Hell, litterally every great composer from history comes from Europe. At least pre-dating the 1900s and all that recent stuff.

You didn't compare it, did you? Instead you just brought up that eye of the beholder crap. This isn't preference. I mean you can like it more if you want, but it's inferior and replaced with superior European Culture. Well, mixed with European culture. Actually repopulated straight up with Europeans in the case of America.

You really think it's that easy to kill a Buffalo with a bow and arrow? Go try. Tons of them would get trampled or gored with the horns.
So maybe starving is a bit of an exageration, but they certainly weren't very nutricious or healthy.

You really think it's that easy to kill a Buffalo with a bow and arrow? Go try. Tons of them would get trampled or gored with the horns.
So maybe starving is a bit of an exageration, but they certainly weren't very nutricious or healthy.[/quote]

a well trained brave could kill a buffalo with a single arrow. hell when Europeans first came to find plains tribes there were heather then the Europeans.

You do realize, that it's impossible to save all the combined artworks of thousands of different groups of people who lack large scale organization, correct? Because you can't find evidence of it, you say it doesn't exist, when obviously, it's been largely lost. That said, I don't know why I even bother, because you would just say it's all inferior because you're a racist fuck. A closet racist, but one nonetheless.

Again talking about how one culture is so superior to another. You believe it is superior because it is your culture when in fact it is truly not superior. It is different, but not superior and to claim it is because you do not understand it is incredibly closed minded and imo racist.

Compare it to when Europeans would march around. They wouldn't destroy art for the sake of destroying art. They would save it and take it home. Only Barbarians/Vikings(a little) would actually burn down art and destroy it. Unless it was heretical of course.
So basiclly you can say the Natives were unable to make art or barbaric, take your pick.

And also, everything has to be backed up with evidence. That's why we don't take credit to people saying their Aliens in Area 51 or that Aliens didn't vist the Ancient Civilizations.

And I'm not racist at all, so drop the buzz-word, your not fooling anyone but yourself.

Oh sure, if they got super lucky and hit it in the dead right spot.

Also your comparing it to people that had spent months in a wagon going West.

Western Culture was superior, it has nothing to do with race and if anything your the incredibly close minded one for thinking it does.