Would you save a two year old child or the Mona Lisa?
https://strawpoll.me/6158412
Mona lisa
>>24688080
Depends on whether I know the parents. If they happened to be word-class mathematicians or scientists, the child might be more valuable, perhaps.
But so not to introduce extra variables, which is wrong, considering how worthless an average person is, the painting is more valuable.
(I'm not saying that I'd *save* the painting, because I'm an instinct-driven worthless retard and would do the wrong thing IRL.)
The mona lisa. The two year old isnt even a viable option
>>24688080
Mona Lisa because I think we should trivialize pregnancy. Women should be filled with cum constantly and basically become factories for babies that we can use for cheap labor. Caring too much about babies smothers them and keeps humans in bondage and prevents them from fully dispensing the life energy that was given to them.
In short, bring back rape and don't let women vote.
Two year old child if it is white. Mona lisa is pretty overrated tbqh.
When I saw Mona Lisa's hands, folded by her knee... How do I say this? It's a bit crude, but...
I got a boner.
>>24688184
Its actually quite small as well,
Tbqh his inventions are much more impressive
Are we talking the real mona lisa in the vault of an arabian billionaire, or that reproduction they keep out in the open?
>>24688080
Obviously the child. Who cares about a painting?
>>24688206
The real one
>>24688225
>caring about a normie child who will never in their life look at paintings under their own will, much less paint an oneself
>>24688080
children aren't real people. they should be legal to kill until they get more intelligent than a deer
>>24688080
There are so many copies of the Mona Lisa by now that keeping the original isn't worth a child's life.
>>24688080
is the child white and doesnt look like ghetto trash?
Then the child, if any other outcome, the painting.
>>24688080
Plenty of people let kids die. I wanna be the mother fucker that museum curators curse for decades.
>>24688173
>give women rights
>society instantly crumbles
errytiem
If you saved the kid whos gunna take care of it? Kuk.
>>24688270
Yeah but what if a scientist breeds like a supersmart deer
Fuck paintings. That shit is boring and you know it.
Why isn't neither an option? If they need saving from something, I'd rather get the fuck out than worry about a boring painting or a stupid kid
>>24688351
This. Sidis or Kim were smarter as two-year-olds than most people as adults.
>>24688243
Who knows what the child will be. Most likely useless trash like 99.9% of all humans, myself included. I don't care though, I would pick the child over the painting, realistically. I love to tell myself I don't care about human life, and maybe I don't, but I don't wanna have that on my conscious if I dont have to.
>>24688080
A lot of people are just gonna pick Mona Lisa for the sake of being "edgy" baka (already seen the results), seriously I could give a fuck less about humanity in general, but anybody who picks this random painting over a child is just being fake, like emo's who "mak believe" about being "dark" by wearing black and eye shadow, just a bunch of poser retards.
Plus if you save the painting it just gets confiscated and returned to a museum and you most likely won't get shit as compensation (art is a business), you save that child and you might get a reward or something (who knows), parents are sure to be way more grateful and generous.
>>24688080
I don't give a shit about the Mona Lisa. It's a boring shitty painting and only retarded japs throw hissy fits when they get their 3 days vacations in Europe to see it after 20 years of working for their nazi boss
Fuck the Mona Lisa
>>24688438
he could fall off the couch and die like two days after you save him
>>24688438
>anybody who picks this random painting over a child is just being fake, like emo's who "mak believe" about being "dark" by wearing black and eye shadow, just a bunch of poser retards
I addressed this in >>24688126. That one wouldn't be able to make the right choice doesn't make them hypocrites as long as they acknowledge it.
>>24688438
>art is a business
If this were true, there wouldn't be tons of people who never show their art to anyone.
>>24688500
>If this were true, there wouldn't be tons of people who never show their art to anyone.
I don't think you understand how the business works, you get paid to have your art in a gallery, or if it gets sold at an auction, its not like a frikin patent kek, and you need to keep people from seeing it, an art piece is usually sold based on WHO made it not on how it looks, so even if someone duplicated your painting 100% perfectly only yours would sell if you have a name for yourself and they're just some random guy.
>>24688589
Yes, well, my definition of art is creation of something for its aesthetic (compositional) value. I might begin to draw because I'm bored, but when I get engrossed in my doodles for 15 minutes, undoing and redoing lines, I'm just concerned that it should look good. If I were good at that in addition, that would be art. How is that commercial?
>>24688673
>my definition
You show how emotionally driven and illogical you are right here. There is no such thing as a personal definition, the sole purpose of a definition is to establish a standardized universal meaning of something, not personal arbitrary meaning. Quuite obviously were not speaking about art in terms of an expression of self since the entire scenario is about choosing between saving a painting versus a child's life, therefore were are comparing VALUES, in this sense the business aspect of art is whats relevant here, especially since its a famous and well known painting, anyways I'm tired, (price of staying up till now, gonna go sleep)
save the babby just to piss off whatever dumb kike had his money dumped on a fucking painting
>>24688889
>(1) There is no such thing as a personal definition, (2) the sole purpose of a definition is to establish a standardized universal meaning of something, not personal arbitrary meaning.
That (2) is true doesn't make (1) true. The very 'establish' in (2) implies (1); if definitions were 'already there', there'd be nothing to establish.
You should have simply said 'art being subject to business' rather than 'art is a business', which insulst artists (for the record, I don't consider myself one) by implying that majority of them hare extrinsic motives regarding it.
>>24688202
Can't blame you actually. She's the epitome of a soft alluring woman.
>>24688080
would either of them be my gf afterwards?
