Well?

I guess my stance on the issue is that art's purpose is two-fold. One is for the purely aesthetic benefits. It looks/sounds pretty/cool/catchy/trippy/whatever. The other purpose is to communicate in emotions. If you want to say something, then use language! That's why we have it! Language's purpose is to communicate thoughts -- though what's wonderful about literature is that it treads the line between thought and emotion, speaking in both tongues.

Anyway, art is for communication in emotion, primarly. I can't stand it when art tries to "say something." I don't think that there's anything to be read into the "meaning" behind a Jackson Pollock painting. And if he painted it with the intention of some greater "meaning," well, then he's a goddamn self-absorbed prick, and should've written it down instead. Also, one thing I can't stand about modern "art" is that some of it seems to be opaque for opacity's sake, like somehow the fact that a piece of "art" is obtuse and nigh-impossible to decipher makes it avant-garde. Essentially, the position being advocated is that isolation and attacks on human communication are worthy of admiration.

What I'm saying is that, honestly, I kind of think that some piece of anime fanart can be just as artistically legitimate, if not more so, then a painting by Pollock or Picasso. At least the fanartist gets the point of art -- to evoke emotion, to be aesthetically pleasing. They don't get caught up in a self-absorbed world where everyone is supposed to be deciphering the mysteries of their "self-expression."

Don't express yourself. Nothing could be more pointless. Express your thoughts, and express them to other people.

Oh, and, yeah, I promise I'll do some art soon. That isn't cow-anthro hentai (which, obviously, I keep to myself. Sorry all)