Art is in the eye of the beholder.
So why are you telling Apple (the 'beholder' in this case) that they're wrong? Your statement means everyone's opinion about art is valid, which means even this comment is art™
Apple isn't the beholder here. Users are.
I think you're just using an overly narrow definition of art that excludes things you don't find aesthetically pleasing. I'm assuming you also wouldn't find Rauschenberg's white paintings (https://www.rauschenbergfoundation.org/art/galleries/series/...) or Picasso's various animal drawings (https://www.pablopicasso.net/images/Camel%20Pablo%20Picasso....) to be art?
Would you care to venture a definition of art?
So why are you telling Apple (the 'beholder' in this case) that they're wrong? Your statement means everyone's opinion about art is valid, which means even this comment is art™
Apple isn't the beholder here. Users are.
I think you're just using an overly narrow definition of art that excludes things you don't find aesthetically pleasing. I'm assuming you also wouldn't find Rauschenberg's white paintings (https://www.rauschenbergfoundation.org/art/galleries/series/...) or Picasso's various animal drawings (https://www.pablopicasso.net/images/Camel%20Pablo%20Picasso....) to be art?
Would you care to venture a definition of art?