twelve hour livestream of me getting progressively more enraged reading “art history scholars” who have never picked up a paintbrush in their entire lives
thats literally exactly what it is. you total fool. you absolute imbecile 
this is without exaggeration the most incorrect thing i have ever seen in my life. this is what happens when you have read lots of books about swimming but have never been near any water
because (it is not dumb to not realize this if you are not involved in art creation or art history) of course, consider those japanese master paintings done on paper, the paper has an intrinsic relationship to the fundamental essence of the art. [...]
its not like if u got some plastic or metal that just looked like paper and asked them artist to use it instead that nothing would change in the process. likewise of course tibetan scroll paintings have an intrinsic relationship to the cloths they are painted, its not incidental
to pretend that just because the surface of a painting is totally covered in paint it wouldnt matter stylistically if it was done on a 300 pound piece of steel or extremely fine canvas from belgium is like saying you could replace a guitar with a keytar if they sound the same
a more intuitive analogy would be that a flutist would play differently on a flute carved from a human femur versus a flute made of metal even if theoretically they “sounded really similar”. the materials obviously impart a superphysical essence into the final artistic product
