Buddy your thesis is that art does not exist because of capitalism. That is a ridiculous 'thesis'.

... what? Not sure how you got that, but no, that's not what I believe.

Here, I'll restate it:

> Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold.

> Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.

Which is why the original comment you replied to characterized it as content and not art. But this has gone pretty much full circle already.

So apparently:

The Sistine Chapel: Content, not art

The Mona Lisa: Content, not art

The Guggenheim: Content, not art

David: Content, not art

Geurnica: Content, not art

Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67: Content, not art

I understand why the original comment said it, and my response is a simple explanation as to why the original comment was very obviously incorrect.