4 ms·
Let me try again: Only a supremely self-involved, judgmental, narcissistic asshole would think it's appropriate to look down on others for having different ide
by mos1b 16y ago
Let me try again:
Only a supremely self-involved, judgmental, narcissistic asshole would think it's appropriate to look down on others for having different ideas about how they want to spend the short time we get on this planet.
Truly, it's hard to imagine how badly one's parents would have to fuck up to raise a child that thought that such sentiments were appropriate.
Those who might look down upon others for engaging in an inefficient activity are not just hypocrites, they are arrogant fools. They are asserting that they know the best way for every person to spend their life.
It is sad that HN appears to support such thoughtless, worthless, bigoted, narcissistic behavior.
- CapitalistCartr 16y agoI guess the irony of your statement is lost on you. Funny, though.
- mos1b 16y agoIt's not ironic. Calling somebody an asshole isn't a positional declaration. It does not say you are better or worse than them, just that they are an asshole. Presumably you have flaws as well. Everyone does. Saying you look down on them, on the other hand, is a direct claim to superiority.
- thunk 16y agoWoah there, "mos1b". No need for that.
- kiba 16y agoI think some people are rather contemptuous of individuals who brought art down to the standard of "simply a bunch of paints splattered on a canvas". So much so that it become indistinguishable from a mess. I could even imagine a bunch of every-day normal freelance laborers cleaning an art gallery and accidentally throwing thousand of dollars worth of art piece simply because it is indistinguishable from a mess. Art may be subjective, but people can perceive skills in the painting of a nude human figure. They cannot however, see anything in an art piece that are simply lines, colors, texture, with no forms whatsoever. People like me and others will never be able to understand the extreme abstractionism that exists in art today and ages past. Art to me are nude painting, landscape, cartoons, and comics, not the silly cubism, the colors and the texture, or just a bunch of splattered paints.
- mos1b 16y agoWhen you don't understand a piece of art, do you say that you don't understand that the artist was trying to say... or do you say "I look down upon the artist." I'm guessing you're a reasonable person and just say 'I don't get it, and don't care.' As opposed to the utterly unreasonable opinion espoused by the OP, in which instead of not caring, he looks down upon the artist.
- philwelch 16y agoThere's a difference between saying "I don't get it" and saying "after careful analysis and consideration, this artistic expression is either pointlessly obscure in its meaning or absolutely meaningless".
- eavc 16y agoRight, the first one is usually more accurate when spoken by someone unfamiliar with the context of the art and the state of that art form.
- philwelch 16y agoIf a work of art is too much of an inside joke, the "uselessly obscure" criterion is satisfied.
- eavc 16y agoI understand that not getting something is frustrating, but that doesn't make it useless. It means you don't get it. Some people do get it. The artist gets it. His or her peers get it. A certain group of aficionados get it. Some chunk of the general public gets it. Decades later, many many more people may get it. Believe it or not, some art is hard to understand. It requires an understanding of what came before it, it might require a lot of experience with similar work. It may require careful study or deep reflection. It may require changing your mental state or viewing it differently.