3 ms·

Art is not utilitarian. Art doesn't have the function of being hanged in a wall or maximise good feelings. That's just a low trick to make common people buy it.

Art is not utilitarian. Art doesn't have the function of being hanged in a wall or maximise good feelings. That's just a low trick to make common people buy it. Art is (self) expression.

golergka 9y ago
Your comment is stated as if you're arguing with me about something, but it doesn't contradict anything I said and I agree with it.
pveierland 9y ago
> Art is not utilitarian. Art doesn't have the function of being hanged in a wall or maximise good feelings. The sentiment can be appreciated, but as a general statement I believe this is false. As an example: when new hotels are built, they are commonly outfitted with a collection of original art consisting of pictures and sculptures. This is certainly done to a large degree due to the utility of the art, which serves to make the hotel more interesting and aesthetically pleasing. Would you argue that decoration for such a purpose does not constitute art?
- galfarragem 9y ago
  No, I'm just saying that art is not made to be hanged in the walls and maximise good feelings but is sold to be used like that. And only a subset of artworks are suitable to be sold as original decoration. I'm not a seller but I believe is way easier to sell something with a clear function than the opposite.
  - dagw 9y ago
    I'm just saying that art is not made to be hanged in the walls and maximise good feelings Would you also accept the corollary that any object specifically made to be hung on wall to maximise good feelings cannot be art?
usrusr 9y ago
Professional art is a big trading card game where the cards don't have attack/defense values but attention/exclusivity. Maximisation of good feelings when hung on a wall is just as valid as a "+n attention" modifier as scandal, backstory (this is where "(self) expression" has its place) or innovation. The scraps of exclusivity that can be attained from craftsmanship or materials are utterly dwarfed by exclusivity derived from the artist being dead and famous. Works that are nice to look at tend to fall short in exclusivity, because design is abundant. But in the eyes of someone who rejects the idea of "ugly art", exclusive reliance of nonaesthetic attention drivers is almost a form of cheating.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
Art is not utilitarian. Art doesn't have the function of being hanged in a wall or maximise good feelings Except when it is, especially in architecture, product design, and some clothing. Sometimes it is just there to distract you from something crappy, sometimes it is there to make folks happier. That's just a low trick to make common people buy it. Only, it isn't always. A lot of common people are buying stuff to make their home prettier - not everyone will hang disturbing pictures on the wall because folks would rather stare at something less disturbing on a daily basis. Some is positive, some makes a statement, and so on. Art is (self) expression. Except when it isn't. I can't imagine every animator at disney (back when a lot was watercolor) was expressing themselves, just like a lot of commissions aren't self-expression. Some folks just do things they think will sell or others will like. Sometimes it is just something the person thinks looks neat (no more expressive than a webpage layout or product design, honestly).

Art is not utilitarian. Art doesn't have the function of being hanged in a wall or maximise good feelings. That's just a low trick to make common people buy it. Art is (self) expression.

golergka 9y ago

Your comment is stated as if you're arguing with me about something, but it doesn't contradict anything I said and I agree with it.

pveierland 9y ago

> Art is not utilitarian. Art doesn't have the function of being hanged in a wall or maximise good feelings. The sentiment can be appreciated, but as a general statement I believe this is false. As an example: when new hotels are built, they are commonly outfitted with a collection of original art consisting of pictures and sculptures. This is certainly done to a large degree due to the utility of the art, which serves to make the hotel more interesting and aesthetically pleasing. Would you argue that decoration for such a purpose does not constitute art?

galfarragem 9y ago
No, I'm just saying that art is not made to be hanged in the walls and maximise good feelings but is sold to be used like that. And only a subset of artworks are suitable to be sold as original decoration. I'm not a seller but I believe is way easier to sell something with a clear function than the opposite.
- dagw 9y ago
  I'm just saying that art is not made to be hanged in the walls and maximise good feelings Would you also accept the corollary that any object specifically made to be hung on wall to maximise good feelings cannot be art?

usrusr 9y ago

Professional art is a big trading card game where the cards don't have attack/defense values but attention/exclusivity. Maximisation of good feelings when hung on a wall is just as valid as a "+n attention" modifier as scandal, backstory (this is where "(self) expression" has its place) or innovation. The scraps of exclusivity that can be attained from craftsmanship or materials are utterly dwarfed by exclusivity derived from the artist being dead and famous. Works that are nice to look at tend to fall short in exclusivity, because design is abundant. But in the eyes of someone who rejects the idea of "ugly art", exclusive reliance of nonaesthetic attention drivers is almost a form of cheating.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

Art is not utilitarian. Art doesn't have the function of being hanged in a wall or maximise good feelings Except when it is, especially in architecture, product design, and some clothing. Sometimes it is just there to distract you from something crappy, sometimes it is there to make folks happier. That's just a low trick to make common people buy it. Only, it isn't always. A lot of common people are buying stuff to make their home prettier - not everyone will hang disturbing pictures on the wall because folks would rather stare at something less disturbing on a daily basis. Some is positive, some makes a statement, and so on. Art is (self) expression. Except when it isn't. I can't imagine every animator at disney (back when a lot was watercolor) was expressing themselves, just like a lot of commissions aren't self-expression. Some folks just do things they think will sell or others will like. Sometimes it is just something the person thinks looks neat (no more expressive than a webpage layout or product design, honestly).