5 ms·

My reading of that definition is that it depends on not being or claiming to have any skill at art whatsoever. Limbaugh can't see the distinction that makes tho

by dwc 9y ago

My reading of that definition is that it depends on not being or claiming to have any skill at art whatsoever. Limbaugh can't see the distinction that makes those things art and suspects that nobody else can either; that it's only art because it was produced by an artist. Of course this is a facile take on art, but there's a nugget of a question in there... if exhibits were anonymous and selected by lottery, how many famous artists who got the space would be recognized as genius vs. unknown artists vs. cranks out to show that art appreciation is a joke?

scarecrowbob 9y ago
Well, I posted this down thread, but I have the same response: Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like. -=-=-=-= But here's a response to the question you ask: So the question begged by your question: given the importance of context, why does the provenance of a piece of art matter outside of that context? For instance, s there a difference between the mona lisa "original" and a copy you hang on your wall? If there is a difference, then the who produced it and the context does matter regardless of who can tell a "fake". If there is no difference, why would your hypothetical lottery be relavent to the status of art as art... wouldn't the art be in the eye of whoever is trying to judge the work?
- dwc 9y ago
  I find your response interesting. Thank you. I think that the nature of the context can vary a lot. Some art speaks to people on a primal level, and the context is shared human experience. Other art needs more shared cultural context. Then there's art that requires the context of the artist's life to really move you. In short, I concede your point that context matters. I think it can and does vary quite a bit. I still don't want to conflate works requiring the context of knowing and understanding the artist with thinking a work is deep because the artist is well regarded.

by dwc 9y ago

scarecrowbob 9y ago

Well, I posted this down thread, but I have the same response: Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like. -=-=-=-= But here's a response to the question you ask: So the question begged by your question: given the importance of context, why does the provenance of a piece of art matter outside of that context? For instance, s there a difference between the mona lisa "original" and a copy you hang on your wall? If there is a difference, then the who produced it and the context does matter regardless of who can tell a "fake". If there is no difference, why would your hypothetical lottery be relavent to the status of art as art... wouldn't the art be in the eye of whoever is trying to judge the work?

dwc 9y ago
I find your response interesting. Thank you. I think that the nature of the context can vary a lot. Some art speaks to people on a primal level, and the context is shared human experience. Other art needs more shared cultural context. Then there's art that requires the context of the artist's life to really move you. In short, I concede your point that context matters. I think it can and does vary quite a bit. I still don't want to conflate works requiring the context of knowing and understanding the artist with thinking a work is deep because the artist is well regarded.