3 ms·

Art criticism is no different than any other field... it's completely baffling to people without education in it, and makes total and obvious sense to those who

by beat 7y ago

Art criticism is no different than any other field... it's completely baffling to people without education in it, and makes total and obvious sense to those who do. I went to the University of Iowa, which has Jackson Pollock's Mural, his most important painting. It's worth about $250M. I'd just stare at it for long periods of time. It's extraordinary, breathtaking, a symphony of squiggly lines - but in no way random. The figures and sense of right-to-left motion are quite clear, but it's impossible to point to any little detail and see the whole. It's like trying to understand a symphony from one bar of what the second violins are doing, or trying to understand Thanksgiving dinner from a little smear of butter. And it's an entirely different painting at different perspectives. Looking at it from 50 feet is a very different experience from looking at it from five feet. The tiny detail work is as extraordinary as the whole. https://www.wikiart.org/en/jackson-pollock/mural-1943-1 https://www.wikiart.org/en/jackson-pollock/mural-1943-1

LudwigNagasena 7y ago
>Art criticism is no different than any other field... it's completely baffling to people without education in it, and makes total and obvious sense to those who do. Many fields are not baffling to people without specialized education. Your description of Pollock’s mural reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/915/ https://xkcd.com/915/
- beat 7y ago
  Many fields are shallow. But this really boils down to a distrust of intellectualism, and the idea that Joe Sixpack's off-the-shelf opinion is more valid than the opinion of someone who actually studies the subject seriously - that the real student is merely an elitist snob who uses their study to lord over the cretins. Sigh.
  - longerthoughts 7y ago
    I agree with you here but would just add that this line of thinking has limits. I am not a serious student of astrology but feel perfectly comfortable dismissing the validity of horoscopes and the authority of those who peddle them. The trouble is if you assume an entire field is garbage then you're assuming the authorities of that field are either dishonest or deluded and you dismiss anything they say as self-sustaining nonsense. When that's the case, how do you change somebody's mind?
    - beat 7y ago
      And that's pretty much what all this "Pollock paintings are stupid" stuff gets to, right? That anyone who likes his work or claims to find special value in it is "dishonest or deluded". You can find quotes to that effect all over this post.
      - missingrib 7y ago
        Right, but what the parent comment is arguing (I think) is that there actually are fields where you can say that people who find special value in it are dishonest or deluded (astrology). The challenge comes in distinguishing which are valid and which aren't. For the record, I like Pollock and find art history/criticism much more valuable than astrology. But, how would you explain that to someone who just sees it as paint smears?
  - LudwigNagasena 7y ago
    Art has nothing to do with intellectualism. And many subfields of art, even that with experts contemplating brush strokes, are very anti-intellectual in their core.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > Many fields are not baffling to people without specialized education. And many fields are. I feel like at this point you're nitpicking their phrasing ("any" instead of "many") instead of addressing their point. > Your description of Pollock’s mural reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/915/ https://xkcd.com/915/ Note that comic doesn't claim that those differences aren't real, just that they're not visible or interesting to most people, which is pretty close to what the parent comment said.
  - LudwigNagasena 7y ago
    Of course they are real. And people can find them fascinating and other people can find them boring. Nothing wrong with either attitude.
  - nwallin 7y ago
    You're right, it doesn't say that they aren't real. It says that they're dumb and meaningless and very real to the poor ignorant souls who think they're real. I'm pretty snobby about a handful of things, but I'm well aware that it's pure snobbery and that I don't have some sort of intellectual blah blah blah than makes me better than the ignorant plebian next to me on the subway. Art snobs are no different than wine snobs, comic book snobs, cigar snobs, film snobs, anime snobs, whiskey snobs, dog show snobs, foodie snobs, beer snobs, you name it. But modern art snobs are somewhat unique in claiming to be better than the rest of us. I can listen to a model train snob talk about their stupid thing for however long and just vicariously enjoy their enthusiasm for the topic. I hear them talk and I just hear, "this thing is so cool!" and in that moment I think it's cool too. I listen to a modern art snob talk about Jackson Pollock or whatever and I just hear, "I'm so much more intellectual, cultured, and sophisticated than you!" Some people are objectively worse than others, and modern art snobs are objectively worse than nearly all other snobs. I'll marry a stamp collector or a buckeye, but I wouldn't marry a modern art snob with no self awareness about their snobbery. Text editors. I'm snobby about text editors. Emacs is best. fite me. /s
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      > It says that they're dumb and meaningless and very real to the poor ignorant souls who think they're real. Taking joy in something doesn't make you ignorant or dumb. Whether you choose to be a smug asshole about it is orthogonal to the object of interest. > But modern art snobs are somewhat unique in claiming to be better than the rest of us. [...] I listen to a modern art snob talk about Jackson Pollock or whatever and I just hear, "I'm so much more intellectual, cultured, and sophisticated than you!" Are you getting this from beat's comment above? Because I definitely don't see it. I've never seen it IRL, either. It sounds like you're taking your dislike of modern art, and maybe a couple of encounters with unpleasant fans, and projecting it onto the entire field.
- itronitron 7y ago
  Great works of art often baffle art critics... https://youtu.be/Ofq_nl366VM?t=75 https://youtu.be/Ofq_nl366VM?t=75

by beat 7y ago

LudwigNagasena 7y ago

>Art criticism is no different than any other field... it's completely baffling to people without education in it, and makes total and obvious sense to those who do. Many fields are not baffling to people without specialized education. Your description of Pollock’s mural reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/915/ https://xkcd.com/915/

beat 7y ago
Many fields are shallow. But this really boils down to a distrust of intellectualism, and the idea that Joe Sixpack's off-the-shelf opinion is more valid than the opinion of someone who actually studies the subject seriously - that the real student is merely an elitist snob who uses their study to lord over the cretins. Sigh.
- longerthoughts 7y ago
  I agree with you here but would just add that this line of thinking has limits. I am not a serious student of astrology but feel perfectly comfortable dismissing the validity of horoscopes and the authority of those who peddle them. The trouble is if you assume an entire field is garbage then you're assuming the authorities of that field are either dishonest or deluded and you dismiss anything they say as self-sustaining nonsense. When that's the case, how do you change somebody's mind?
  - beat 7y ago
    And that's pretty much what all this "Pollock paintings are stupid" stuff gets to, right? That anyone who likes his work or claims to find special value in it is "dishonest or deluded". You can find quotes to that effect all over this post.
    - missingrib 7y ago
      Right, but what the parent comment is arguing (I think) is that there actually are fields where you can say that people who find special value in it are dishonest or deluded (astrology). The challenge comes in distinguishing which are valid and which aren't. For the record, I like Pollock and find art history/criticism much more valuable than astrology. But, how would you explain that to someone who just sees it as paint smears?
- LudwigNagasena 7y ago
  Art has nothing to do with intellectualism. And many subfields of art, even that with experts contemplating brush strokes, are very anti-intellectual in their core.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> Many fields are not baffling to people without specialized education. And many fields are. I feel like at this point you're nitpicking their phrasing ("any" instead of "many") instead of addressing their point. > Your description of Pollock’s mural reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/915/ https://xkcd.com/915/ Note that comic doesn't claim that those differences aren't real, just that they're not visible or interesting to most people, which is pretty close to what the parent comment said.
- LudwigNagasena 7y ago
  Of course they are real. And people can find them fascinating and other people can find them boring. Nothing wrong with either attitude.
- nwallin 7y ago
  You're right, it doesn't say that they aren't real. It says that they're dumb and meaningless and very real to the poor ignorant souls who think they're real. I'm pretty snobby about a handful of things, but I'm well aware that it's pure snobbery and that I don't have some sort of intellectual blah blah blah than makes me better than the ignorant plebian next to me on the subway. Art snobs are no different than wine snobs, comic book snobs, cigar snobs, film snobs, anime snobs, whiskey snobs, dog show snobs, foodie snobs, beer snobs, you name it. But modern art snobs are somewhat unique in claiming to be better than the rest of us. I can listen to a model train snob talk about their stupid thing for however long and just vicariously enjoy their enthusiasm for the topic. I hear them talk and I just hear, "this thing is so cool!" and in that moment I think it's cool too. I listen to a modern art snob talk about Jackson Pollock or whatever and I just hear, "I'm so much more intellectual, cultured, and sophisticated than you!" Some people are objectively worse than others, and modern art snobs are objectively worse than nearly all other snobs. I'll marry a stamp collector or a buckeye, but I wouldn't marry a modern art snob with no self awareness about their snobbery. Text editors. I'm snobby about text editors. Emacs is best. fite me. /s
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    > It says that they're dumb and meaningless and very real to the poor ignorant souls who think they're real. Taking joy in something doesn't make you ignorant or dumb. Whether you choose to be a smug asshole about it is orthogonal to the object of interest. > But modern art snobs are somewhat unique in claiming to be better than the rest of us. [...] I listen to a modern art snob talk about Jackson Pollock or whatever and I just hear, "I'm so much more intellectual, cultured, and sophisticated than you!" Are you getting this from beat's comment above? Because I definitely don't see it. I've never seen it IRL, either. It sounds like you're taking your dislike of modern art, and maybe a couple of encounters with unpleasant fans, and projecting it onto the entire field.
itronitron 7y ago
Great works of art often baffle art critics... https://youtu.be/Ofq_nl366VM?t=75 https://youtu.be/Ofq_nl366VM?t=75