3 ms·

>I say... who cares. That's fine, of course you're not obligated to like or admire anything in particular. Generally, if I don't see value in something a larg

by _jal 6y ago

>I say... who cares. That's fine, of course you're not obligated to like or admire anything in particular. Generally, if I don't see value in something a large number of people do, it causes me to reflect a little to try to figure out what I'm missing. And indeed, frequently I find I don't care (pick any pop star of the last few decades, for instance). But sometimes it opens up a whole world I've been missing.

umvi 6y ago
> Generally, if I don't see value in something a large number of people do, it causes me to reflect a little to try to figure out what I'm missing I do as well. But a lot of times I come to the conclusion that everyone is just participating in a social meta-game aka "the emperor's new clothes". The art community (in my opinion) is especially vulnerable to these social meta-games (because there is no way to objectively measure art in a way everyone agrees on), where you have to pretend to like and admire stuff to curry favor with peers and critics. Criticize Pollock and you stand to lose a lot of social standing. Praise him and show your learnedness and you climb the social ladder. And as you climb the ladder pretty soon you've fully bought into the status quo yourself.
- _jal 6y ago
  There are a lot of games in the art world, no question. Mostly comes from the fact that money flows are super opaque and most folks aren't making any. Anyway, I dunno. I don't think I've ever lost social favor for not liking some dead artist. (Live ones are like everyone else, and tribal bullshit applies. Just like in any other group of humans.) One thing to be aware of is most folks with an interest in art aren't going to find "I could do that" to be meaningful criticism. Yeah, and? You didn't. Someone other than Armstrong could have been the first man on the Moon, but they weren't, either.

by _jal 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

> Generally, if I don't see value in something a large number of people do, it causes me to reflect a little to try to figure out what I'm missing I do as well. But a lot of times I come to the conclusion that everyone is just participating in a social meta-game aka "the emperor's new clothes". The art community (in my opinion) is especially vulnerable to these social meta-games (because there is no way to objectively measure art in a way everyone agrees on), where you have to pretend to like and admire stuff to curry favor with peers and critics. Criticize Pollock and you stand to lose a lot of social standing. Praise him and show your learnedness and you climb the social ladder. And as you climb the ladder pretty soon you've fully bought into the status quo yourself.

_jal 6y ago
There are a lot of games in the art world, no question. Mostly comes from the fact that money flows are super opaque and most folks aren't making any. Anyway, I dunno. I don't think I've ever lost social favor for not liking some dead artist. (Live ones are like everyone else, and tribal bullshit applies. Just like in any other group of humans.) One thing to be aware of is most folks with an interest in art aren't going to find "I could do that" to be meaningful criticism. Yeah, and? You didn't. Someone other than Armstrong could have been the first man on the Moon, but they weren't, either.