3 ms·

> I could never understand people writing about art, analyzing some painting texture, style of brush strokes, author intent, historical context or whatnot, or d

by zck 5y ago

> I could never understand people writing about art, analyzing some painting texture, style of brush strokes, author intent, historical context or whatnot, or digging into artist biography or their development; not in order to learn how to make art, mastering the craft, but for the sole sake of analysis, critique or "art appreciation". You don't get more out of art if you know its context? For example, it's interesting to know that much of art, starting with Impressionism was a response to photography (https://kiamaartgallery.wordpress.com/tag/influence-of-photography-on-modern-art/ https://kiamaartgallery.wordpress.com/tag/influence-of-photo...). Previously, art was judged based on how realistic it was. But when photography came around, painting could not compete. So artists had to come up with new methods and goals. Some wanted to make the viewer experience a feeling, even if that meant not literally painting truth. Another example: the Surrealists used Freud's work on free association, dreams, and the unconscious in their own work. Or this poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinger-Johannisthal-1908.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinger-Johannisthal-1908.... While the characters are interesting, there's more to it than that. It was originally designed for a 1908 air show in Germany. That's only five years after the Wright brothers' first flight! Airplanes were still brand new. Doesn't that impact how you see the characters here? I certainly agree that anyone can create art, but I don't believe that the only thing worth doing with art is either creating it or blindly consuming it. To bring it back to your programming example, don't you get more out of Babbage's Difference Engine when you find out that it was built in the 1990s -- and worked?

publicola1990 5y ago
In literary criticism too, there have been approaches that look at texts themselves without concern of who wrote it and when it was written. Much of what makes a text aesthetically notable and meaningful is the text itself and not its external context. Appreciation of art itself can be carried out without reference to Artist biography and the history of art.
- zck 5y ago
  Art certainly can be appreciated entirely "inside" the art, yes. Doing so can be a fine tool! But I believe it's wrong to dismiss all possible meta-analysis of art. Some things add more to an understanding, appreciation, or the importance of art.
andyxor 5y ago
Well, I’m all for learning more about things one is interested in but over-analyzing a work of art can be deconstructive , by breaking it down into pieces and assigning to familiar categories or “buckets” you may lose the sight of the whole when looking at it as a sum of its parts. Kind of like when you focus on details but then just can’t zoom out to see the whole complex beast. Dylan was always against reduction of his works to e.g. civil rights causes and all that , like they teach in schools now, it’s a forced perspective, even if has some truth in it, it’s like putting his song in a cage in a “zoo” and sticking an easily digestible label on it for people too busy or too lazy to think for themselves. I’m all for unschooling.

by zck 5y ago

publicola1990 5y ago

In literary criticism too, there have been approaches that look at texts themselves without concern of who wrote it and when it was written. Much of what makes a text aesthetically notable and meaningful is the text itself and not its external context. Appreciation of art itself can be carried out without reference to Artist biography and the history of art.

zck 5y ago
Art certainly can be appreciated entirely "inside" the art, yes. Doing so can be a fine tool! But I believe it's wrong to dismiss all possible meta-analysis of art. Some things add more to an understanding, appreciation, or the importance of art.

andyxor 5y ago

Well, I’m all for learning more about things one is interested in but over-analyzing a work of art can be deconstructive , by breaking it down into pieces and assigning to familiar categories or “buckets” you may lose the sight of the whole when looking at it as a sum of its parts. Kind of like when you focus on details but then just can’t zoom out to see the whole complex beast. Dylan was always against reduction of his works to e.g. civil rights causes and all that , like they teach in schools now, it’s a forced perspective, even if has some truth in it, it’s like putting his song in a cage in a “zoo” and sticking an easily digestible label on it for people too busy or too lazy to think for themselves. I’m all for unschooling.