3 ms·
The people who argue that aesthetics and beauty aren't required for art basically reduce art to novelty. Whatever rubbish you throw together, as long as it's a
by silicon2401 5y ago
The people who argue that aesthetics and beauty aren't required for art basically reduce art to novelty. Whatever rubbish you throw together, as long as it's a new arrangement of rubbish and you have some pretentious GPT3-esque word salad to describe it, is enough to get modern art fans off. Or you get the modern art fans who say art is just about 'creating a reaction', but wouldn't be quick to support Confederate statues or other things that happen to not align with their personal views, despite it causing quite a reaction. For some reason beauty and aesthetics get bashed more and more in recent years.
- FactolSarin 5y agoI agree with a lot of that, but there's a difference between something being art and something being worthy of support. If you buy into the idea that art is about creating reactions, then the reaction that you're going for is very important. In fact, maybe it's the main way you judge whether the artwork or is good or not. From that perspective, you can consider a Confederate statue art but unworthy art.
- silicon2401 5y agoThat just kicks the can down the road. It basically boils down to "art is stuff I like". Art also has a reputation of opening people's minds and letting them see the world differently. By the logic of worthiness, people should never support art unless it's basically propaganda for their own beliefs (which is what I believe modern art functions as).