4 ms·

Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art

Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art. A lot of things that I previously had enjoyed have become more boring as I learn more about the world and have greater context. I find people doing that work useful for the same reason I find it useful to have explanatory signs in parts outlining the natural mechanisms of various features.

handrous 5y ago
> Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art. In fact, I'd say this is the norm. An accessible version that I'd expect many people have experienced is hearing a genre of music as "noise" or boring or simply not especially pleasant, but then listening to more of it and learning more about it by paying attention to artists and, yes, critics and even (gasp) academics, and coming to really enjoy and appreciate it, and even beginning to be able to articulate why a given piece is especially good. The same holds for painting, for sculpture, for film, for books, for poetry—practically everything. Breezing through an art museum, say, without some pretty serious context for and experience with the sort of art you're looking at, is a great way to have, at best, a small fraction of the optimal experience—maybe still worthwhile, to be clear, but just because a great piece doesn't grab you as all that special your first time through doesn't mean it's wrong. It's unusual for great art not to greatly reward education on the part of the person experiencing it, even if it's not entirely lost on those lacking it. A lot of excellent art may be downright off-putting without that education, even. Look at all the people who complain that most books regarded as "literature" are boring, worthless crap, or that what are regarded as some of the best jazz albums are ugly, random noise, or that a variety of fine art is ho-hum or stupid (maybe some of it is! But people expressing these attitudes tend to apply their opinion far too broadly)
- scarecrowbob 5y ago
  It may even be the case that the sine qua non of "greatness" in art is that the deeper you look into it (and the network of signifiers surrounding and defining the work) the more interesting it becomes. And that's not to say that "accessible" art isn't 'great'-- the more pedal steel I play, the more jazz I find in country music. It was fun when I was just listening to it, but the more I listen to (some of) it the more useful, interesting musical I find.

handrous 5y ago

> Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art. In fact, I'd say this is the norm. An accessible version that I'd expect many people have experienced is hearing a genre of music as "noise" or boring or simply not especially pleasant, but then listening to more of it and learning more about it by paying attention to artists and, yes, critics and even (gasp) academics, and coming to really enjoy and appreciate it, and even beginning to be able to articulate why a given piece is especially good. The same holds for painting, for sculpture, for film, for books, for poetry—practically everything. Breezing through an art museum, say, without some pretty serious context for and experience with the sort of art you're looking at, is a great way to have, at best, a small fraction of the optimal experience—maybe still worthwhile, to be clear, but just because a great piece doesn't grab you as all that special your first time through doesn't mean it's wrong. It's unusual for great art not to greatly reward education on the part of the person experiencing it, even if it's not entirely lost on those lacking it. A lot of excellent art may be downright off-putting without that education, even. Look at all the people who complain that most books regarded as "literature" are boring, worthless crap, or that what are regarded as some of the best jazz albums are ugly, random noise, or that a variety of fine art is ho-hum or stupid (maybe some of it is! But people expressing these attitudes tend to apply their opinion far too broadly)

scarecrowbob 5y ago
It may even be the case that the sine qua non of "greatness" in art is that the deeper you look into it (and the network of signifiers surrounding and defining the work) the more interesting it becomes. And that's not to say that "accessible" art isn't 'great'-- the more pedal steel I play, the more jazz I find in country music. It was fun when I was just listening to it, but the more I listen to (some of) it the more useful, interesting musical I find.