6 ms·

People go to museums to look at art. That's solely consumption that does not require being literate.

by 310260 5y ago

zmk5 5y ago
There is a difference between a museum, which curates culturally significant art from places around the world and at home, to TikTok, a social media app that is for making money.
- OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
  The 'culturally significant art' you're talking about was created for money. It's not any different than TikTok, it's just from long ago. TikTok is refined Vine and some of those Vines were worth preserving and spawned careers like ProZD.
  - zmk5 5y ago
    Culturally significant art was created for money in a different way than a global brand like TikTok creates content for money habibi. They are not equivalent no matter how hard you try to fit your square block in the circular hole.
    - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
      It's made by individuals, not TikTok? I'm not really sure if you know what TikTok is after this comment. Just to clarify, TikTok does not do ad revenue sharing. They have a creator fund, but TikTok creators really make money via brand deals, merch sales and direct donations from fans.
      - zmk5 5y ago
        TikTok is a social media platform that makes money from other people creating content for others to consume. Individuals get money for either sponsoring a product or getting many views. How is this the same as someone paying for a clay pot in Ancient Egypt that we admire at today in a museum? The act of getting money is not devoid of the context of which it was acquired.
        OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
        In one case, people are viewing something created specifically for people's entertainment. In the other case, it's detritus or grave goods we're viewing.
        zmk5 5y ago
        What a shockingly simplistic view of art you have. It pains me to know that the cultural artifacts of my people will be viewed by you in the same vein as a 30 second TikTok video.
        OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
        Are you serious? How do you think the clay pot ended up being recovered by an archeologist? There's pretty much two ways... You should look up some TikTok creators from Egypt, there is plenty of great stuff out there. The basic premise of your argument as I understand it is that art is something you see in museums or art is something that has been gated by age or by scholars or by "cultural significance". This is not how art works, some great works were discovered long after the artist had died. TikTok creators create art, some of it good, some of it bad, but it's art all the same.
        zmk5 5y ago
        First, I've seen Arabic TikTok creators and I don't need to be lectured about their presence and content. Second, that is not the argument I am making. The ancient Egyptian clay pot at a museum was just an example. I stated the act of getting money is not devoid of the context of which it was acquired when it comes to art.
Barrin92 5y ago
Going through a museum, and actively studying individual art deeply is a very different activity mentally, and much more stimulating, than scrolling through a feed passively 15 second clip after clip. It does actually take a sort of literacy to understand and appreciate art. Go talk to anyone about art who has spent a lot of time studying it and then talk to someone who just walks through the museum to take instagram pictures and you get very different answers about what they see.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  >much more stimulating To you, yes. Not everyone is you though. >It does actually take a sort of literacy to understand and appreciate art. No it doesn't. It might add something (or nothing at all or detract from it) but if it is a hard requirement then it isn't art. > Go talk to anyone about art who has spent a lot of time studying it and then talk to someone who just walks through the museum to take instagram pictures and you get very different answers about what they see. Exactly, and both are equally correct in their view on the art pieces. I'm sorry but your post sound like one of those snob magazines that try to make art only something for the rich and well educated. It is neither. If anything money detracts from art and studying something too much can too. A young child can appreciate art by Leonardo da Vinci or Mr. Brainwash just as well as an art professor. They just appreciate it in different, equally correct, ways.
  - goodlifeodyssey 5y ago
    It seems like passive consumption, be it of books or tiktok, is unlikely to improve someone very much. You may learn some new facts but I doubt you’ll be able to revise any of your deep assumptions about the world. That being said, it’s much more natural to actively read than to actively watch TikTok. Thus, in practice, reading is often a better activity than watching TikTok. The first chapter or Robert Adler’s “How to Read a Book” talks about active reading in more detail; he has a few more arguments too. Side note: unless you are a relativist and think everyone’s view about art is equally correct no matter what, the person who studies art is probably “more correct” than the Instagramer; a lot of art requires cultural context (e.g, familiarity with the Bible and Ovid) to understand. If you are a relativist, then why does nearly everyone agree some art belongs in a museum and a lot of art is garbage that nobody cares about?

People go to museums to look at art. That's solely consumption that does not require being literate.

by 310260 5y ago

People go to museums to look at art. That's solely consumption that does not require being literate.

zmk5 5y ago

There is a difference between a museum, which curates culturally significant art from places around the world and at home, to TikTok, a social media app that is for making money.

OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
The 'culturally significant art' you're talking about was created for money. It's not any different than TikTok, it's just from long ago. TikTok is refined Vine and some of those Vines were worth preserving and spawned careers like ProZD.
- zmk5 5y ago
  Culturally significant art was created for money in a different way than a global brand like TikTok creates content for money habibi. They are not equivalent no matter how hard you try to fit your square block in the circular hole.
  - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
    It's made by individuals, not TikTok? I'm not really sure if you know what TikTok is after this comment. Just to clarify, TikTok does not do ad revenue sharing. They have a creator fund, but TikTok creators really make money via brand deals, merch sales and direct donations from fans.
    - zmk5 5y ago
      TikTok is a social media platform that makes money from other people creating content for others to consume. Individuals get money for either sponsoring a product or getting many views. How is this the same as someone paying for a clay pot in Ancient Egypt that we admire at today in a museum? The act of getting money is not devoid of the context of which it was acquired.
      - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
        In one case, people are viewing something created specifically for people's entertainment. In the other case, it's detritus or grave goods we're viewing.
        zmk5 5y ago
        What a shockingly simplistic view of art you have. It pains me to know that the cultural artifacts of my people will be viewed by you in the same vein as a 30 second TikTok video.
        OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
        Are you serious? How do you think the clay pot ended up being recovered by an archeologist? There's pretty much two ways... You should look up some TikTok creators from Egypt, there is plenty of great stuff out there. The basic premise of your argument as I understand it is that art is something you see in museums or art is something that has been gated by age or by scholars or by "cultural significance". This is not how art works, some great works were discovered long after the artist had died. TikTok creators create art, some of it good, some of it bad, but it's art all the same.
        zmk5 5y ago
        First, I've seen Arabic TikTok creators and I don't need to be lectured about their presence and content. Second, that is not the argument I am making. The ancient Egyptian clay pot at a museum was just an example. I stated the act of getting money is not devoid of the context of which it was acquired when it comes to art.

Barrin92 5y ago

Going through a museum, and actively studying individual art deeply is a very different activity mentally, and much more stimulating, than scrolling through a feed passively 15 second clip after clip. It does actually take a sort of literacy to understand and appreciate art. Go talk to anyone about art who has spent a lot of time studying it and then talk to someone who just walks through the museum to take instagram pictures and you get very different answers about what they see.

Dah00n 5y ago
>much more stimulating To you, yes. Not everyone is you though. >It does actually take a sort of literacy to understand and appreciate art. No it doesn't. It might add something (or nothing at all or detract from it) but if it is a hard requirement then it isn't art. > Go talk to anyone about art who has spent a lot of time studying it and then talk to someone who just walks through the museum to take instagram pictures and you get very different answers about what they see. Exactly, and both are equally correct in their view on the art pieces. I'm sorry but your post sound like one of those snob magazines that try to make art only something for the rich and well educated. It is neither. If anything money detracts from art and studying something too much can too. A young child can appreciate art by Leonardo da Vinci or Mr. Brainwash just as well as an art professor. They just appreciate it in different, equally correct, ways.
- goodlifeodyssey 5y ago
  It seems like passive consumption, be it of books or tiktok, is unlikely to improve someone very much. You may learn some new facts but I doubt you’ll be able to revise any of your deep assumptions about the world. That being said, it’s much more natural to actively read than to actively watch TikTok. Thus, in practice, reading is often a better activity than watching TikTok. The first chapter or Robert Adler’s “How to Read a Book” talks about active reading in more detail; he has a few more arguments too. Side note: unless you are a relativist and think everyone’s view about art is equally correct no matter what, the person who studies art is probably “more correct” than the Instagramer; a lot of art requires cultural context (e.g, familiarity with the Bible and Ovid) to understand. If you are a relativist, then why does nearly everyone agree some art belongs in a museum and a lot of art is garbage that nobody cares about?