4 ms·
I upvoted both you and the OP, for making good, honest observations. And for relating stories about thoughtful, controversial engagements with art. Because tha
by routerl 5y ago
I upvoted both you and the OP, for making good, honest observations.
And for relating stories about thoughtful, controversial engagements with art. Because that's kind of the point of art.
The Mona Lisa isn't "art" anymore; it was once, and now it's a pretty artifact with a lot of historical significance. But that's not art.
Art is the kind of thing that makes educated people say, in public, "that's not art". And, thus, by its existence and the reception to its existence, true art makes our conversations about art richer, more emotional, and (over time) more precise. And once all of the nuances of this conversation are exhausted, we need new art.
Which is why the Mona Lisa isn't art. At least not anymore.
And if you disagree with that, then we need to have a deep conversation about art, and history, over the course of which both of us will have hopefully learned new things about both art and history.
Art is a recursive question, not an engineering problem.
Edit: I should point out that this comment is intentionally recursive.
- jalgos_eminator 5y agoHonestly this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on HN, and yes I mean that perfectly literally. Its almost as if this comment is itself a piece of performance art, because the Mona Lisa is (sometimes literally) the standard for all art (at least paintings).
- routerl 5y agoAgreed, it was a ridiculous comment. I did, however, try to design that ridiculousness to make a point.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoFor those of us who aren't subtle enough, could you state your actual point?
- routerl 5y agoOk, you know how people thought Cantor was crazy because he proposed that there were both countable and uncountable infinities? In retrospect, those of us who are mathematically inclined can understand the value of Cantor's work, since it gave rise to set theory and many more things that are clearly useful and important. But they weren't always clearly useful and important. The value of Cantor's work was once so not clear that many serious and influential people dismissed and attacked it. Would you like to not be one of those people? Then you should probably practice talking about why certain art is bullshit, and certain other art isn't bullshit, because it will strengthen your "is this bullshit" muscles, so you can more expertly apply those muscles to really important questions, like "are self-driving cars feasible within the next few years", or "do covid booster shots make sense".
- drnex 5y agoI like to think that when you dismiss something as being ridiculous, you lose the possibility of integrating it into your body of knowledge. Cheers.
- chrismcb 5y agoArt doesn't suddenly stop being art. I think what you are saying is if people stop discussing a thing then it stops becoming art. Art doesn't require making conversations about art richer. If that were true, the Mona Lisa would still be at because we still discuss it as art. But art is still art, even if people stop talking about it. And if a learned person days it isn't art, it probably isn't art.
- routerl 5y ago> The Mona Lisa isn't "art" anymore; it was once, and now it's a pretty artifact with a lot of historical significance. But that's not art. followed closely by > Art is the kind of thing that makes educated people say, in public, "that's not art". My point lies very much between the lines.