5 ms·
> unapproachable to those with no context on the subject, OTOH, if you do have context on the subject, it can be profound. It's a bit like certain gamer groups
by SavantIdiot 5y ago
> unapproachable to those with no context on the subject,
OTOH, if you do have context on the subject, it can be profound. It's a bit like certain gamer groups who have subreddits and generate tons of content that outsiders don't get (Warhammer, Genshin Impact, Hololive, ApexLegends... these are few groups I do not understand but they seem to generate a ton of their own internal content.)
Aesthetic art is a product of a particular need, and it will always have admirers. IKEA sells tons of pretty art. People will flock to Versailles to see the Mona Lisa. An occasional brave soul will do a long-viewing of Rothko. That kind of art is for the masses, and historically commissioned pieces in public have been just that. And it hasn't gone away: murals, sculptures in parks, installations at large government buildings.
What people are focusing on here is completely different.
It's a bit ignorant to criticize art that is outside your context. I have the right to say "Warhammer memes are childish bullshit," but it is ignorant.
Much like vegan-bashing, people love to rip on "post modern" art without really knowing much about it. Perhaps there is a legitimate claim that some hot new artist is "classically untrained" so they "actually" suck. Is that true if their art resonates with the current culture? I say, "no."
EDIT: I have attempted to study "postmodernism" many times over the last 30+ years (for fun) since I graduated college. I've failed every time. I don't like to use the term anymore because I can't really explain it to any real depth other then banal platitudes like "nothing has meaning."
EDIT2: I find "take the money and run" to be a brilliant piece of contemporary art. It is so on the nose for today's culture: conniving, ironic, duplicitive, a rip off, ... I think it spurs conversation about the monetary value of art that has been brewing for decades. Heck, even the monetary value of what museums should EXPECT from an artist. That's a big one I'd like to talk about. What if EVERY artist did this from now on? How do you prevent it? Should you? How do artists that put in massive physical effort feel about this? Screwed?
- SkipperCat 5y agoAgreed. Post-modern art by itself means nothing to me, but when I learn about the artist and their journey to create a piece of work, I really enjoy it. It's like they say - its not about the destination, it's about the journey.
- SavantIdiot 5y agoThe classic Duchamp urinal I think is brilliant because it was so goddamn scandalous and just flipped so many assumptions upside-down. Being first matters IMHO. But over many decades it has been so set-upon by bigger thinkers (and GRIFTERS) and creators that it is exactly what the other poster said about "inaccessible". (Although I do love me some Zizek.)
- dexwiz 5y agoI usually classify Post Modern art as deconstructional art post WWII. It was initially fueled by the ennui of two world wars, and then drifted into cries about consumerism. Either way you get a pretty bleak outlook.
- SavantIdiot 5y agoNow I hear it used in the context of skepticism of authority, "nothing can be known as true or false" in the current political climate and it scares the bejeebers outta me. I don't understand how that aspect of PM differs from classical fallacies of appeal to authority -- and I probably never will. :( -- but I agree, it feels bleak.
- Leparamour 5y ago>It was initially fueled by the ennui of two world wars, and then drifted into cries about consumerism. And also bankrolled by the CIA as a psy-op tool during the Cold war. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt...
- collegeburner 5y agoThat figures... nothing that stupid happens without the govt being involved
- chrismcb 5y agoIf your art requires context to be understood, then it is broken.
- SavantIdiot 5y agoNo. Art Criticism and Theory is literally about the interplay of art with its context, and viewing art in different contexts (periods, and cultures). One such example is the 'period eye', where you juxtapose art from one period to another, such as 15th century Italian art in today's realm, and observe how the context has changed w.r.t. dimensions like racism, classism, or sexism. Have you ever taken a class on it? It doesn't sound like it. The term sounds intimidating but I think most 101-level classes try to be accessible from the interactions with educators I've had. Perhaps you are confusing art with the meme about UI design and jokes.
- amplerop 5y ago> I think it spurs conversation about the monetary value of art that has been brewing for decades You say it was "brewing", I say this exact same conversation has been "spurred" by one "art" piece after another for all those decades. The only claim to fame of this umpteenth "I could have done that"-elicitor is that it attains novelty over the last "newsworthy" iteration by risking a fraud charge and career-death. Nobody outside of Warhammer circles pay attention to Warhammer memes. The only reason the general public pays so much (negative) attention to High Art Memes is the money involved. And that's exactly what they want, isn't it? "Provoking discourse" (aka pissing off the plebs by flaunting vain exchanges of wealth, and then scoffing at how uncultured they are for not getting it). Warhammer memes do not need the plebian masses to be the butt of their circular joke, though. By that measure, Warhammer memes are far more valuable to society than the article's brand of High Art, because Warhammer memes produce net happiness, but High Art deals in misery and negativity and trolling.