4 ms·

> Still I don't think this is worth a form of art, The whole point of art is to make something cool and creative and entertaining - if it needs to be "worth it

> Still I don't think this is worth a form of art, The whole point of art is to make something cool and creative and entertaining - if it needs to be "worth it" (practically) then it won't be an art.

culebron21 5y ago
No, art does not have to be impractical. It was practical all the history of humanity, till mid XX century, when state-funded art galleries were captured by context-violating "artists", who invented this kind of excuse.
- prox 5y ago
  I really suggest reading the book “But is it Art?” by Cynthia A Freeland. Because history and context was a lot different then you describe.
  - culebron21 5y ago
    I'd appreciate if you explain in more detail what I got/put wrong. I do attend modern art exhibitions occasionally, from garage exhibits to Venetian Biennale. I have friends working in it, recently worked at exhibition myself, and read on biographies of Renaissance and XIX century artists. I find a large chunk of "modern art" boring and definitely not entertaining. I don't see why making something so grandiose makes it entertaining. The impracticality argument is just one excuse that artists make when criticized for bad artwork. Other arguments are: * art hasn't to be X => a claim that it's fine anyway * you don't get it => a claim that there is a quality criterium, but the critic doesn't know it. Regarding the Minecraft map in question: what if it were a small area, like just a real castle? Would it be art too or not? Or it's not art, because it's of reasonable scale? If it would be still art, then what difference does the scale make?
    - ShamelessC 5y ago
      I think the dispute you two are having is whether or not your views are representative (respecting history as well) of the broader art community. Of course, going back to your original comment: > Still I don't think this is worth a form of art, given that 99% of landscape will never be seen by anyone. Oh - it's an opinion on a highly subjective matter. And indeed, you continue to use the pronoun "I" through your responses. Why anyone thought this was worth arguing against is beyond me. Similarly, why you feel that your specific opinion is obvious enough to be held by random strangers on the internet is also beyond me.
      - culebron21 5y ago
        > why you feel that your specific opinion is obvious enough to be held by random strangers on the internet is also beyond me Not feeling that at all. I understand that whether it's worth an effort or not, is a subjective matter, and sure I use the pronoun "I" to speak for myself only. The reason I got into argument is the logical problem with the argument, that the scale or impracticality makes it art, whereas small scale would not.
    - prox 5y ago
      Well, I’d love to explain but that is why I recommend the book :) A bit long too explain here and Cynthia does a far better job than me. Anyway, context is key. The book goes into the philosophical and cultural frameworks that existed in different times and how they relate to art creation. The book won’t tell you what art is paradoxically to the title, but it leads to a lot of understanding why works you might find “boring” for example, came to exist. They might become less boring as a result!
- dmos62 5y ago
  I'm pretty interested in what you consider practical.
- omegalulw 5y ago
  I am not a native English speaker so I may not have conveyed this perfectly but when writing that comment, I specifically chose to wrote "art doesn't _need_ to be practical" as opposed "art should be impractical" :P

> Still I don't think this is worth a form of art, The whole point of art is to make something cool and creative and entertaining - if it needs to be "worth it" (practically) then it won't be an art.

culebron21 5y ago

No, art does not have to be impractical. It was practical all the history of humanity, till mid XX century, when state-funded art galleries were captured by context-violating "artists", who invented this kind of excuse.

prox 5y ago
I really suggest reading the book “But is it Art?” by Cynthia A Freeland. Because history and context was a lot different then you describe.
- culebron21 5y ago
  I'd appreciate if you explain in more detail what I got/put wrong. I do attend modern art exhibitions occasionally, from garage exhibits to Venetian Biennale. I have friends working in it, recently worked at exhibition myself, and read on biographies of Renaissance and XIX century artists. I find a large chunk of "modern art" boring and definitely not entertaining. I don't see why making something so grandiose makes it entertaining. The impracticality argument is just one excuse that artists make when criticized for bad artwork. Other arguments are: * art hasn't to be X => a claim that it's fine anyway * you don't get it => a claim that there is a quality criterium, but the critic doesn't know it. Regarding the Minecraft map in question: what if it were a small area, like just a real castle? Would it be art too or not? Or it's not art, because it's of reasonable scale? If it would be still art, then what difference does the scale make?
  - ShamelessC 5y ago
    I think the dispute you two are having is whether or not your views are representative (respecting history as well) of the broader art community. Of course, going back to your original comment: > Still I don't think this is worth a form of art, given that 99% of landscape will never be seen by anyone. Oh - it's an opinion on a highly subjective matter. And indeed, you continue to use the pronoun "I" through your responses. Why anyone thought this was worth arguing against is beyond me. Similarly, why you feel that your specific opinion is obvious enough to be held by random strangers on the internet is also beyond me.
    - culebron21 5y ago
      > why you feel that your specific opinion is obvious enough to be held by random strangers on the internet is also beyond me Not feeling that at all. I understand that whether it's worth an effort or not, is a subjective matter, and sure I use the pronoun "I" to speak for myself only. The reason I got into argument is the logical problem with the argument, that the scale or impracticality makes it art, whereas small scale would not.
  - prox 5y ago
    Well, I’d love to explain but that is why I recommend the book :) A bit long too explain here and Cynthia does a far better job than me. Anyway, context is key. The book goes into the philosophical and cultural frameworks that existed in different times and how they relate to art creation. The book won’t tell you what art is paradoxically to the title, but it leads to a lot of understanding why works you might find “boring” for example, came to exist. They might become less boring as a result!
dmos62 5y ago
I'm pretty interested in what you consider practical.
omegalulw 5y ago
I am not a native English speaker so I may not have conveyed this perfectly but when writing that comment, I specifically chose to wrote "art doesn't _need_ to be practical" as opposed "art should be impractical" :P