4 ms·

I think it’s because content by definition is mediocre, otherwise it would be called art.

• nobody9999 5y ago
  >I think it’s because content by definition is mediocre, otherwise it would be called art. Even if it's mediocre, it can still be art IMHO. Rather, I think it's just that Sturgeon's Law[0] applies to most things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
• pkdpic 5y ago
  Excellent point / mic drop : ) But one thought this thread is provoking is related to this well-intentioned but self-destructive (imho) 20th century cultural narrative that talent as a prerequisite for art creates a tyranny where certain people are allowed to express themselves with dignity while the vast majority are not. Sometimes I like this narrative, sometimes I hate it. But regardless it undeniably had the effect of leveling the playing field while retaining the same old gilded-age toxic celebrity hierarchy, which simply seems to have had the effect of letting the wealthy and powerful silently dominate cultural / artistic production, which this thread already started to touch on a bit. Ie, the now fairly ubiquitous experience of walking into an art museum, seeing a blank canvas propped on the floor next to a neon light. Thinking "Anyone could make that so whys this person rich and famous for it?" Shrugging, leaving and not going back to an art museum for another decade. I enjoy that kind of art in the right context but it clearly has a destructive effect on peoples natural ability to care about art and have a healthy creative practice themselves.