4 ms·

I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. Then the o

by cm2187 5y ago

I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. Then the other arts followed. Modern classical music is impossible to listen to most ears. And architects followed too, more interested in creating an original shape of glass or concrete rather than building anything beautiful and pleasing. There is hardly any piece of modern architecture that will resist the test of time (and the materials used won’t anyway). For a long list of examples, I defer to the twitter account architects against humanity.

febeling 5y ago
One problem was that people started believing that there's no such thing as beauty. How do you build a beautiful building, if you think beauty is an illusion anyway? I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, then what your imagination creates is likely to look pretty brutalist. If you believe it's angels and God's creation all the way down you will place meaning and symbols into the large elements and every tiny bit. Anyone else can see this connection?
- Zababa 5y ago
  I'm not sure about that, I'm an atheist myself and I still find religious building beautiful. Even if there is no god there, and even if the buildings were ugly, they are filled with the feelings of lots of people. That is beautiful in itself. Just like I'm not really into sports, but the energy of a stadium is something beautiful to see, and very real. There's something special happening in those places. Same thing with an old house. Many people lived there. That's powerful.
- davidivadavid 5y ago
  Nah. First, I don't think any major aesthetic theory claims there's no such thing as beauty. At best, they question the definition of beauty and the classical canons of beauty. Second, you can put meaning and symbols into atoms buzzing back and forth (atoms buzzing back and forth are more or less a symbol, anyway).
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp): > Fountain is a readymade sculpture by Marcel Duchamp in 1917, consisting of a porcelain urinal signed "R. Mutt". In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice."... > The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art. So here's a major artist, saying that a urinal can be a work of art, needing only the artist's choice to make them so. And here's a major art movement agreeing that that "art" piece is a major landmark. That doesn't quite claim "there's no such thing as beauty", but it pretty much says there's no such thing as art, other than an artist saying so. But then, who is an artist? Whoever says they are? And if all it takes is the artist saying so, then a urinal is just as much art as the Mona Lisa. But I think this does somewhat trace back to febeling's point. If nature is all there is, and nature is deterministic, then art is just what deterministic people do. It's not intrinsically different from non-art. And when people believe that, they act like what they do is just the same as the Mona Lisa, when we can look at it and tell that no, it's not.
- PolygonSheep 5y ago
  > I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, then what your imagination creates is likely to look pretty brutalist. If you believe it's angels and God's creation all the way down you will place meaning and symbols into the large elements and every tiny bit. Anyone else can see this connection? I don't see why it wouldn't apply equally to religion. If you believe our life on earth is just a brief prelude to an eternity in something much better, why bother building anything beautiful? There'll be plenty of time for that in heaven. Indeed the best buildings and cities you could possibly build on earth pale in comparison to the shabbiest in heaven. Additionally you wouldn't want beauty on earth to distract from the glory of God. The best way to build is pragmatic, as cheap, durable, and functional as possible with no wasted frivolity. Something like square buildings made of reinforced concrete placed close together so people don't have to spend a lot of time traveling. So I think it's a wash. It seems like it could go either way honestly.
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    Wonderfully constructed argument. It may very well be that this is a case of correlation rather than causation. I do agree however that at first sight they do appear to corelate
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    > I don't see why it wouldn't apply equally to religion. Observation of mine. Old religious buildings and art were inspired. You have to admit that even if you believe the religion itself was bunkum. But look at newer religious buildings and art.
    - PolygonSheep 5y ago
      I think old religious buildings and art were better, but we only now have the great ones that have survived. There must have been a lot of cheaply built, unimpressive churches built throughout the centuries that were demolished and forgotten at some point. There must have been a lot of religious art that was the medieval/renaissance/etc equivalent of a kitschy Thomas Kincade painting that no one will remember after it's gone. It's kind of like old books or old music. We remember the greats but for every Mozart there must have been at least a dozen 18th century composers whose work wasn't as good, never got traction, was never recorded on vinyl/cd and now might as well never have existed. There's like a curation effect over time.
- alexvoda 5y ago
  I believe that we are still in a very long transition period. The journey from apreciation of devine beauty towards apreciation of natural beauty passes through the stage of nihilism.
car_analogy 5y ago
> I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. You are letting them off too easy. Have you ever seen a photograph that looks like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAAeM/9fYC580Og5E/s1600/beksinski_artof_03.jpg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAA... ? Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/media/File:Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Abtei_im_Eichwald_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/medi... ? Or https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb42610152017d94da8b0.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb4261015... ? The modern styles void of any aesthetic appeal are by far not the only ones photography has not supplanted. The layperson may be excused for thinking art's only goal was photorealism, but when coming from experts, that is a deliberate lie, used to ridicule anyone that dares complain how beauty was excised from the modern art world.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
inglor_cz 5y ago
It does not seem to be the case to me. At least I cannot see the correlation. Art Deco buildings are very beautiful, and that happened a long time after photography was invented. In fact, the soulless style of architecture only started to visibly dominate after WWII.
bsedlm 5y ago
I don't think that the musicians have responded yet to the reccording technology in a comparable way to painters responding to photographic technology with impressionism and other non-realistic painting techniques (which do seem to have sprung up when photography became widespread)

by cm2187 5y ago

febeling 5y ago

One problem was that people started believing that there's no such thing as beauty. How do you build a beautiful building, if you think beauty is an illusion anyway? I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, then what your imagination creates is likely to look pretty brutalist. If you believe it's angels and God's creation all the way down you will place meaning and symbols into the large elements and every tiny bit. Anyone else can see this connection?

Zababa 5y ago
I'm not sure about that, I'm an atheist myself and I still find religious building beautiful. Even if there is no god there, and even if the buildings were ugly, they are filled with the feelings of lots of people. That is beautiful in itself. Just like I'm not really into sports, but the energy of a stadium is something beautiful to see, and very real. There's something special happening in those places. Same thing with an old house. Many people lived there. That's powerful.
davidivadavid 5y ago
Nah. First, I don't think any major aesthetic theory claims there's no such thing as beauty. At best, they question the definition of beauty and the classical canons of beauty. Second, you can put meaning and symbols into atoms buzzing back and forth (atoms buzzing back and forth are more or less a symbol, anyway).
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp): > Fountain is a readymade sculpture by Marcel Duchamp in 1917, consisting of a porcelain urinal signed "R. Mutt". In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice."... > The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art. So here's a major artist, saying that a urinal can be a work of art, needing only the artist's choice to make them so. And here's a major art movement agreeing that that "art" piece is a major landmark. That doesn't quite claim "there's no such thing as beauty", but it pretty much says there's no such thing as art, other than an artist saying so. But then, who is an artist? Whoever says they are? And if all it takes is the artist saying so, then a urinal is just as much art as the Mona Lisa. But I think this does somewhat trace back to febeling's point. If nature is all there is, and nature is deterministic, then art is just what deterministic people do. It's not intrinsically different from non-art. And when people believe that, they act like what they do is just the same as the Mona Lisa, when we can look at it and tell that no, it's not.
PolygonSheep 5y ago
> I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, then what your imagination creates is likely to look pretty brutalist. If you believe it's angels and God's creation all the way down you will place meaning and symbols into the large elements and every tiny bit. Anyone else can see this connection? I don't see why it wouldn't apply equally to religion. If you believe our life on earth is just a brief prelude to an eternity in something much better, why bother building anything beautiful? There'll be plenty of time for that in heaven. Indeed the best buildings and cities you could possibly build on earth pale in comparison to the shabbiest in heaven. Additionally you wouldn't want beauty on earth to distract from the glory of God. The best way to build is pragmatic, as cheap, durable, and functional as possible with no wasted frivolity. Something like square buildings made of reinforced concrete placed close together so people don't have to spend a lot of time traveling. So I think it's a wash. It seems like it could go either way honestly.
- alexvoda 5y ago
  Wonderfully constructed argument. It may very well be that this is a case of correlation rather than causation. I do agree however that at first sight they do appear to corelate
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  > I don't see why it wouldn't apply equally to religion. Observation of mine. Old religious buildings and art were inspired. You have to admit that even if you believe the religion itself was bunkum. But look at newer religious buildings and art.
  - PolygonSheep 5y ago
    I think old religious buildings and art were better, but we only now have the great ones that have survived. There must have been a lot of cheaply built, unimpressive churches built throughout the centuries that were demolished and forgotten at some point. There must have been a lot of religious art that was the medieval/renaissance/etc equivalent of a kitschy Thomas Kincade painting that no one will remember after it's gone. It's kind of like old books or old music. We remember the greats but for every Mozart there must have been at least a dozen 18th century composers whose work wasn't as good, never got traction, was never recorded on vinyl/cd and now might as well never have existed. There's like a curation effect over time.
alexvoda 5y ago
I believe that we are still in a very long transition period. The journey from apreciation of devine beauty towards apreciation of natural beauty passes through the stage of nihilism.

car_analogy 5y ago

> I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. You are letting them off too easy. Have you ever seen a photograph that looks like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAAeM/9fYC580Og5E/s1600/beksinski_artof_03.jpg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAA... ? Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/media/File:Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Abtei_im_Eichwald_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/medi... ? Or https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb42610152017d94da8b0.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb4261015... ? The modern styles void of any aesthetic appeal are by far not the only ones photography has not supplanted. The layperson may be excused for thinking art's only goal was photorealism, but when coming from experts, that is a deliberate lie, used to ridicule anyone that dares complain how beauty was excised from the modern art world.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

inglor_cz 5y ago

It does not seem to be the case to me. At least I cannot see the correlation. Art Deco buildings are very beautiful, and that happened a long time after photography was invented. In fact, the soulless style of architecture only started to visibly dominate after WWII.

bsedlm 5y ago

I don't think that the musicians have responded yet to the reccording technology in a comparable way to painters responding to photographic technology with impressionism and other non-realistic painting techniques (which do seem to have sprung up when photography became widespread)