3 ms·

Since "art is about art" came from me: I see nothing unsubstantial in that very expression. Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free. I

Since "art is about art" came from me: I see nothing unsubstantial in that very expression. Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free. I don't see why anybody has to be ostracized for not finding access to it, but ironically you're making the case for the opposing claim: nobody here judged people for not "getting it", yet you're insinuating various things about the group that "claims to get it". Why bother making it about identity and individual attributes? I find that exhausting. I'm blown away by Picassos work, because I find true beauty in his way of abstracting. He very clearly saw the world from a special point of view, which he translated in a way that language is not meant to convey. I can't claim to truly see what he saw just by looking at his work, but I'm seeing something, and I couldn't care less wether you find this to be an unsubstantial claim, because I don't have to make everything in life about groups and identity, peer confirmation, etc etc. Some well meant food for thought: not all data has to fit your model of the world. Usually when this happens, it's not a data-problem. Now you can say "well people who claim they see value in abstract art are noise to me", and that's ok, it's your model - but I found it to be a far better strategy in life to keep my mind open instead of being reactionary when confronted with something that doesn't please me. Cheers!

yupper32 4y ago
> Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free. Of course, and I'm not offended that Picasso decided to create his art the way he wanted to. What I'm talking about specifically is art popularity. I'm also not say that there's no one that legitimately would be able to pick Picasso's work out of a lineup and genuinely find beauty in his work. You very well might be in that category. My main point is that it seems that some artists such as Picasso (and I'll throw in Rothko as well since I saw them mentioned here) are artificially popularized by people trying to seem high class/intelligent.
- hans1729 4y ago
  > My main point is that it seems that some artists such as Picasso (and I'll throw in Rothko as well since I saw them mentioned here) are artificially popularized by people trying to seem high class/intelligent. Rest assured: while such dynamics (artificial boosting of specific artists) do exist, they are a property of the art market, not of the artists or their audience. This isn’t to say that 100% of people who claim to find beauty in $artist actually do so, but there is a reason that an artist either shapes the culture and his peers - or he does not. Picasso and Rothko got big through organic content aggregation - they checked the boxes of their peers, you will have a hard time finding someone versed in the craft who doesn’t appreciate them. Saying that some of the people who identify as fans of their work actually just look to belong is in no way directly related to the art, it’s an emergent dynamic in any group, so it’s pointless to bring up when the actual art is being discussed - it’s just dismissive of the work and the conversation ends with exhausting fingerpointing and games of groups and identity. The various motivations behind art, specifically Picasso and Rothko, are free from this exact burden :-)

yupper32 4y ago

> Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free. Of course, and I'm not offended that Picasso decided to create his art the way he wanted to. What I'm talking about specifically is art popularity. I'm also not say that there's no one that legitimately would be able to pick Picasso's work out of a lineup and genuinely find beauty in his work. You very well might be in that category. My main point is that it seems that some artists such as Picasso (and I'll throw in Rothko as well since I saw them mentioned here) are artificially popularized by people trying to seem high class/intelligent.

hans1729 4y ago
> My main point is that it seems that some artists such as Picasso (and I'll throw in Rothko as well since I saw them mentioned here) are artificially popularized by people trying to seem high class/intelligent. Rest assured: while such dynamics (artificial boosting of specific artists) do exist, they are a property of the art market, not of the artists or their audience. This isn’t to say that 100% of people who claim to find beauty in $artist actually do so, but there is a reason that an artist either shapes the culture and his peers - or he does not. Picasso and Rothko got big through organic content aggregation - they checked the boxes of their peers, you will have a hard time finding someone versed in the craft who doesn’t appreciate them. Saying that some of the people who identify as fans of their work actually just look to belong is in no way directly related to the art, it’s an emergent dynamic in any group, so it’s pointless to bring up when the actual art is being discussed - it’s just dismissive of the work and the conversation ends with exhausting fingerpointing and games of groups and identity. The various motivations behind art, specifically Picasso and Rothko, are free from this exact burden :-)