4 ms·

"But in conversation you will be unable to speak with others who do not share your tastes, you will be unable to defend these tastes beyond asserting that you l

by fleddr 4y ago

"But in conversation you will be unable to speak with others who do not share your tastes, you will be unable to defend these tastes beyond asserting that you like what you like, and you will be unable to understand the weakness in what you like because what you like is good, and what you do not like is not good, and that is the totality of your understanding of art." The art world is already so off-putting, nice how the above tone of conversation doubles down on it. Can hardly get any more snobby. Modern art is a scam. It's ugly low skill garbage where winners are selected by jury, a type of incest. In similar vain, all our buildings and infra are butt ugly. How pathetic is that when archeologists dig up artifacts once belonging to the oldest of civilizations, their art is stunning and way ahead of us. We've artistically devolved, effectively to a state of no art. Which we then mask with bullshit like "art can't be defined", "it's in the eye of the beholder".

pizzathyme 4y ago
This framework and article don’t just apply to traditional painting art. This applies to any art: video games, movies, TV shows, books, even web design. Discussion of all of these things would be elevated if people can separate what is good and bad from their own preferences. Edit: typo
- yladiz 4y ago
  It's really impossible to separate good and bad are from your own subjective opinion, as there is no true objective criteria that you can judge art by. There are criteria that can be chosen -- for example, how did the artist apply light to their painting -- but these criteria 1. depend on the specific kind of art (in the same vain, not all paintings utilize light in the same way or for the same purpose) and 2. are inherently subjective because they are being chosen by a subjective being. The closest we can maybe come to being able to objectively judging art is as a collective/society saying that some art is good, and that the opinion holds true over time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
fuifrgrf 4y ago
lhorie 4y ago
But that sentence isn't arguing for the notion of some "absolute good art". If I had to criticize it, it would be to say it doesn't go far enough by still accepting the concept of good vs bad art, whereas I think interesting discussions are multidimensional. For example, why do you defend archeological architecture? Are the pyramids "good" because they are opulent? That sounds like a sensible stance at a glance, but then what of the Burj Khalifa? Is Calvin and Hobbes not acclaimed? Is it not art? What of obscure manga about gender identity? Why is Turning Red controversial? Who is it relatable to, and does that matter? Suddenly equating one's opinion w/ "good vs bad" seems superficial. There's historical context, there's political commentary, and commentary on the commentary, and how that shapes the rest of the contemporary works.

by fleddr 4y ago

pizzathyme 4y ago

This framework and article don’t just apply to traditional painting art. This applies to any art: video games, movies, TV shows, books, even web design. Discussion of all of these things would be elevated if people can separate what is good and bad from their own preferences. Edit: typo

yladiz 4y ago
It's really impossible to separate good and bad are from your own subjective opinion, as there is no true objective criteria that you can judge art by. There are criteria that can be chosen -- for example, how did the artist apply light to their painting -- but these criteria 1. depend on the specific kind of art (in the same vain, not all paintings utilize light in the same way or for the same purpose) and 2. are inherently subjective because they are being chosen by a subjective being. The closest we can maybe come to being able to objectively judging art is as a collective/society saying that some art is good, and that the opinion holds true over time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

fuifrgrf 4y ago

lhorie 4y ago

But that sentence isn't arguing for the notion of some "absolute good art". If I had to criticize it, it would be to say it doesn't go far enough by still accepting the concept of good vs bad art, whereas I think interesting discussions are multidimensional. For example, why do you defend archeological architecture? Are the pyramids "good" because they are opulent? That sounds like a sensible stance at a glance, but then what of the Burj Khalifa? Is Calvin and Hobbes not acclaimed? Is it not art? What of obscure manga about gender identity? Why is Turning Red controversial? Who is it relatable to, and does that matter? Suddenly equating one's opinion w/ "good vs bad" seems superficial. There's historical context, there's political commentary, and commentary on the commentary, and how that shapes the rest of the contemporary works.