5 ms·

I think it’s likely you’re projecting your personal experience onto others. I knew someone who was obsessed with the Red Room by Matisse. He was in no way prete

I think it’s likely you’re projecting your personal experience onto others. I knew someone who was obsessed with the Red Room by Matisse. He was in no way pretentious or academic in inclination, but something about the actual painting itself entranced him and he could disappear into it for long periods of time. I honestly don’t know what was so powerful about it for him, but he was clearly having a genuine experience different than mine. Authoritatively providing my conjecture regarding his ‘relative reaction’ would be immensely pompous. Art is more than technique, the music performances that move us are very often not the absolute highest level of virtuosity. Photographs were incredibly common in my lifetime, but I was still very strongly affected by paintings on books, album covers and in museums. Further, non-representative visual art has a rich history. You merely have to look at the amazing art produced out of Islamic aniconism.

mc32 3y ago
It's not unique to art, nor does it speak to its importance. You could easily find someone who stares at ants for hours on end. What does it prove? I think we have to understand its meaning and impact on a societal level and determine its usefulness or uselessness[1]. Not all art is useful and not all art is useless but some are one or the other. [1]Very broadly defined and not focused on economic value, though being a. Inner dial success is also valid.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  Art really shouldn't be measured on a useful or useless scale. How would we even determine adequate metrics for that? If we look at impact we'd need to consider The Bodyguard Soundtrack as high musical art.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    "And IIIIiiiiiiieeeeeiiiiiee..."
laratied 3y ago
Picasso was worth $250 million at his death in 1973 dollars. 1.6 billion in 2022 dollars from selling his own paintings. Painters at one point were rock stars. Just like today's rock stars are social media stars and not a group of guys playing guitar/bass/drum/vocals. Artistic mediums have their moment in time and then become niche, historical and retro once their time has passed. Marble sculpture is no less amazing than in times past. That mediums time in the sun though passed a long time ago. Just like if you go to an art gallery that arranges the paintings in period rooms, it completely obvious when photography became an up and coming medium and its effect on painting at the time.
- shadowfoxx 3y ago
  I'm sorry but this really betrays history, even contemporary history. We could point to a number of contemporary artists that are worth millions of dollars for whatever they are known for - you might even consider them 'rockstars', regardless of how myopic I find the term - but headlines that make it onto the "4 big websites" is not the same thing as being irrelevant. For every "Picasso" you can cherry-pick from history there's a Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Banksy, Ai Weiwei, etc - All worth millions or, at the very least, "Rockstars" in their own right. The idea that Marble Sculptures in Ancient Rome or whatever had passersby standing in amazement compared to today is not accurate. People walking into whatever temple for whatever God they were visiting would be just as bored by the marble back then as you are of marble now. What's really changed is that accessibility to these things have exploded. More people than ever have access to Art, Art Tools, Art Education, and new Art Mediums. "Art" is in no-way dying out. Focusing so much on the "Medium" is missing the forest for the trees, honestly. (Which is to say, modern technology and socio/economic trends have a bigger effect on the use of Marble than "Marble as a medium", whatever that means. Sculpture is alive and well, I promise you) This is a little bit rambly because your post just kinda says, "Art changes over time" and doesn't, in my view, have a wide-enough vision of the "why" but this is all to say that like, as far as this thread is concerned, Visual Art, if anything, is omnipresent in our lives - not less relevant than in times past. If anything, the presence of "Rock Stars" is an indication of too few talented people, instead of what we have historically which is an ever increasing number of extremely talented people. I just don't know how we can say Painting is less relevant now when more people than ever are doing it lol.

mc32 3y ago

It's not unique to art, nor does it speak to its importance. You could easily find someone who stares at ants for hours on end. What does it prove? I think we have to understand its meaning and impact on a societal level and determine its usefulness or uselessness[1]. Not all art is useful and not all art is useless but some are one or the other. [1]Very broadly defined and not focused on economic value, though being a. Inner dial success is also valid.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
Art really shouldn't be measured on a useful or useless scale. How would we even determine adequate metrics for that? If we look at impact we'd need to consider The Bodyguard Soundtrack as high musical art.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  "And IIIIiiiiiiieeeeeiiiiiee..."

laratied 3y ago

Picasso was worth $250 million at his death in 1973 dollars. 1.6 billion in 2022 dollars from selling his own paintings. Painters at one point were rock stars. Just like today's rock stars are social media stars and not a group of guys playing guitar/bass/drum/vocals. Artistic mediums have their moment in time and then become niche, historical and retro once their time has passed. Marble sculpture is no less amazing than in times past. That mediums time in the sun though passed a long time ago. Just like if you go to an art gallery that arranges the paintings in period rooms, it completely obvious when photography became an up and coming medium and its effect on painting at the time.

shadowfoxx 3y ago
I'm sorry but this really betrays history, even contemporary history. We could point to a number of contemporary artists that are worth millions of dollars for whatever they are known for - you might even consider them 'rockstars', regardless of how myopic I find the term - but headlines that make it onto the "4 big websites" is not the same thing as being irrelevant. For every "Picasso" you can cherry-pick from history there's a Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Banksy, Ai Weiwei, etc - All worth millions or, at the very least, "Rockstars" in their own right. The idea that Marble Sculptures in Ancient Rome or whatever had passersby standing in amazement compared to today is not accurate. People walking into whatever temple for whatever God they were visiting would be just as bored by the marble back then as you are of marble now. What's really changed is that accessibility to these things have exploded. More people than ever have access to Art, Art Tools, Art Education, and new Art Mediums. "Art" is in no-way dying out. Focusing so much on the "Medium" is missing the forest for the trees, honestly. (Which is to say, modern technology and socio/economic trends have a bigger effect on the use of Marble than "Marble as a medium", whatever that means. Sculpture is alive and well, I promise you) This is a little bit rambly because your post just kinda says, "Art changes over time" and doesn't, in my view, have a wide-enough vision of the "why" but this is all to say that like, as far as this thread is concerned, Visual Art, if anything, is omnipresent in our lives - not less relevant than in times past. If anything, the presence of "Rock Stars" is an indication of too few talented people, instead of what we have historically which is an ever increasing number of extremely talented people. I just don't know how we can say Painting is less relevant now when more people than ever are doing it lol.