5 ms·

So what is it that you enjoy, when looking at a certain image (especially, when it comes to this particular image, as compared to any other representation of th

So what is it that you enjoy, when looking at a certain image (especially, when it comes to this particular image, as compared to any other representation of the same subject matter), if not the artistic choices? A weighted average? I'm skeptical…

vidarh 3y ago
What it looks like. Whether the image itself appeals to me or moves me Whether those are "artistic choices" or random chance or a set of heuristics does not affect my enjoyment. It does not mean I don't find knowing about the choices of an artist or their process interesting at times, but for the vast majority of art I see I have idea about them. They are separate to my enjoyment of a given image. I don't know why you are skeptical - to me the notion that anything but the image itself should be necessary for me to enjoy it is a bizarre notion and I suspect it would be for a whole lot of people. Most people would not be able to name whomever created the vast majority of art they've seen, nor name the style, and do not spend time thinking about either.
BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
> So what is it that you enjoy, when looking at a certain image (especially, when it comes to this particular image, as compared to any other representation of the same subject matter), if not the artistic choices? Things can be visually interesting without intent or artistic meaning. Even if you've never stared into a fire, surely would agree that many people do it? Or the ocean? Or hills covered in snow? Or trees? Or other people having lunch? Or a pretty face? People have gazed contentedly at things that are just pretty without any worry about "artistic choices" since people have existed.
- masswerk 3y ago
  I'd argue, there's a difference between media and the world as-is. Media are crucially a projection, transposing an impression as an expression into another space, implying a difference in these two spaces and their respective dimensionality. This is, what makes media interesting to us. All what is implied in this: human experience, narrative strategies, focus, depth, texture, skill, choices, etc. Otherwise, we're just immersing in the world as-is, enjoying ourselves and our own choices. But, for art as an act of communication, this doesn't work. It even doesn't work for media, which is why immersive media, like 3D TV, regularly fail: it simply misses the media part.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    You are presuming we all care about art as an act of communication all the time, or even at all. A lot of the time what the artist is trying to communicate is not all that interesting to me. I can enjoy just looking at something, whether it's a painting or a generated image, or just the sky. It doesn't take away anything from the experience to me if I know there is no meaning or intent behind it.
    - masswerk 3y ago
      I can just try to relate what kind of impact this has on me. As mentioned above, visual media are important to me. I graduated in the theoretical side of this, part of my work is visual design. First, I observed that these images made me depressed, whenever I encountered them, then, that I now just ignore any images by default. It hurts. I miss what had been a constituent part of me.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        I struggle to even imagine feeling that way about it. I don't know what to suggest, other than perhaps try experimenting with meditation as a way to see if experiencing detachment of your feelings about the process vs. the outcome and images might make a difference. To me the two are entirely separate, and e.g. when I make things myself, whether I draw, or play the piano, or write code, the outcome is often secondary (I'm shit on the piano, and mediocre at drawing, but it doesn't matter). When I learn about an artist, the person and ideas might be interesting even if I have no interest in their art (I pointed out my favourite part of the Matisse museum in Nice is not his art, but the olive garden outside it, elsewhere, but Matisse is fascinating even if I don't care about his art at all). But when I watch their art, it's purely about what I see then and there. It's not that knowing history behind it never affects me, or interests me, but that I don't need it to enjoy the work, nor will I always - or even most of the time - feel the slightest urge to learn about the work or the artist.
        masswerk 3y ago
        I think, it's a matter of the parable of the puppet theatre. According to this, we may either "naively" enjoy the play, immersing ourselves in the story presented, sustaining our disbelief regarding the puppets, taking the scene "for real", or we may engage in a dialog with this, by applying our own perspective to what is already a perspective (or, in my words, a projection). From this arose Kant's suggested "disinterested pleasure", a state of alert suspense and readiness, which has become the blueprint of bourgeois art consumption ever since the enlightenment. It's really this framework of looking at, engaging with and producing art and visual media, I'm referring to. On a less theory-heavy notion, the mere fact that a certain image or certain parts of a given image enjoyed that much of an investment to look like it does, somewhat guarantees that it had been worth the effort to someone, that it was meant to convey something. A quality, which is now gone for ever. Meaning, even the barest spark of expression, is now just at random. Moreover, by the very definition, art will now be dogmatic, even where it's asked for aberrations and exceptions, and redundant, since it's just a product of weighted averages based on an existing library of expressions. At least applied art is pretty much over, as is visual media. (Just look at what happened to cinema, when the regulating factor of film stock and related production costs fell away.)
PsylentKnight 3y ago
I would say that the default mode of consuming art is on a surface level where you don't pick apart why it's "good" or how it came to be, you either like it or dislike it in an unconscious/intuitive way. I can understand your mode of art consumption, but I'm not sure I understand why you're so skeptical about this.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

vidarh 3y ago

What it looks like. Whether the image itself appeals to me or moves me Whether those are "artistic choices" or random chance or a set of heuristics does not affect my enjoyment. It does not mean I don't find knowing about the choices of an artist or their process interesting at times, but for the vast majority of art I see I have idea about them. They are separate to my enjoyment of a given image. I don't know why you are skeptical - to me the notion that anything but the image itself should be necessary for me to enjoy it is a bizarre notion and I suspect it would be for a whole lot of people. Most people would not be able to name whomever created the vast majority of art they've seen, nor name the style, and do not spend time thinking about either.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago

> So what is it that you enjoy, when looking at a certain image (especially, when it comes to this particular image, as compared to any other representation of the same subject matter), if not the artistic choices? Things can be visually interesting without intent or artistic meaning. Even if you've never stared into a fire, surely would agree that many people do it? Or the ocean? Or hills covered in snow? Or trees? Or other people having lunch? Or a pretty face? People have gazed contentedly at things that are just pretty without any worry about "artistic choices" since people have existed.

masswerk 3y ago
I'd argue, there's a difference between media and the world as-is. Media are crucially a projection, transposing an impression as an expression into another space, implying a difference in these two spaces and their respective dimensionality. This is, what makes media interesting to us. All what is implied in this: human experience, narrative strategies, focus, depth, texture, skill, choices, etc. Otherwise, we're just immersing in the world as-is, enjoying ourselves and our own choices. But, for art as an act of communication, this doesn't work. It even doesn't work for media, which is why immersive media, like 3D TV, regularly fail: it simply misses the media part.
- vidarh 3y ago
  You are presuming we all care about art as an act of communication all the time, or even at all. A lot of the time what the artist is trying to communicate is not all that interesting to me. I can enjoy just looking at something, whether it's a painting or a generated image, or just the sky. It doesn't take away anything from the experience to me if I know there is no meaning or intent behind it.
  - masswerk 3y ago
    I can just try to relate what kind of impact this has on me. As mentioned above, visual media are important to me. I graduated in the theoretical side of this, part of my work is visual design. First, I observed that these images made me depressed, whenever I encountered them, then, that I now just ignore any images by default. It hurts. I miss what had been a constituent part of me.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      I struggle to even imagine feeling that way about it. I don't know what to suggest, other than perhaps try experimenting with meditation as a way to see if experiencing detachment of your feelings about the process vs. the outcome and images might make a difference. To me the two are entirely separate, and e.g. when I make things myself, whether I draw, or play the piano, or write code, the outcome is often secondary (I'm shit on the piano, and mediocre at drawing, but it doesn't matter). When I learn about an artist, the person and ideas might be interesting even if I have no interest in their art (I pointed out my favourite part of the Matisse museum in Nice is not his art, but the olive garden outside it, elsewhere, but Matisse is fascinating even if I don't care about his art at all). But when I watch their art, it's purely about what I see then and there. It's not that knowing history behind it never affects me, or interests me, but that I don't need it to enjoy the work, nor will I always - or even most of the time - feel the slightest urge to learn about the work or the artist.
      - masswerk 3y ago
        I think, it's a matter of the parable of the puppet theatre. According to this, we may either "naively" enjoy the play, immersing ourselves in the story presented, sustaining our disbelief regarding the puppets, taking the scene "for real", or we may engage in a dialog with this, by applying our own perspective to what is already a perspective (or, in my words, a projection). From this arose Kant's suggested "disinterested pleasure", a state of alert suspense and readiness, which has become the blueprint of bourgeois art consumption ever since the enlightenment. It's really this framework of looking at, engaging with and producing art and visual media, I'm referring to. On a less theory-heavy notion, the mere fact that a certain image or certain parts of a given image enjoyed that much of an investment to look like it does, somewhat guarantees that it had been worth the effort to someone, that it was meant to convey something. A quality, which is now gone for ever. Meaning, even the barest spark of expression, is now just at random. Moreover, by the very definition, art will now be dogmatic, even where it's asked for aberrations and exceptions, and redundant, since it's just a product of weighted averages based on an existing library of expressions. At least applied art is pretty much over, as is visual media. (Just look at what happened to cinema, when the regulating factor of film stock and related production costs fell away.)

PsylentKnight 3y ago

I would say that the default mode of consuming art is on a surface level where you don't pick apart why it's "good" or how it came to be, you either like it or dislike it in an unconscious/intuitive way. I can understand your mode of art consumption, but I'm not sure I understand why you're so skeptical about this.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]