3 ms·

> does the particular pile of trash generate any interesting discussion? Then, trash created by a celebrity, is art? Because knowing that that person did that

> does the particular pile of trash generate any interesting discussion? Then, trash created by a celebrity, is art? Because knowing that that person did that ugly thing, generates discussions (like "wow what did s/he think!? Is that the best they can do?")

082349872349872 3y ago
Any straight answer I give to that would probably be long and boring and drag in things like "Marianne"'s 2024 reproduction(fr)[0] of Bourdieu[1]. Here's a shorter (albeit catechistic) version: would you count https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39873907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39873907 as an interesting comment? How does Queen Bey's cover in that comment compare to David's Napoleon[2]? How does Queen Liz' picture from that comment compare to her younger self[3]? to the Beyoncé cover? to Gainsborough's Mr. & Mrs. Andrews[4]? From the standpoint of the graphic arts[5], do either of these queens count as artists? or as celebrities? In which quadrant of [0] do celebrity news tabs belong? "Marianne"? (with what accuracy can we guess a website's target quadrant by its immediate visual impression?) What other questions might we ask? [0] https://panorama-pv5.immanens.com/api/document/3229/1399/xmlv3/image-html/image_0012_0016.jpg https://panorama-pv5.immanens.com/api/document/3229/1399/xml... [6] (in french; for related english content: https://dynomight.net/img/class/social%20positions.jpg https://dynomight.net/img/class/social%20positions.jpg explained in: https://dynomight.net/class/ https://dynomight.net/class/ ) [1] https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/ https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps [3] https://photos.airmail.news/uwcwylyjv86yd02gja659nfc69sj-c122345cd4a8d52560a85c1e5c3217a8.png https://photos.airmail.news/uwcwylyjv86yd02gja659nfc69sj-c12... [4] https://www.ways-of-seeing.com/images/ch5_21.jpg https://www.ways-of-seeing.com/images/ch5_21.jpg [5] the Muses all seem to be patrons of the literary/musical arts; are there equivalents for the visual arts? WTF is Urania ("astronomy & astrology") doing in that group? [6] a related graphic: https://dubasque.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image_0006_0010.jpg https://dubasque.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image_0006_0... suggests that X né Twitter has poor demographics in the hexagon. Are they better among anglophones than francophones? (Louis Vuitton, Zara, pop music, and Marvel all fall exactly on the cultural centreline; do we suppose they were lucky, or that they poll —and position— often?)
- kjellsbells 3y ago
  I wondered when Jon Berger would show up. His analysis of the Gainsborough picture was very eye opening to those viewers raised on more traditional analysis such as that of Kenneth Clark. Along the same vein, Francis Frascina's commentary on Guernica (see youtube) is also enlightening. Both Berger and Frascina are very much of their time (vaguely marxist veneer of the 1970s?) but the beauty of these works is that they inspire conversation in succeeding generations.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    I see a conversation from Berger (1972) with preceding generations: (Ep 1 18:40) > ...as soon as the meaning of the painting becomes transmittable, this meaning is liable to be manipulated and transformed. Hesse's The Glass Bead Game is from 1943, and I believe the "game" played in Castalia was meant to be exactly this sort of manipulation and transformation; creating new work by combining and transforming old, kind of like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millefiori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millefiori , but for all sorts of work, not just glass. EDIT: heh, at 19:44 Berger gets around to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect (without, however, mentioning Кулешов) ... and at the close of the programme he even cites a reference*! (on broadcast TV? what kind of marvel is this?) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...

082349872349872 3y ago

Any straight answer I give to that would probably be long and boring and drag in things like "Marianne"'s 2024 reproduction(fr)[0] of Bourdieu[1]. Here's a shorter (albeit catechistic) version: would you count https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39873907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39873907 as an interesting comment? How does Queen Bey's cover in that comment compare to David's Napoleon[2]? How does Queen Liz' picture from that comment compare to her younger self[3]? to the Beyoncé cover? to Gainsborough's Mr. & Mrs. Andrews[4]? From the standpoint of the graphic arts[5], do either of these queens count as artists? or as celebrities? In which quadrant of [0] do celebrity news tabs belong? "Marianne"? (with what accuracy can we guess a website's target quadrant by its immediate visual impression?) What other questions might we ask? [0] https://panorama-pv5.immanens.com/api/document/3229/1399/xmlv3/image-html/image_0012_0016.jpg https://panorama-pv5.immanens.com/api/document/3229/1399/xml... [6] (in french; for related english content: https://dynomight.net/img/class/social%20positions.jpg https://dynomight.net/img/class/social%20positions.jpg explained in: https://dynomight.net/class/ https://dynomight.net/class/ ) [1] https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/ https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps [3] https://photos.airmail.news/uwcwylyjv86yd02gja659nfc69sj-c122345cd4a8d52560a85c1e5c3217a8.png https://photos.airmail.news/uwcwylyjv86yd02gja659nfc69sj-c12... [4] https://www.ways-of-seeing.com/images/ch5_21.jpg https://www.ways-of-seeing.com/images/ch5_21.jpg [5] the Muses all seem to be patrons of the literary/musical arts; are there equivalents for the visual arts? WTF is Urania ("astronomy & astrology") doing in that group? [6] a related graphic: https://dubasque.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image_0006_0010.jpg https://dubasque.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image_0006_0... suggests that X né Twitter has poor demographics in the hexagon. Are they better among anglophones than francophones? (Louis Vuitton, Zara, pop music, and Marvel all fall exactly on the cultural centreline; do we suppose they were lucky, or that they poll —and position— often?)

kjellsbells 3y ago
I wondered when Jon Berger would show up. His analysis of the Gainsborough picture was very eye opening to those viewers raised on more traditional analysis such as that of Kenneth Clark. Along the same vein, Francis Frascina's commentary on Guernica (see youtube) is also enlightening. Both Berger and Frascina are very much of their time (vaguely marxist veneer of the 1970s?) but the beauty of these works is that they inspire conversation in succeeding generations.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  I see a conversation from Berger (1972) with preceding generations: (Ep 1 18:40) > ...as soon as the meaning of the painting becomes transmittable, this meaning is liable to be manipulated and transformed. Hesse's The Glass Bead Game is from 1943, and I believe the "game" played in Castalia was meant to be exactly this sort of manipulation and transformation; creating new work by combining and transforming old, kind of like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millefiori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millefiori , but for all sorts of work, not just glass. EDIT: heh, at 19:44 Berger gets around to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect (without, however, mentioning Кулешов) ... and at the close of the programme he even cites a reference*! (on broadcast TV? what kind of marvel is this?) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...