7 ms·

Risking to sound similar to that bottom down-voted comment, I want to gently introduce a view here that contrasts the sentiment of it being a "wonderland." This

by lxe 3y ago

Risking to sound similar to that bottom down-voted comment, I want to gently introduce a view here that contrasts the sentiment of it being a "wonderland." This seems hardly something worth preserving given the artistic quality in my opinion. Yet, on the other hand, if it doesn't harm anyone and the trust indeed bought the apartment, then no harm in keeping this quirky place alive.

sethammons 3y ago
Another comment that is dead (i clicked vouch fwiw) linked to this as comparison, another house of art that was to be painted over but was apparently saved: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLyE3L8d/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLyE3L8d/ My jaw literally dropped open that someone would want to paint over it. I did not get that feeling looking at the pics in the article.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  People are constantly slathering paint all over shit. Blows me away. Not only that, they will pile on layer after layer so as to build a crust that has no hope of being aesthetic ever again. Sometimes people with an IQ come along and remove the paint and everyone is flabbergasted at the beauty that was underneath. Sorry, I get triggered by naive paint slinging.
krageon 3y ago
Art is inherently subjective, and it gets protected status exactly because a lot of folks think like you.
keepamovin 3y ago
[flagged]
parpfish 3y ago
I think people like outside art because of its creation story moreso than the actual artistic artifacts
- the_other 3y ago
  So, just like a lot of “insider” modern art then.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    Just like sports. Some group of people scoring more points than another group of people isn't that interesting. But once you add the story of how this happened, how this group even came to be and why they are in this particular match and people love it. Of course there are individual works of art or athletic performance that are significant enough to stand on their own. But those are few and far between.
    - huytersd 3y ago
      No, sporting achievements are usually feats of objective supremacy of some bodily kinesthetic.
      - the_other 2y ago
        The GP was saying that if you're looking over a list of multiple sporting events (e.g. a league), they all kinda look the same: team A vs team B, one of them wins, the other doesn't. If you're not specifically following one of the teams involved (and thus know their story), there's little to draw the casual consumer to one event or another. If you're looking at stats, it's the same. Just a long list of events and scores which are all basically the same thing. For a lot of art, if you don't know how or why it was created, it can be hard for many people to develop an attachment or strong emotional response to the artwork. For my part, I definitely have to work for it, and most art doesn't generate much of a flutter, until I read the backstory. Big old paintings often include some of the story in their content, but not always. Modern art and sculpture much less so. I can quite easily marvel at the raw technique of a Caravaggio painting. But going on technique alone, why would I spend time with Caravaggio over Dali, over Turner, over Hokkaido etc. It's only when I read the title, or the backstory that I understand, the _reason_ he was driven to paint it. And then I see the lighting, the glances, the composition, the postures, the hand positions and I marvel again, and the story and the technique emerge and recombine for me. (art's a tricky example to offer here, especially old art. I totally get how some people have strong emotional reactions to some art, without the story. )
mrtksn 3y ago
Judging the general quality of artwork is impossible IMHO, the best you can do is to decide of its significance in a particular timeframe and you might choose to preserve it as long as you believe its significant enough. Stuff usually makes sense within context, there's lot's of buzz for example on Twitter about how some old stuff was beautiful and the new one is ugly. They are doing this for political propaganda and money but there's a reason why people tear down the old "beautiful" stuff to build the new contemporary thing and when doing it they thought that the old stuff was bad for one reason or another. Some day in the future people will be preserving some all glass facade building for it's significance when everyone else has moved to this new thing. The historical significance is just one thing though, sometimes people preserve stuff for any reason. Sometimes, people preserve stuff because it's amazing that someone did this even if it's not a masterpiece in any way - like the restored version of Ecce Homo :)
- sloowm 3y ago
  Judging the quality is possible to an extent IMHO. You can see if an artist practiced their skills and techniques and you can see if precise pieces were done with care for instance. From the pictures it looks like there are parts that show real care but other parts that are kind of messy and maybe more half finished projects.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    That's just production precision, which I appreciate but many significant art pieces don't have much of that. If you don't like it, you don't like it(I don't like it too, I value mastery) but that doesn't say much about the quality or more importantly significance of the art.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Having at least one objective characteristic somewhere, somehow, is more than zero though.
      - 3y ago
scratcheee 3y ago
I think the value in art like this is that it isn’t a matter of skill but of dedication. Should art be something that only the 1% most skilled and well trained artists can ever hope to be celebrated for?
aaron695 3y ago
It is objectively bad. Absolutely. Compare it to the TikTok house that was amazing and was going to be painted over before TikTok saved it https://www.tiktok.com/@samcooperrealtor/video/7200527242441624874 https://www.tiktok.com/@samcooperrealtor/video/7200527242441... Nothing in the house has substance. Like a tunnel or a building or if it was mosaics. These last 'forever' so you can move past beauty and see the creation of a thing. A lot seems to be papier-mâché, even around the fireplaces. The fireplaces themselves might be clay. It comes down to who he was for the greater value. You go there to hear his story. But it's not a "wonderland", a type of performance art perhaps. End of the day it is their money along with the crowd funders, in 50 years time it'll be historic simple because it is by definition.
navane 3y ago
As they say, one man's wonderland is another man's trash

by lxe 3y ago

sethammons 3y ago

Another comment that is dead (i clicked vouch fwiw) linked to this as comparison, another house of art that was to be painted over but was apparently saved: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLyE3L8d/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLyE3L8d/ My jaw literally dropped open that someone would want to paint over it. I did not get that feeling looking at the pics in the article.

datavirtue 3y ago
People are constantly slathering paint all over shit. Blows me away. Not only that, they will pile on layer after layer so as to build a crust that has no hope of being aesthetic ever again. Sometimes people with an IQ come along and remove the paint and everyone is flabbergasted at the beauty that was underneath. Sorry, I get triggered by naive paint slinging.

krageon 3y ago

Art is inherently subjective, and it gets protected status exactly because a lot of folks think like you.

keepamovin 3y ago

[flagged]

parpfish 3y ago

I think people like outside art because of its creation story moreso than the actual artistic artifacts

the_other 3y ago
So, just like a lot of “insider” modern art then.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Just like sports. Some group of people scoring more points than another group of people isn't that interesting. But once you add the story of how this happened, how this group even came to be and why they are in this particular match and people love it. Of course there are individual works of art or athletic performance that are significant enough to stand on their own. But those are few and far between.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    No, sporting achievements are usually feats of objective supremacy of some bodily kinesthetic.
    - the_other 2y ago
      The GP was saying that if you're looking over a list of multiple sporting events (e.g. a league), they all kinda look the same: team A vs team B, one of them wins, the other doesn't. If you're not specifically following one of the teams involved (and thus know their story), there's little to draw the casual consumer to one event or another. If you're looking at stats, it's the same. Just a long list of events and scores which are all basically the same thing. For a lot of art, if you don't know how or why it was created, it can be hard for many people to develop an attachment or strong emotional response to the artwork. For my part, I definitely have to work for it, and most art doesn't generate much of a flutter, until I read the backstory. Big old paintings often include some of the story in their content, but not always. Modern art and sculpture much less so. I can quite easily marvel at the raw technique of a Caravaggio painting. But going on technique alone, why would I spend time with Caravaggio over Dali, over Turner, over Hokkaido etc. It's only when I read the title, or the backstory that I understand, the _reason_ he was driven to paint it. And then I see the lighting, the glances, the composition, the postures, the hand positions and I marvel again, and the story and the technique emerge and recombine for me. (art's a tricky example to offer here, especially old art. I totally get how some people have strong emotional reactions to some art, without the story. )

mrtksn 3y ago

Judging the general quality of artwork is impossible IMHO, the best you can do is to decide of its significance in a particular timeframe and you might choose to preserve it as long as you believe its significant enough. Stuff usually makes sense within context, there's lot's of buzz for example on Twitter about how some old stuff was beautiful and the new one is ugly. They are doing this for political propaganda and money but there's a reason why people tear down the old "beautiful" stuff to build the new contemporary thing and when doing it they thought that the old stuff was bad for one reason or another. Some day in the future people will be preserving some all glass facade building for it's significance when everyone else has moved to this new thing. The historical significance is just one thing though, sometimes people preserve stuff for any reason. Sometimes, people preserve stuff because it's amazing that someone did this even if it's not a masterpiece in any way - like the restored version of Ecce Homo :)

sloowm 3y ago
Judging the quality is possible to an extent IMHO. You can see if an artist practiced their skills and techniques and you can see if precise pieces were done with care for instance. From the pictures it looks like there are parts that show real care but other parts that are kind of messy and maybe more half finished projects.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  That's just production precision, which I appreciate but many significant art pieces don't have much of that. If you don't like it, you don't like it(I don't like it too, I value mastery) but that doesn't say much about the quality or more importantly significance of the art.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Having at least one objective characteristic somewhere, somehow, is more than zero though.
    - 3y ago

scratcheee 3y ago

I think the value in art like this is that it isn’t a matter of skill but of dedication. Should art be something that only the 1% most skilled and well trained artists can ever hope to be celebrated for?

aaron695 3y ago

It is objectively bad. Absolutely. Compare it to the TikTok house that was amazing and was going to be painted over before TikTok saved it https://www.tiktok.com/@samcooperrealtor/video/7200527242441624874 https://www.tiktok.com/@samcooperrealtor/video/7200527242441... Nothing in the house has substance. Like a tunnel or a building or if it was mosaics. These last 'forever' so you can move past beauty and see the creation of a thing. A lot seems to be papier-mâché, even around the fireplaces. The fireplaces themselves might be clay. It comes down to who he was for the greater value. You go there to hear his story. But it's not a "wonderland", a type of performance art perhaps. End of the day it is their money along with the crowd funders, in 50 years time it'll be historic simple because it is by definition.

navane 3y ago

As they say, one man's wonderland is another man's trash