10 ms·

>Simply put (or at least this is how I use the term), it's the measure of how difficult it is to recreate an artistic work, or something very similar to it, esp

>Simply put (or at least this is how I use the term), it's the measure of how difficult it is to recreate an artistic work, or something very similar to it, especially without having seen it before So, there's no art since photography was invented. Or, the perfect art is the white noise on the TV (exactly recreating noise is outright impossible). >the medium imposes so many restrictions that it's inevitable that someone else will recreate it by accident And yet, there has not been a Black Square before Kandinsky. Nor a painting featuring Campbell soup cans before Warhol (and if you see one, you'll immediately think Warhol). Weird, isn't it?

fluoridation 2y ago
>So, there's no art since photography was invented. I don't know what you mean. I don't think photography lacks artistic merit intrinsically, if that's what you're getting at, although it's often more difficult to make art out of photography when you don't control the subject. >Or, the perfect art is the white noise on the TV (exactly recreating noise is outright impossible). White noise contains information, but no meaning, and was not made by a human, therefore it's not art and has no artistic merit. >And yet, there has not been a Black Square before Kandinsky. Nor a painting featuring Campbell soup cans before Warhol (and if you see one, you'll immediately think Warhol). Weird, isn't it? I've re-read this paragraph like twenty times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. You do understand that you're looking back at history, right? From our vantage point, it's not up to chance who made those paintings. Kandinsky and Warhol did. There's no universe where someone else painted them instead and we're still having this conversation, because then that someone else did, and not Kandinsky and Warhol, and so you'd still argue that that someone painted them. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. It's obvious that whoever painted a painting, painted it; tautologies are indeed tautologies.
- romwell 2y ago
  >I've re-read this paragraph like twenty times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. Re-read what it was written in response to. You argued a lot that something like Black Square has little "artistic merit" because it is very easy to re-create, and someone could do it by accident. Let me pose a question: if so, why hasn't there been a painting like that in the 19th century? 18th? Or at any time over the millenia that the humanity has produced paintings in rectangular frames? Black, after all, is the simplest, most easily available color. Another line of thought for you to consider. You might have heard of Vaporwave[1], which is a musical[2] as well as visual art aesthetic/movement. I would urge you to read [1], as it will help you understand the answers to your questions, then come back here. [1] https://medium.com/@joriam/vaporwave-art-born-of-the-internet-59cac21e1bb4 https://medium.com/@joriam/vaporwave-art-born-of-the-interne... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVEez20X_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVEez20X_s

fluoridation 2y ago

>So, there's no art since photography was invented. I don't know what you mean. I don't think photography lacks artistic merit intrinsically, if that's what you're getting at, although it's often more difficult to make art out of photography when you don't control the subject. >Or, the perfect art is the white noise on the TV (exactly recreating noise is outright impossible). White noise contains information, but no meaning, and was not made by a human, therefore it's not art and has no artistic merit. >And yet, there has not been a Black Square before Kandinsky. Nor a painting featuring Campbell soup cans before Warhol (and if you see one, you'll immediately think Warhol). Weird, isn't it? I've re-read this paragraph like twenty times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. You do understand that you're looking back at history, right? From our vantage point, it's not up to chance who made those paintings. Kandinsky and Warhol did. There's no universe where someone else painted them instead and we're still having this conversation, because then that someone else did, and not Kandinsky and Warhol, and so you'd still argue that that someone painted them. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. It's obvious that whoever painted a painting, painted it; tautologies are indeed tautologies.

romwell 2y ago
>I've re-read this paragraph like twenty times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. Re-read what it was written in response to. You argued a lot that something like Black Square has little "artistic merit" because it is very easy to re-create, and someone could do it by accident. Let me pose a question: if so, why hasn't there been a painting like that in the 19th century? 18th? Or at any time over the millenia that the humanity has produced paintings in rectangular frames? Black, after all, is the simplest, most easily available color. Another line of thought for you to consider. You might have heard of Vaporwave[1], which is a musical[2] as well as visual art aesthetic/movement. I would urge you to read [1], as it will help you understand the answers to your questions, then come back here. [1] https://medium.com/@joriam/vaporwave-art-born-of-the-internet-59cac21e1bb4 https://medium.com/@joriam/vaporwave-art-born-of-the-interne... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVEez20X_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVEez20X_s