3 ms·

I find it odd that we've conflated political statements with art. I'm not saying art cannot or should not be political, but rather that not all forms of politi

• Spivak 2y ago
  I mean this is kind of trivially true so I'm not really sure who you're arguing against— "I think we should have lower taxes" is a political statement that isn't art. But for the most part if you believe what you're doing it art, it's art— this is for sure a performance piece. I know a few local galleries that would trip over themselves to do an exhibition with this photo set.
  • airstrike 2y ago
    > I'm not really sure who you're arguing against I'm arguing against calling these photos art. > But for the most part if you believe what you're doing it art, it's art— this is for sure a performance piece. I understand this is the prevalent view in the 21st century. I'm not convinced it is true. And similarly just because I rent a place, put up a sign saying "Art Gallery" and put some things up for display, that doesn't mean those things are works of art. The emperor has no clothes and all that.
    • superb_dev 2y ago
      If you took the time to rent a place filled it with something and then hung a sign that said “Art Gallery”, I would argue that for sure is art. It may or may not be good art but it is art
      • ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
        Submitted for your approval. MOBA: https://museumofbadart.org https://museumofbadart.org Used to be in someone's basement, but I think they now set it up in various semi-public places.
        • superb_dev 2y ago
          Yup, art!
      • airstrike 2y ago
        I know you and others would "for sure" argue it's art. That's precisely my point. I'm not convinced art is in the intent. Personally, it feels like Marcel Duchamp and others have conned everyone into believing that, though again I'm sure you'd disagree. But it's definitely not "for sure" anything, as in it's not obviously, axiomatically, intrinsically, self-evidently the case. Even if the art scene today has collectively agreed on that view for the most part. I subscribe to a more formalist or conservative view of art, particularly Roger Scruton's. Art is based on its intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits. Meaning the artwork’s formal or aesthetic aspects are central. It's those things that make it art and give it value, rather than whatever the artist intended to say or do. If you subscribe to this view—which to me is what the average person would subscribe to, or the "common sense" view—then the photos in the article have very little aesthetic value and elicit no contemplative experience. At best, they promote discussion about state surveillance, which is a political but not an artistic endeavor. It's not just "bad art", but rather "conflating political statements with art", as I said at the top.
        • gen220 2y ago
          I understand the semantic argument you're trying to make. I think you have more to gain from loosening your grip on the boundaries of the word "art", for purely selfish reasons. It makes the world more nuanced and interesting. For similar reasons, I'd recommending widening your lens of what is considered political. All art is political, even if it's not the artist's "intention" or within their awareness. Because it's the production of a political context. There's no such thing as an apolitical life or human act. You can argue against it for semantic reasons, but again I'd challenge what value you gain from leaning on those semantics, beyond sorting a gloriously continuous and analog universe into artificially-exclusive categories.
          • airstrike 2y ago
            I should first note that I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful reply and how honestly you've engaged in this conversation. It's why I love coming to HN, so thank you. I used to have very loose grips on the boundaries of the word "art". I've been there and done that. Then I realized that humanity has more to gain from holding art to higher standards than it does from the "anything goes" approach. I did note that art can be political. By all means it should be political in those situations where the artist has a certain objective in mind and believe art can be a meaningful way to make politics. I have nothing against that and I appreciate the historical and current relevance of art as as means of being and acting political. If you're keen to understand my position as explained by someone much more knowledgeable than me and much more studied in art and philosophy, I encourage you to watch this remarkably interesting video essay by Roger Scruton: https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999 https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999
    • zanderwohl 2y ago
      > I'm arguing against calling these photos art. It's not that the photos are the art, it's the whole project to get people to change these images, posing for them, etc.
      • airstrike 2y ago
        That still doesn't make it aesthetically interesting or contemplative. It's a cool project about an important topic! I haven't disagreed with that once. I just don't see how it can be art.
        • prmoustache 2y ago
          "- my 5y old kid could have drawn it. - yes but he didn't" You don't understand that art. This is fine. You don't have to understand everything.
          • airstrike 2y ago
            Who are you quoting there? I didn't say any of that. It sure is easy to debate when you can just make up quotes for the other person. Yawn.
            • prmoustache 2y ago
              I wasn't quoting you but an actual piece of art I saw a decade ago in Art Basel that made fun of people pretending something is not art for any reason they can think of, including that their kid would be able to produce it.
              • Dylan16807 2y ago
                It doesn't really fit in this conversation because that's an attack on the quality and value of a piece of art, which is not at all what airstrike is talking about.
                • 2y ago
  • wttdotm 2y ago
    hey! i'm the guy in the article, thats my site and my work, thank you for the kind words :) I am very all ears about these galleries, where should I reach out to?
    • try_the_bass 2y ago
      Is this an attempt to monetize your work? Is it really fair to take advantage of a free, public resource to make yourself money?
      • airstrike 2y ago
        Yes and yes. Why would it not be fair? It's not like anyone is losing anything from it.
        • try_the_bass 2y ago
          Someone is paying to host these, but providing them for free use. You're consuming them for free and attempting to get paid for them. Intentionally monetizing that which is provided for free. Seems exploitative, to me?
          • airstrike 2y ago
            The artist is not consuming them for free. He spent their time and effort creating something. They are not monetizing what is provided for free, but their creation. If someone wants to pay him for his work, what is it to you? Separately, based on my life experience, this notion of "exploitation" is truly harmful to those who subscribe to it. You'll never outdo your limiting beliefs. You don't have to take my word for it, but I encourage you to explore who was it that instilled that belief in you and what you stand to gain from subscribing to it. I mean this in earnest, as advice from a stranger, for what it's worth. <3
            • try_the_bass 2y ago
              They could spend the same time and effort arranging blank slides creating the exact same thing without the pictures, and it would have far less value The value does not come only from the arrangement of the pieces, but also from the pieces themselves. To say the only value comes from the artist is just as wrong as saying its only value comes from the source material. A painter cannot paint a picture without a canvas, and yet the canvas itself is generally not free, with the canvas-maker earning something from the sale of the canvas itself. The rest of your comment is wildly condescending, and while I am open to reconsidering my beliefs, I generally do not follow the advice of condescending people. My life experience tells me such people are generally both more close-minded and more morally bankrupt than those who can evangelize their beliefs without condescension. Perhaps consider changing your approach to providing unsolicited advice?
• flpm 2y ago
  (This is more a comment to the whole thread than this one comment that initiated it) There is no clear answer to what art is, but there are many approaches to try to answer it. That is essentially what Theory of Art (or Philosophy of Art) is concerned about as a field of study. Those approaches appear at distinct points in time and their ideas are rooted on the art and context of that time. If you want to look at this site like Kant looked at art, from a pure aesthetic form, then you will say it is not art. You may even be offended that the question is asked. But look at it through the lens of modern art theory, where art is communication, where art is experience, where art is interaction, where art is more about the content than the form, then it is definitely art. If Kant had access to the Internet and was concerned about privacy, he might have found it to be art too :)
  • airstrike 2y ago
    Thanks, I sincerely appreciate this comment. I think the prevalent opinion is that viewing art through aesthetic or formalist perspectives are "outdated" and that we've replaced them with a more refined, more evolved, deeper understanding of art. I am mostly arguing that modern/contemporary art theory is just one alternative - it's not "above" more traditional views of art, and there isn't some linear progression from Kant to Rosalind Krauss. I think the more modern view has dismissed beauty as some lower form of making and understanding art. As something superficial and entirely optional, perhaps even discouraged by some. I'd prefer to synthesize the more traditional perspectives on aesthetics with some of the modern insights, rather than assuming newer theories must supersede older ones.
    • flpm 2y ago
      One book in my to-read list is After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History by Arthur C. Danto. I hope it is going to hit this nail right in the head. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163895/after-the-end-of-art https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163895/af... "The classic and provocative account of how art changed irrevocably with pop art and why traditional aesthetics can’t make sense of contemporary art"