4 ms·

Your view about art is just too constrained by an appeal to aesthetic beauty. Art's beauty can come in many obtuse ways, and doesn't even need to encompass aest

by piva00 2y ago

Your view about art is just too constrained by an appeal to aesthetic beauty. Art's beauty can come in many obtuse ways, and doesn't even need to encompass aesthetic beauty. The exploration of philosophy through art has its own beauty, it's not an easily digestible beauty but it's a kind of. What you show is just a complete lack of perception to other ways to appreciate art, and for that your soul is a bit more empty than it could be. Instead of looking at art from this productivity view try to be more curious, challenge yourself on what is even the notion of art and what it can give to us that is ineffable in other forms... Right now you are just too miopic to even be able to appreciate art as a whole, you just want the product of art, not the process, meaning, and philosophical questions it can spark in you. To understand art takes effort, it tells me a lot about people when they show how uncurious and set in their ways they are about art, they just simply aren't free people.

wtcactus 2y ago
[flagged]
- airstrike 2y ago
  Hear, hear! This point is beautifully made by philosopher Roger Scruton in his "Why Beauty Matters" https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999 https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999 Unfortunately I think too many people are still falling for that nonsense
- piva00 2y ago
  Sure, keep being uncurious and ignorant, it's all your choice, it's you who is missing out. "Fake intellectuals" is just... Sad, devaluing whole bodies of work simply because you cannot understand them, instead of attempting to curiously explore that you prefer to use a thought-terminating cliché and embrace your ignorance as supreme... All the while you live during a time where all information and knowledge in the world is there for you to access for free. It's just... Sad to live that way but ignorance is bliss since it's just so much easier to reject anything that challenges you.
  - wtcactus 2y ago
    The fact that this modern "art" needs to be subsidized by the people that actually works with their taxes, is all the argument needed to tell you that indeed this is nothing more than fake intellectualism. I'm not missing on absolutely anything by not appreciating a banana glued to a wall. In fact, nobody really appreciates that, it's just a bunch of sycophants pretending they have some artistic knowledge the rest of us, the poor populace, lack, that go on pretending with the charade. The rest of the world, are just willing to tell you that the emperor has no clothes.
    - piva00 2y ago
      > The fact that this modern "art" needs to be subsidized by the people that actually works with their taxes, is all the argument needed to tell you that indeed this is nothing more than fake intellectualism. When exactly did art not need financial support from the State, or rich patrons, to be able to be made? You are moving the discussion into a completely different territory now, and again showing how your view of art is principled in some kind of "productivity" measurement, which is so absurd that is not even wrong. > I'm not missing on absolutely anything by not appreciating a banana glued to a wall. In fact, nobody really appreciates that, it's just a bunch of sycophants pretending they have some artistic knowledge the rest of us, the poor populace, lack, that go on pretending with the charade. The banana glued to a wall is one work of art (and polemic for a reason), and you are using that to paint a broad stroke over all contemporary art as if there is nothing being told there... You don't know what you are missing exactly because you don't know what it is, you wouldn't know the colours you'd be missing if you were born with black-and-white sight, nor would know you are missing music if you were born deaf. The difference is that you are not born with an unchangeable characteristic to not appreciate art in different ways, you can work on that, you just choose not to. There's no charade, the actual charade is why are you so vitriolic opposed to something you do not even understand, lol. It reeks of some sort of insecurity, since you do not understand you feel it's beneath you because makes you feel lesser that others might "get it" and you are out of the club? I don't know, look inside you to find an answer because the passionate rage about something you do not understand has deeper roots.
- jcattle 2y ago
  I like art that can spark conversation. This recital is a masterpiece :)
- brookst 2y ago
  Tell me more about these fake intellectuals who degrade discourse by telling everyone else they’re doing it wrong?
  - wtcactus 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - brookst 2y ago
      Truly, they do not belong in our True Intellectual kingdom. We must close the gates to keep them out!
      - wtcactus 2y ago
        [flagged]
        malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        The last three or so comments of yours prove you don’t do much self-reflection and that you hold others to a standard you cannot make yourself.
  - gweinberg 2y ago
    Tastes are by nature subjective. But if 99% of people think X is beautiful and Y is ugly, and 1% think it's the other way around, there probably is an objective reason the ratios are as they are.
- telllikeitisguy 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    The clothes you like still exist. Anyone who can't see my new clothes is a dullard. - the Emperor
- kevinmchugh 2y ago
  If I could go back in time and shoot 2 painters, well the second one would be Monet, whose damn water lilies started us down this awful path.
airstrike 2y ago
> Your view about art is just too constrained by an appeal to aesthetic beauty. This gets repeated a lot, but the reality is to many people, including philosophers, artists and appreciators of both, aesthetic beauty is a fundamental property of art without which it cannot survive. The fact that contemporary art circles handwave away that relevance while arrogantly mumbling "you're just miopic, ignorant and misguided, learn more" doesn't really change that fact. From the outside, it just shows that you too have been co-opted into the cult. You're free to subscribe to that view, but you don't get to gatekeep the meaning of art, no matter how many members that cult may have.
- jcattle 2y ago
  In this particular case for me I see a certain kind of artistic beauty in the recital. The fact, that we as a society try to keep something going for 639 years, just a sliver of a thread connecting all those different lives together. Not knowing if it will work, how it will end up, if it will fail spectacularly or just fizzle out into obscurity. I wouldn't say that people who do not see this as art are wrong, that's the beauty of art isn't it? It's in the eye of the beholder. To me this recital sparks some hope or in any case makes me stop for a second and wonder about greater things than just my day to day.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    I don't even mind this particular piece, but I do mind most of what gets labeled as contemporary art. Or pretty much anything since Duchamp's Fountain or maybe Yoko Ono's Cut Piece before that.
- piva00 2y ago
  > The fact that contemporary art circles handwave away that relevance while arrogantly mumbling "you're just miopic, ignorant and misguided, learn more" doesn't really change that fact. > From the outside, it just shows that you too have been co-opted into the cult. You're free to subscribe to that view, but you don't get to gatekeep the meaning of art, no matter how many members that cult may have. Isn't beauty in the eyes of the beholder though? I do see beauty in a lot of art deemed "part of the cult", how do you even attempt to objectively judge aesthetic beauty in a vacuum? Beauty exists in contexts, there is stuff that without the context just looks weird, with context it becomes beautiful, how do you assess the objective aesthetic beauty of such without delving into philosophical discussions? You are all free to create an art movement that aspires to do what you believe art should be: aesthetically beautiful, devoid of philosophical meaning as pursuit of beauty, beauty for its own sake, etc., it will be included, admired, rejected, judged as misguided, so on and so forth, just like you are doing with contemporary art that you do not agree with. Isn't that all art anyway?
a-french-anon 2y ago
So, how (in truth, "when") do you recognize that the emperor is missing his clothes?
bigstrat2003 2y ago
Yes, art needs to have both aesthetic beauty and technical skill behind it. Contemporary art has neither of those things, and thus it is an embarrassment to the label of "art".

by piva00 2y ago

wtcactus 2y ago

[flagged]

airstrike 2y ago
Hear, hear! This point is beautifully made by philosopher Roger Scruton in his "Why Beauty Matters" https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999 https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999 Unfortunately I think too many people are still falling for that nonsense
piva00 2y ago
Sure, keep being uncurious and ignorant, it's all your choice, it's you who is missing out. "Fake intellectuals" is just... Sad, devaluing whole bodies of work simply because you cannot understand them, instead of attempting to curiously explore that you prefer to use a thought-terminating cliché and embrace your ignorance as supreme... All the while you live during a time where all information and knowledge in the world is there for you to access for free. It's just... Sad to live that way but ignorance is bliss since it's just so much easier to reject anything that challenges you.
- wtcactus 2y ago
  The fact that this modern "art" needs to be subsidized by the people that actually works with their taxes, is all the argument needed to tell you that indeed this is nothing more than fake intellectualism. I'm not missing on absolutely anything by not appreciating a banana glued to a wall. In fact, nobody really appreciates that, it's just a bunch of sycophants pretending they have some artistic knowledge the rest of us, the poor populace, lack, that go on pretending with the charade. The rest of the world, are just willing to tell you that the emperor has no clothes.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > The fact that this modern "art" needs to be subsidized by the people that actually works with their taxes, is all the argument needed to tell you that indeed this is nothing more than fake intellectualism. When exactly did art not need financial support from the State, or rich patrons, to be able to be made? You are moving the discussion into a completely different territory now, and again showing how your view of art is principled in some kind of "productivity" measurement, which is so absurd that is not even wrong. > I'm not missing on absolutely anything by not appreciating a banana glued to a wall. In fact, nobody really appreciates that, it's just a bunch of sycophants pretending they have some artistic knowledge the rest of us, the poor populace, lack, that go on pretending with the charade. The banana glued to a wall is one work of art (and polemic for a reason), and you are using that to paint a broad stroke over all contemporary art as if there is nothing being told there... You don't know what you are missing exactly because you don't know what it is, you wouldn't know the colours you'd be missing if you were born with black-and-white sight, nor would know you are missing music if you were born deaf. The difference is that you are not born with an unchangeable characteristic to not appreciate art in different ways, you can work on that, you just choose not to. There's no charade, the actual charade is why are you so vitriolic opposed to something you do not even understand, lol. It reeks of some sort of insecurity, since you do not understand you feel it's beneath you because makes you feel lesser that others might "get it" and you are out of the club? I don't know, look inside you to find an answer because the passionate rage about something you do not understand has deeper roots.
jcattle 2y ago
I like art that can spark conversation. This recital is a masterpiece :)
brookst 2y ago
Tell me more about these fake intellectuals who degrade discourse by telling everyone else they’re doing it wrong?
- wtcactus 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - brookst 2y ago
    Truly, they do not belong in our True Intellectual kingdom. We must close the gates to keep them out!
    - wtcactus 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        The last three or so comments of yours prove you don’t do much self-reflection and that you hold others to a standard you cannot make yourself.
- gweinberg 2y ago
  Tastes are by nature subjective. But if 99% of people think X is beautiful and Y is ugly, and 1% think it's the other way around, there probably is an objective reason the ratios are as they are.
telllikeitisguy 2y ago
[flagged]
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  The clothes you like still exist. Anyone who can't see my new clothes is a dullard. - the Emperor
kevinmchugh 2y ago
If I could go back in time and shoot 2 painters, well the second one would be Monet, whose damn water lilies started us down this awful path.

airstrike 2y ago

> Your view about art is just too constrained by an appeal to aesthetic beauty. This gets repeated a lot, but the reality is to many people, including philosophers, artists and appreciators of both, aesthetic beauty is a fundamental property of art without which it cannot survive. The fact that contemporary art circles handwave away that relevance while arrogantly mumbling "you're just miopic, ignorant and misguided, learn more" doesn't really change that fact. From the outside, it just shows that you too have been co-opted into the cult. You're free to subscribe to that view, but you don't get to gatekeep the meaning of art, no matter how many members that cult may have.

jcattle 2y ago
In this particular case for me I see a certain kind of artistic beauty in the recital. The fact, that we as a society try to keep something going for 639 years, just a sliver of a thread connecting all those different lives together. Not knowing if it will work, how it will end up, if it will fail spectacularly or just fizzle out into obscurity. I wouldn't say that people who do not see this as art are wrong, that's the beauty of art isn't it? It's in the eye of the beholder. To me this recital sparks some hope or in any case makes me stop for a second and wonder about greater things than just my day to day.
- airstrike 2y ago
  I don't even mind this particular piece, but I do mind most of what gets labeled as contemporary art. Or pretty much anything since Duchamp's Fountain or maybe Yoko Ono's Cut Piece before that.
piva00 2y ago
> The fact that contemporary art circles handwave away that relevance while arrogantly mumbling "you're just miopic, ignorant and misguided, learn more" doesn't really change that fact. > From the outside, it just shows that you too have been co-opted into the cult. You're free to subscribe to that view, but you don't get to gatekeep the meaning of art, no matter how many members that cult may have. Isn't beauty in the eyes of the beholder though? I do see beauty in a lot of art deemed "part of the cult", how do you even attempt to objectively judge aesthetic beauty in a vacuum? Beauty exists in contexts, there is stuff that without the context just looks weird, with context it becomes beautiful, how do you assess the objective aesthetic beauty of such without delving into philosophical discussions? You are all free to create an art movement that aspires to do what you believe art should be: aesthetically beautiful, devoid of philosophical meaning as pursuit of beauty, beauty for its own sake, etc., it will be included, admired, rejected, judged as misguided, so on and so forth, just like you are doing with contemporary art that you do not agree with. Isn't that all art anyway?

a-french-anon 2y ago

So, how (in truth, "when") do you recognize that the emperor is missing his clothes?

bigstrat2003 2y ago

Yes, art needs to have both aesthetic beauty and technical skill behind it. Contemporary art has neither of those things, and thus it is an embarrassment to the label of "art".