4 ms·
> there is no objective assessment of "better/worse"ness in art. That's not how art works, or what art is. You've been fooled by the rent seeking class.
by citizenpaul 1y ago
> there is no objective assessment of "better/worse"ness in art. That's not how art works, or what art is.
You've been fooled by the rent seeking class.
- nine_k 1y agoThere's art that moves you, or does not move you. That's the measure that matters most in your unique and finite life. You get to choose for yourself what to spend your time on, objectivity be damned.
- crq-yml 1y agoPrecisely the opposite. Rent-seekers eagerly invite comparison for purposes of valuation, and push the lens of art towards technical and political measurements. When a work is incomparable in the way in which it achieves verisimilitude it is escaping this system.
- citizenpaul 1y agoYou are basically talking about the part where the system is so broken or rent captured that the only way out is through the bottom. Sure, but that doesn't make it good automatically.
- mathgeek 1y agoAgreed here. Every time my kids bring up tier list rankings I have to again explain this to them.
- dbalatero 1y agoIs there an article (so you don't have to write an essay) that explains what you mean here? I don't think I'm familiar with the short hand point you're making here. I understand the terms rent seeking and familiar with the argument made in the quote fwiw.
- bccdee 1y agoAre you honestly tell me that you would let someone correct you on a matter of taste? That an authority could tell you, "no, you're wrong for enjoying this piece of art. It's bad and you ought to dislike it," and you would obey? If so, you're a dupe. Trust your own taste. That's the first step to connoisseurship.