3 ms·
Unlike the others, I completely agree. Art that does not "express, explore, or otherwise stimulate the human mind"[1] is the definition of boring. I would howe
by msutherl 13y ago
Unlike the others, I completely agree. Art that does not "express, explore, or otherwise stimulate the human mind"[1] is the definition of boring.
I would however claim that the vast majority of art does stimulate the mind, though it may not stimulate yours without some additional effort. Indeed just about anything in the world is capable of stimulating your mind if you look closely enough at it, to paraphrase John Cage.
[1] ... or, if we take a 'vibrant matter' / 'object oriented ontology' view of the world, stimulate something.
- Tobu 13y agoJohn Cage? You were quoting Gustave Flaubert: > Pour qu’une chose soit intéressante, il suffit de la regarder longtemps. http://flaubert.univ-rouen.fr/correspondance/conard/outils/1845.htm http://flaubert.univ-rouen.fr/correspondance/conard/outils/1...
- msutherl 13y agoNo, I wasn't quoting anybody, I was paraphrasing John Cage. Here is the quote: “If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all.” ― John Cage