5 ms·

Maybe we'd benefit from having a discussion in simpler terms? The main points of the article, as I understand it, are that society shouldn't encourage the creat

Maybe we'd benefit from having a discussion in simpler terms? The main points of the article, as I understand it, are that society shouldn't encourage the creation of new art, because we already have more than enough good art to last anyone a lifetime, and because artists are mostly motivated by social status anyway. It seems to me that your comment didn't offer any arguments against these points. Maybe I'm missing something?

foolrush 12y ago
Way back when, in fine arts school, a wise university professor taught us a unique trick to reframe statements regarding art. The trick was to replace all instances of “art” with “language”. Let's try it... “The main points of the article, as I understand it, are that society shouldn't encourage the creation of new [language], because we already have more than enough good [language] to last anyone a lifetime, and because [language manipulators] are mostly motivated by social status anyway.” Interesting I would say. Not to pick on your statement, but rather to illustrate how ideological underpinnings frame our concepts. Art exists as nothing more (or less) than language, yet our ideological pressures force framing. It strikes me that if that is the premise of the article (I read a little more under the hood) then even then, the framing is questionable.
- cotsuka 12y ago
  Do we need more languages? I certainly enjoy being able to travel to most countries and be able to speak English as a relative standard across all.
  - schoen 12y ago
    I think language was meant in the sense of 'text, utterances'. In that sense, your reply (and my reply to your reply) have created more language.
    - ploxiln 12y ago
      ok then, we probably didn't need that language either
- cousin_it 12y ago
  OK, I see. Do you have an argument that doesn't rely on conflating "art" with "language"?
  - foolrush 12y ago
    It isn't conflation. At all. Art, as a breed of language, holds vernacular, symbology, cliche, and many other facets within a culture. This isn't exactly ground breaking nor novel, but something that requires an understanding to begin an engagement with. It is as difficult to discuss topics as with any subject, when the two participants are resting on entirely different foundations. Akin to discussing linear algebra without considering the audience. Best I can do is offer entry points and hope you might see value.
    - cousin_it 12y ago
      Deep down, I don't think our foundations are all that different. It's not like all techies are blind to the role of culture as a communication channel, they just tend to view it differently. The section on "Propaganda" in the article specifically addressed that. I encourage you again to spell out your disagreement in more detail.
    - foolrush 12y ago
      Example: "Some areas of artistic endeavour seem to try to prove that art is worthless and a joke; it’s a little hard to explain some areas of modern or post-modern art" This has the sniffing of someone that isn't willing to follow the tendrils of a work, and certainly doesn't show a willingness to invest effort to understanding. How silly would it look to say "Some areas of software development seem to [xxx]" and conclude that, because something is hard to explain (subjective / contextual) that it therefore (implied) lacks value? Much like the rest of language, pieces exist in an ecosystem, and the meaning that emerges tends to be occluded until one invests in comprehending the contexts. Postmodernism, for example, is a clear move away from Modernism. I cannot count the number of times that I have seen genuine conflation of "Modernism" with "modern", for example. To understand Postmodernism requires an understanding of what came before and what it may be taking issue with. Of course, to wrap all of this up and encapsulate it as mere aesthetics or art is to ignore the very thing that gives art and other variants of language life; that it exists as a holistic thing in relation to philosophy, contemporary culture, historical culture, science, music, literature, and the rest of that complex ball. "Deep down, I don't think our foundations are all that different." Which is exactly why I am responding and attempting (probably failing) to communicate. It's not an easy task, especially when we consider the general culture around Hacker News, but one that I believe is extremely valuable.
PavlovsCat 12y ago
There is art that seeks to please or entertain, and there is art that seeks to say something. For example, even if movies like "Baraka" and "Samsara" already have been made, they still need to be made again, every few decades. And even in cases where the audience doesn't need some things said many times in different ways; each artist still needs that act of actively saying it. I'm not an artist, but what creativity I do have in my life, it is for me. For example, I sometimes write lyrics and I rap them shittily, and I am pretty much not concerned what anyone but me thinks of them. They're my little bubble in which I can clean my own soul, and who sees it or cares is not my concern. And while I don't consider that "making art", I know much worse things, that have nothing to say at all, are called art with a straight face. So technically, it's art. And I don't do it to get laid, I did it, as I said, to relieve pressure and come to terms with the world around me. I am not saying this is the sole motivation for art, but at least I don't have to second guess artists with a message on their motivation, because I know it's at least possible to not give a fuck, because I am doing it right now.. if society was so great I could seek its approval with a straight face, I would have no reason to write songs. So I'm not asking when I make "art", I'm telling, and I don't worry wether what I do is good enough for people, if anything I'd worry wether people are good enough for it. And I'm not making great things, you know, and still I take them seriously enough to feel that way. How much more so for "real" artists. It is said Bach wrote for God first and last; or was that just PR? Yeah he did it for a living, but his motivation was not to impress people. Are such people the exception of the rule, or is the rule just nonsense? Though I agree, don't encourage art, make it illegal. It will not stop people from being artists, but it would curb a lot of mediocrity :P
FreakLegion 12y ago
> we already have more than enough good art to last anyone a lifetime It's easy to see that this is false. Pick an arbitrary point in history and imagine that cultural production had stopped at that point. Would that be "enough good art"? Of course not. Old art is not our art. > artists are mostly motivated by social status anyway Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>The main points of the article, as I understand it, are that society shouldn't encourage the creation of new art, because we already have more than enough good art to last anyone a lifetime, and because artists are mostly motivated by social status anyway. How about, because new art is often created to fill the particular desire of an actually-existing person rather than to feed gwern's smug sense of superiority to the rest of humankind. And let us add, people create art because it's fun, which is reason enough for almost anything. And then there's the issue with citing Robert "capital-accumulation is ethical value" Hanson on, well, anything.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- JamesArgo 12y ago
  >To feed gwern's smug sense of superiority to the rest of humankind Really? >And let us add, people create art because it's fun, which is reason enough for almost anything. He's arguing against subsidising art, not for stopping all art production.
wpietri 12y ago
> society shouldn't encourage the creation of new art, because we already have more than enough good art to last anyone a lifetime The theory implied there is that art is a shelf-stable commodity product whose only value is in consumption as entertainment. Will anybody seriously admit to believing that? > artists are mostly motivated by social status anyway If we get to cancel everything where social status is a motivator, we should cancel everything. We are social animals hardwired for social status. We should certainly cancel HN, which of course has rankings to show who's on top and where people spend stupid amounts of effort trying to win arguments in status-enhancing ways.

foolrush 12y ago

Way back when, in fine arts school, a wise university professor taught us a unique trick to reframe statements regarding art. The trick was to replace all instances of “art” with “language”. Let's try it... “The main points of the article, as I understand it, are that society shouldn't encourage the creation of new [language], because we already have more than enough good [language] to last anyone a lifetime, and because [language manipulators] are mostly motivated by social status anyway.” Interesting I would say. Not to pick on your statement, but rather to illustrate how ideological underpinnings frame our concepts. Art exists as nothing more (or less) than language, yet our ideological pressures force framing. It strikes me that if that is the premise of the article (I read a little more under the hood) then even then, the framing is questionable.

cotsuka 12y ago
Do we need more languages? I certainly enjoy being able to travel to most countries and be able to speak English as a relative standard across all.
- schoen 12y ago
  I think language was meant in the sense of 'text, utterances'. In that sense, your reply (and my reply to your reply) have created more language.
  - ploxiln 12y ago
    ok then, we probably didn't need that language either
cousin_it 12y ago
OK, I see. Do you have an argument that doesn't rely on conflating "art" with "language"?
- foolrush 12y ago
  It isn't conflation. At all. Art, as a breed of language, holds vernacular, symbology, cliche, and many other facets within a culture. This isn't exactly ground breaking nor novel, but something that requires an understanding to begin an engagement with. It is as difficult to discuss topics as with any subject, when the two participants are resting on entirely different foundations. Akin to discussing linear algebra without considering the audience. Best I can do is offer entry points and hope you might see value.
  - cousin_it 12y ago
    Deep down, I don't think our foundations are all that different. It's not like all techies are blind to the role of culture as a communication channel, they just tend to view it differently. The section on "Propaganda" in the article specifically addressed that. I encourage you again to spell out your disagreement in more detail.
  - foolrush 12y ago
    Example: "Some areas of artistic endeavour seem to try to prove that art is worthless and a joke; it’s a little hard to explain some areas of modern or post-modern art" This has the sniffing of someone that isn't willing to follow the tendrils of a work, and certainly doesn't show a willingness to invest effort to understanding. How silly would it look to say "Some areas of software development seem to [xxx]" and conclude that, because something is hard to explain (subjective / contextual) that it therefore (implied) lacks value? Much like the rest of language, pieces exist in an ecosystem, and the meaning that emerges tends to be occluded until one invests in comprehending the contexts. Postmodernism, for example, is a clear move away from Modernism. I cannot count the number of times that I have seen genuine conflation of "Modernism" with "modern", for example. To understand Postmodernism requires an understanding of what came before and what it may be taking issue with. Of course, to wrap all of this up and encapsulate it as mere aesthetics or art is to ignore the very thing that gives art and other variants of language life; that it exists as a holistic thing in relation to philosophy, contemporary culture, historical culture, science, music, literature, and the rest of that complex ball. "Deep down, I don't think our foundations are all that different." Which is exactly why I am responding and attempting (probably failing) to communicate. It's not an easy task, especially when we consider the general culture around Hacker News, but one that I believe is extremely valuable.

PavlovsCat 12y ago

There is art that seeks to please or entertain, and there is art that seeks to say something. For example, even if movies like "Baraka" and "Samsara" already have been made, they still need to be made again, every few decades. And even in cases where the audience doesn't need some things said many times in different ways; each artist still needs that act of actively saying it. I'm not an artist, but what creativity I do have in my life, it is for me. For example, I sometimes write lyrics and I rap them shittily, and I am pretty much not concerned what anyone but me thinks of them. They're my little bubble in which I can clean my own soul, and who sees it or cares is not my concern. And while I don't consider that "making art", I know much worse things, that have nothing to say at all, are called art with a straight face. So technically, it's art. And I don't do it to get laid, I did it, as I said, to relieve pressure and come to terms with the world around me. I am not saying this is the sole motivation for art, but at least I don't have to second guess artists with a message on their motivation, because I know it's at least possible to not give a fuck, because I am doing it right now.. if society was so great I could seek its approval with a straight face, I would have no reason to write songs. So I'm not asking when I make "art", I'm telling, and I don't worry wether what I do is good enough for people, if anything I'd worry wether people are good enough for it. And I'm not making great things, you know, and still I take them seriously enough to feel that way. How much more so for "real" artists. It is said Bach wrote for God first and last; or was that just PR? Yeah he did it for a living, but his motivation was not to impress people. Are such people the exception of the rule, or is the rule just nonsense? Though I agree, don't encourage art, make it illegal. It will not stop people from being artists, but it would curb a lot of mediocrity :P

FreakLegion 12y ago

> we already have more than enough good art to last anyone a lifetime It's easy to see that this is false. Pick an arbitrary point in history and imagine that cultural production had stopped at that point. Would that be "enough good art"? Of course not. Old art is not our art. > artists are mostly motivated by social status anyway Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>The main points of the article, as I understand it, are that society shouldn't encourage the creation of new art, because we already have more than enough good art to last anyone a lifetime, and because artists are mostly motivated by social status anyway. How about, because new art is often created to fill the particular desire of an actually-existing person rather than to feed gwern's smug sense of superiority to the rest of humankind. And let us add, people create art because it's fun, which is reason enough for almost anything. And then there's the issue with citing Robert "capital-accumulation is ethical value" Hanson on, well, anything.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JamesArgo 12y ago
>To feed gwern's smug sense of superiority to the rest of humankind Really? >And let us add, people create art because it's fun, which is reason enough for almost anything. He's arguing against subsidising art, not for stopping all art production.

wpietri 12y ago

> society shouldn't encourage the creation of new art, because we already have more than enough good art to last anyone a lifetime The theory implied there is that art is a shelf-stable commodity product whose only value is in consumption as entertainment. Will anybody seriously admit to believing that? > artists are mostly motivated by social status anyway If we get to cancel everything where social status is a motivator, we should cancel everything. We are social animals hardwired for social status. We should certainly cancel HN, which of course has rankings to show who's on top and where people spend stupid amounts of effort trying to win arguments in status-enhancing ways.