←back to thread

218 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
_petronius ◴[] No.43568326[source]
Some art-haters in the comments, so to defend this piece of contemporary art for a moment: one thing I love about it is a commitment to the long future of art, creativity, and civilization. What does it take to keep an instrument playing for six hundred years? To commit to that idea -- like the century-long projects of cathedral building in the middle ages, or the idea of planting trees you won't live to see mature -- is (to me) the awesome thing about the Halberstadt performance. All rendered in a medium (church organ) that has existed for an even longer time.

It's a pretty hopeful, optimistic view of the future in a time of high uncertainty, but also represents a positive argument: it's worth doing these things because they are interesting, weird, and fun, and because they represent a continuity with past and future people we will never meet.

Plus, you can already buy a ticket to the finale, so your distant descendants can go see it :)

replies(11): >>43568467 #>>43568535 #>>43568578 #>>43570159 #>>43572116 #>>43572380 #>>43573148 #>>43574325 #>>43574639 #>>43579149 #>>43591762 #
wtcactus[dead post] ◴[] No.43570159[source]
[flagged]
mingus88 ◴[] No.43570701[source]
If you have ever dabbled in philosophy at all, your notion of “real art” would be the first thing you would have to challenge.

“What is music” is one of those questions that leads to some truly subversive trains of thought and it’s amazing to read all of you so called hackers having trouble wrapping your head around a work that goes against your comfortable worldview.

replies(1): >>43570794 #
wtcactus[dead post] ◴[] No.43570794[source]
[flagged]
piva00 ◴[] No.43570879[source]
By God, you are truly a trifecta of clichés converging.

Where exactly have you got this narrative from? Or even better: please explain how Marxism relates to contemporary art, I can accept just a general line of ideals connecting to each other.

I tried to have some leveled way to see your opinions on my other comments but this went a bridge too far, you seem to be repeating a collage of unrelated stuff, as I said in another comment: it's so bad that it isn't even wrong.

replies(1): >>43571014 #
wtcactus ◴[] No.43571014[source]
That is general knowledge, but if you really want to go down that way of "where did you get this narrative from" to try and avoid the subject. Well, you can see it, for instance, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for starters. [1]

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

replies(2): >>43571644 #>>43572912 #
1. sdf4j ◴[] No.43571644{6}[source]
What about Marxism?
replies(1): >>43571733 #
2. wizzwizz4 ◴[] No.43571733[source]
> A sixth, broadly Marxian sort of objection rejects the project of defining art as an unwitting (and confused) expression of a harmful ideology.

But I don't think many serious critiques of "this is not art" claims invoke Marxism. The Marxist perspective generalises the idea that art is incredibly difficult to define, but doesn't originate it.