←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 #
hbsbsbsndk ◴[] No.43568467[source]
It's not surprising that people who love AI and NFTs are willfully ignorant about what makes art meaningful. It's a sadly transactional view of the world.
replies(6): >>43570652 #>>43572311 #>>43573150 #>>43574210 #>>43574653 #>>43576686 #
BoingBoomTschak[dead post] ◴[] No.43573150[source]
[flagged]
HelloMcFly ◴[] No.43573604{3}[source]
I get the frustration with art discourse that it can feel exclusionary or pretentious. There are definitely versions of that discussion that are more about gatekeeping than appreciation.

I think the original, parent comment was coming from a much more generous place. Like that top parent commenter, to me the Halberstadt organ piece isn’t about being highbrow or obscure; it’s about a kind of radical optimism—committing to something weird, beautiful, and long-term in a world that often feels very short-sighted. I don’t think you need to read Derrida or listen to Stockhausen to find meaning in that. Just as you don’t need to love AI or NFTs to appreciate innovation.

Many may think that's stupid or useless because it lacks utility (or any other reason) or seems arbitrary. Reasonable people can disagree, but I think such reactions are truly missing the point; that is simultaneously completely OK, but also personally dispiriting at times. There’s room for a lot of perspectives in how we engage with art, and I think it’s more interesting when we try to understand what someone finds meaningful before writing it off.

replies(3): >>43573899 #>>43573951 #>>43574337 #
1. BoingBoomTschak ◴[] No.43573899{4}[source]
You should mind that old saying about not being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

While the questions "what is art" and "what is beauty" are indeed interesting, this doesn't help in any way.

There's no substance, it wouldn't get a thousandth of this attention if it was made by a nobody and isn't even fit to be called a meme: it's something between outrage bait and an insipid conversation piece, a transparent (thus vulgar) case of "muddying the water to make it seem deep". But the whole intellectual "class" being so devoid of people upright enough to call out the naked emperor is much less benign than that: a clear symptom of decadence.

replies(1): >>43575044 #
2. HelloMcFly ◴[] No.43575044[source]
I think it’s possible to critique art, institutions, or trends without assuming everyone who finds meaning in something is deluded or complicit in cultural decline. Dismissing curiosity or optimism as decadence seems like its own kind of absolutism. Reasonable people can still find value in things even when you don’t, which is kind of my main point. Your comment makes me a little sad, but not for me.