←back to thread

218 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
wtcactus[dead post] ◴[] No.43567973[source]
[flagged]
piva00 ◴[] No.43568034[source]
Your view about art is just too constrained by an appeal to aesthetic beauty. Art's beauty can come in many obtuse ways, and doesn't even need to encompass aesthetic beauty.

The exploration of philosophy through art has its own beauty, it's not an easily digestible beauty but it's a kind of. What you show is just a complete lack of perception to other ways to appreciate art, and for that your soul is a bit more empty than it could be.

Instead of looking at art from this productivity view try to be more curious, challenge yourself on what is even the notion of art and what it can give to us that is ineffable in other forms... Right now you are just too miopic to even be able to appreciate art as a whole, you just want the product of art, not the process, meaning, and philosophical questions it can spark in you.

To understand art takes effort, it tells me a lot about people when they show how uncurious and set in their ways they are about art, they just simply aren't free people.

replies(4): >>43568276 #>>43568322 #>>43568566 #>>43572377 #
airstrike ◴[] No.43568322[source]
> Your view about art is just too constrained by an appeal to aesthetic beauty.

This gets repeated a lot, but the reality is to many people, including philosophers, artists and appreciators of both, aesthetic beauty is a fundamental property of art without which it cannot survive.

The fact that contemporary art circles handwave away that relevance while arrogantly mumbling "you're just miopic, ignorant and misguided, learn more" doesn't really change that fact.

From the outside, it just shows that you too have been co-opted into the cult. You're free to subscribe to that view, but you don't get to gatekeep the meaning of art, no matter how many members that cult may have.

replies(2): >>43568648 #>>43569157 #
jcattle ◴[] No.43568648[source]
In this particular case for me I see a certain kind of artistic beauty in the recital. The fact, that we as a society try to keep something going for 639 years, just a sliver of a thread connecting all those different lives together. Not knowing if it will work, how it will end up, if it will fail spectacularly or just fizzle out into obscurity.

I wouldn't say that people who do not see this as art are wrong, that's the beauty of art isn't it? It's in the eye of the beholder. To me this recital sparks some hope or in any case makes me stop for a second and wonder about greater things than just my day to day.

replies(1): >>43575078 #
1. airstrike ◴[] No.43575078{3}[source]
I don't even mind this particular piece, but I do mind most of what gets labeled as contemporary art. Or pretty much anything since Duchamp's Fountain or maybe Yoko Ono's Cut Piece before that.