←back to thread

218 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.246s | 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 #
wtcactus[dead post] ◴[] No.43568276[source]
[flagged]
piva00 ◴[] No.43568356[source]
Sure, keep being uncurious and ignorant, it's all your choice, it's you who is missing out.

"Fake intellectuals" is just... Sad, devaluing whole bodies of work simply because you cannot understand them, instead of attempting to curiously explore that you prefer to use a thought-terminating cliché and embrace your ignorance as supreme... All the while you live during a time where all information and knowledge in the world is there for you to access for free.

It's just... Sad to live that way but ignorance is bliss since it's just so much easier to reject anything that challenges you.

replies(1): >>43568474 #
wtcactus ◴[] No.43568474[source]
The fact that this modern "art" needs to be subsidized by the people that actually works with their taxes, is all the argument needed to tell you that indeed this is nothing more than fake intellectualism.

I'm not missing on absolutely anything by not appreciating a banana glued to a wall. In fact, nobody really appreciates that, it's just a bunch of sycophants pretending they have some artistic knowledge the rest of us, the poor populace, lack, that go on pretending with the charade.

The rest of the world, are just willing to tell you that the emperor has no clothes.

replies(3): >>43568569 #>>43568576 #>>43574776 #
piva00 ◴[] No.43568569[source]
> The fact that this modern "art" needs to be subsidized by the people that actually works with their taxes, is all the argument needed to tell you that indeed this is nothing more than fake intellectualism.

When exactly did art not need financial support from the State, or rich patrons, to be able to be made?

You are moving the discussion into a completely different territory now, and again showing how your view of art is principled in some kind of "productivity" measurement, which is so absurd that is not even wrong.

> I'm not missing on absolutely anything by not appreciating a banana glued to a wall. In fact, nobody really appreciates that, it's just a bunch of sycophants pretending they have some artistic knowledge the rest of us, the poor populace, lack, that go on pretending with the charade.

The banana glued to a wall is one work of art (and polemic for a reason), and you are using that to paint a broad stroke over all contemporary art as if there is nothing being told there... You don't know what you are missing exactly because you don't know what it is, you wouldn't know the colours you'd be missing if you were born with black-and-white sight, nor would know you are missing music if you were born deaf. The difference is that you are not born with an unchangeable characteristic to not appreciate art in different ways, you can work on that, you just choose not to.

There's no charade, the actual charade is why are you so vitriolic opposed to something you do not even understand, lol. It reeks of some sort of insecurity, since you do not understand you feel it's beneath you because makes you feel lesser that others might "get it" and you are out of the club? I don't know, look inside you to find an answer because the passionate rage about something you do not understand has deeper roots.

replies(1): >>43570816 #
airstrike ◴[] No.43570816[source]
It's not up to you guys to say we "do not even understand". It's too handwavy and a false premise. We could argue the same... you guys "don't understand" how much bullshit there is in contemporary art to the point it's basically noise at this point.
replies(1): >>43583737 #
wizzwizz4 ◴[] No.43583737[source]
To take a reductive view, art is people saying stuff. It's one thing to think that what is being said is not worth saying; but you seem to claim that nothing is being said. And that's just bragging about your own ignorance.
replies(1): >>43593268 #
1. airstrike ◴[] No.43593268[source]
> art is people saying stuff.

Maybe to you, but to me that's speech, not art. Calling me ignorant doesn't make your viewpoint more valid.