If Mort Divine ruled the world

[zabu of nΩd]

It's really just kinda sad that @Einherjar86 has gotten to this point where his unstoppable need to know and discuss the deeper meaning behind EVERYthing is now preventing him from being able to properly enjoy the prettyness of art
He's overthinking art in the same way girls overthink porn and movie critics overthink the script for the transformers movies
Girls overthink porn and then discuss it with other girls
Whereas for a random guy porn doesn't need to be anything more than boner-inducing
Movie critics overthink the script for the transformers movies and then bitch about the script being horribly written
Whereas other people are able to properly enjoy the prettyness of the bright shiny CGI special effects when they watch the movie with the sound muted while listening to the music of their favorite band blaring so loud that it bothers the neighbors

I don't need to know anything about the artwork or artist when I look at something, I've retained my child-like ability to just merely enjoy the prettyness of the artwork

When I see the Mona Lisa I am able to properly enjoy the prettyness of her face

Every one else just always sounds so pretentious and elitist when they talk about what might be going on in the mind of "the thinker" but to me it always just kinda looks like a hung-over naked guy trying to figure out what happened to his clothes

I get your point, but I think you're projecting your values on Einherjar too much. He's damn good at his profession, and being good at a profession requires narrowing your focus. People are capable of amazing achievements in a state of focus, and realizing that potential often requires overthinking things to the point of giving up the "child-like" perspective you refer to. It can be a worthwhile tradeoff.

I think the type of people you're associating with elitism include people responsible for many of the world's greatest achievements. Without hyper-focused thinkers, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now, since there'd be no internet.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks mate.

I also hope that conversation didn't come off as elitist on my part. As I remember it, it was a genial discussion and not dismissive of any contribution. Furthermore, unless I'm forgetting certain posts, the discussion wasn't about what makes good art, but about the relationship between politics and aesthetics (or art and social context, more generally speaking). That's hardly a "subjective" matter, to quote Dak's earlier comment.

I also wouldn't equate something not being art (as I would define it) with it not being "good." Among the things that I wouldn't describe as art--a Bob Ross painting, say--I still find a lot to admire in terms of skill and craft, Bob Ross paintings included. I might not call it art, but they're still impressive. I certainly couldn't paint them.

 

[CiG]

I think (generally speaking) conservative-minded people judge art based on talent/skill and liberal-minded people judge art on meaning or lack thereof, whether it be personal, cultural or political. Which is how you get views like "modern art sucks, anybody can fling paint on a canvas" while simultaneously having people like Ein exclude Bob Ross' paintings from the category of art.

Could be opening a can of worms here but this tends to hold for all of my interactions with people on the left and right, broadly speaking.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that's accurate--and yes, generally speaking.

Robert Smithson once wrote that a great artist can make art simply by casting a glance. That's a hot take obviously, but there's an element of truth to it. Although becoming an artist certainly involves learning a skill or craft, it also involves developing a perspective on expression/representation. Without getting too in the weeds, this means becoming aware of one's frame, i.e. the borders that constitute a work and its context; and becoming aware of the frame entails understanding (in some way) the relationship between work and context, and the meanings that derive therefrom.

Artists (again, as I would define the practice) understand these two things to be in conversation with, and inextricable from, each other.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

I can still look at a painting or comic panel or watch a movie or listen to a song and enjoy the prettyness of the art before even recognizing the artist

I can say "this landscape painting is pretty" before I recognize it as a Bob Ross
I can look at "the thinker" with out thinking about how all of the artist's statues are all naked guys
I can look at the Mona Lisa with out thinking about how she would look like a guy if you put eyebrows on her
I can dance to a bouncy pop song a million times before I have any idea what the fuck the lyrics are
I can watch the transformers movies with the sound muted while blaring motley Crue
I can agree with the rest of the world that "Identity Crisis" was the most horribly written story that the Justice league has ever been in and still enjoy looking at the amazing Rags Morales artwork for that story-arc

 

[rms]

You don't need to be in a sociology class to think that purposely being apolitical is itself a politicized act.

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

 

[Einherjar86]

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

Does it really annoy you this much when people have a conversation that doesn’t include you?

 

[CiG]

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

I have plenty of hobbies. This might shock you but it's possible to work, have hobbies, and post here. There are these things called phones and you can use the Internet on them outside your house, pretty wild right grandpa?

Yikes what a whiny cunt.

 

[Dak]

That's hardly a "subjective" matter, to quote Dak's earlier comment.

Well I agree with this actually, but was rolling with what people tend to Motte about. My Bailey is the same as yours, it's just on a different continent. It's not that I'm ignorant of art philosophy - quite the contrary. I just find the accepted versions hilariously bad.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fair enough.

 

[Dak]

Fair enough.

I want to stress I wasn't trying to "psychologize" you earlier. I've read Lacan, Baudrillard, etc, and what Fine Art students must profess in general. I can't speak to all of your personal intricacies but my point was that regardless of what we might like to have in terms of flexibility of thought, we have career constraints in terms of what is promoted, or accepted, or funded, and it's hard to serve two masters (as the proverb notes).

 

[Bloopy]

I think (generally speaking) conservative-minded people judge art based on talent/skill and liberal-minded people judge art on meaning or lack thereof, whether it be personal, cultural or political. Which is how you get views like "modern art sucks, anybody can fling paint on a canvas" while simultaneously having people like Ein exclude Bob Ross' paintings from the category of art.

When it comes to modern art, I wonder if I'm in that 'lack thereof' camp more than anything. At least when the artist sets out primarily to "make art" above anything else. Eg. a gallery has a weird-shaped room to fill, so they ask a familiar artist (who'll conform to art world conventions) to make art for it. Or something like that. It feels forced. The meaning the artist tacks onto their art seems like an afterthought. Whereas if an artist sets out with a statement to make from the beginning, or a story to tell, or to entertain, or to decorate a space (that serves some purpose other than just to have art made for it), then any artistic merit in their creation emerges naturally. But once they're somewhat renowned in their field and given a brief to curate an exhibit and make the centrepiece for it then it's hard not to see their art as just a self-congratulatory wank.

A similar thing happens when renowned experimental musicians set out to "experiment". They take obscure instruments gifted to them by tribes on their travels to far reaches of the globe, maybe play them in an unconventional way, combined with sounds of Western objects or some electroacoustic setup patched at home, and most importantly describe their entire process and its parallels to society in a press release or liner notes of several dozen paragraphs. It's hard to call it an experiment when they began with the conclusion: that what they make will be received as important art because they've made it to the art world's formula.

 

[Einherjar86]

I want to stress I wasn't trying to "psychologize" you earlier. I've read Lacan, Baudrillard, etc, and what Fine Art students must profess in general. I can't speak to all of your personal intricacies but my point was that regardless of what we might like to have in terms of flexibility of thought, we have career constraints in terms of what is promoted, or accepted, or funded, and it's hard to serve two masters (as the proverb notes).

I appreciate that, and I also didn't mean to imply that I felt psychologized. I took it as playful sparring re. professions.

You're right, too, about working within a set of disciplinary expectations. When it comes to this stuff, my thinking is pretty firmly fixed.

When it comes to modern art, I wonder if I'm in that 'lack thereof' camp more than anything. At least when the artist sets out primarily to "make art" above anything else. Eg. a gallery has a weird-shaped room to fill, so they ask a familiar artist (who'll conform to art world conventions) to make art for it. Or something like that. It feels forced. The meaning the artist tacks onto their art seems like an afterthought. Whereas if an artist sets out with a statement to make from the beginning, or a story to tell, or to entertain, or to decorate a space (that serves some purpose other than just to have art made for it), then any artistic merit in their creation emerges naturally. But once they're somewhat renowned in their field and given a brief to curate an exhibit and make the centrepiece for it then it's hard not to see their art as just a self-congratulatory wank.

This speaks to the commercialization of the art world and the unavoidable overlap between museums as institutions of culture and institutions of profit. It's a dilemma that goes back decades, and part of the reason why certain artists in the '60s began trying to make art beyond the museum. Of course, even that winds up at the mercy of donors, and ultimately finds itself curated by some kind of foundation.

There's an ongoing debate (starting back in the 1940s, roughly) about the autonomy of art--whether it escapes the constrictions of institutionalism or whether it's always bound in some way to the demands of funding and expectations of culture. It's a fascinating question with no easy answer.

 

[Bloopy]

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

Now that’s fucking art.

 

[Bloopy]

An Australian Arts Festival Has Canceled Artist Santiago Sierra’s Plans to Douse the British Flag in the Blood of Indigenous People

Perhaps a good example of the art establishment revealing how artificial and autofellatorial it truly is with that misstep.

 

[CiG]

Big whoop, they're pussies for cancelling it.

Is it bizarre and in bad taste? Feels that way, but without willing blood donors it wouldn't work anyway. It's a shame it got pearl-clutched into oblivion by indigenous "community leaders" and artists before the average indigenous person got to decide whether they'd even want to donate some of their blood in the first place. Once again the self-appointed speak for all of us.

 

[Bloopy]

It's like a modern demonstration of colonialism where whitey is still in charge and gets the most benefit out of whatever indigenous people give up, comparable to popular evangelists flaunting wealth that their followers gave them. A valid artistic statement I guess, but then it seems equally authentic if their modern colonialism is subsequently condemned or even punished.