[HN Gopher] To speak meaningfully about art
___________________________________________________________________
To speak meaningfully about art
Author : brudgers
Score : 23 points
Date : 2022-08-08 22:45 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (medium.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medium.com)
| labrador wrote:
| I've recently become fascinated with Man Ray and Robert
| Rauschenberg and I don't know why. I have no intention of
| becoming an expert on art so I am not bothering to look up the
| theory behind their mixed media creations. Even if they had one,
| I'm not sure it would interest me. I'm more interested in what my
| reaction to art says about me. Art for me is a tool for self-
| discovery. What the artist or art critic says about the work
| might be interesting, but mostly irrelevant to me.
| xcambar wrote:
| A perfectly sane reaction to art.
|
| Most people are not aware there can be a difference between
| "art I love" and "masterpieces of Art History".
|
| You do not have to appreciate La Joconda or the Last
| Supper,just as you might like the art from your neighbor. Both
| are fine.
| Animats wrote:
| A job soon to be taken over by successors to GPT-3.
|
| Soon, the chattering classes will be automated out of jobs.
| whateveracct wrote:
| This is a very HN/SV take right here. Most technologists are
| philistines (hence the obsession with art automation).
| Animats wrote:
| > Most technologies are philistines
|
| Did you mean "Most technologists are Philistines"?
| whateveracct wrote:
| Apparently technology (my phone) is too. Thanks :)
| jrm4 wrote:
| Coincidentally, it definitely feels like something GPT-ish
| wrote this piece.
| Animats wrote:
| GPT-3 has a style. It's coherent blithering somewhat
| unconnected to the real world. This, not coincidentally, is
| the same style popular with bloggers, pundits, and people who
| have the need to create text without having much to say.
| GPT-3, unanchored to any underlying world model, shows this
| style in its purest form.
|
| After you've read enough GPT-3 output, unanchored blithering
| becomes painfully obvious. The parent article does look like
| that.
|
| This is a repost, by the way. The same article was posted on
| HN two weeks ago.[1]
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32235100
| oldstrangers wrote:
| To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your
| understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations
| on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or
| even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective
| measure you probably should've left in middle school. And
| realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad"
| art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go
| into the work.
| abrokenpipe wrote:
| I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just
| tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the
| beholder.
|
| I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my
| opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art
| involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to
| detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums,
| tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter. While a lot
| of this stuff is opinionated there are definitely rules to a
| lot of these things. There are essentially guidelines that have
| log existed for measuring an artists ability to capture color,
| shapes, light, and movement. Even with more modern styles like
| van Gogh and Monet these rules applied.
|
| At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern
| movement and said art can be anything, becoming more focused on
| the cleverness and profound underlying message that this new
| "art" contained rather than the skill, dedication, and
| aesthetics that went into it.
| austinjp wrote:
| Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who
| qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail,
| sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful
| composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think
| you'd describe all the works as "good"?
|
| Seems doubtful.
|
| Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not
| _equally_ good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some
| other quality, varying between the works.
|
| So what are those qualities that might distinguish between
| all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to
| other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find
| a fuller or more varied expression in other media?
|
| > At some point we threw this out the window with the post
| modern movement and said art can be anything
|
| Check out Marcel Duchamp.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures
|
| Can't agree with this one, two people I know that are the
| epitome of an "artist" are musicians.
| User23 wrote:
| I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw
| that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent
| was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was.
| Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK."
|
| So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme,
| and other applications go downhill from there.
|
| That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented
| artists making art today, they just aren't who you're going
| to see in the galleries.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Modern art includes a bunch of amazing artists like Picasso
| abrokenpipe wrote:
| I think he's referring to the more "out there" postmodern
| stuff
| the_only_law wrote:
| You should have seen the HN thread in some Picasso some
| months back. Turns out many were displeased with his
| works and styles.
| myownpetard wrote:
| > In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures.
|
| You don't count film or photography? What about art that
| targets other senses besides vision like music or culinary
| arts?
| causality0 wrote:
| _And realistically, you 'll never really know what is "good" or
| "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts
| that go into the work._
|
| Good art makes the world a better place by existing and bad art
| makes it a worse place. True, that does mean it's contextual
| and can change over time.
| trgn wrote:
| > Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you
| probably should've left in middle school
|
| Judging good from bad requires hubris, and a strong
| internalized belief in some kind of inalienable order. The
| inability to distinguish good from bad is an inability to
| distinguish between virtue and vice, wholesome and depraved,
| worthwhile and worthless. In other words, someone who
| distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge
| and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't,
| abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from
| accountability. Which is cool. But lame.
|
| Judging art is harmless. So dare be a judge in the presence of
| art. It is strangely liberating.
|
| > And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or
| "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts
| that go into the work.
|
| That's a premise, which is relatively modern. With art, you can
| just known in your bones when something is good, and when
| something is bad. When in the presence of "good" art, there's a
| gravity you can physically not escape. That feeling can be
| intellectualized, of course, it makes for fun dinner
| conversations. Nonetheless, it is absolute.
|
| All that said, the article is actually pretty good (although it
| is not to my taste).
| austinjp wrote:
| > someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the
| role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The
| one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus
| frees themselves from accountability.
|
| Nah :)
|
| Someone can judge a work as "good" or "bad" then shrug off
| any "responsibility" e.g. by dismissing further discussion.
|
| Equally someone might judge a work to be neither good not bad
| but something else -- disruptive, satirical, insightful,
| humble, obsequious -- and willingly take "responsibility" for
| their judgement, i.e. defend, debate, discuss, modify it.
|
| > Judging art is harmless.
|
| This is strongly dependent on context. To someone's face? As
| a politician?
|
| > So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely
| liberating.
|
| Fully agree :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-09 23:00 UTC)