The social obligation to be bad at things

----

A reasonable response. Let me try... I don't like sloppy thinking. You've responded in one useful way but in another, you quite blatantly haven't answered what were entirely solid questions I put to you - acknowledged?

Sloppy thinking about art promulgates sloppy art. While dividing good from indifferent from bad art is not something I can do formally (but we as a society should try if art means anything), there is a real underlying value to art. Beauty is part of that (IMO/IME). Talking up shite art necessarily smears good art because they fit under the same label ("art").

At school we were introduced to art, and in retrospect what baffled me then was simply that we were being told utter shit and expected to osmose it then spout it back. I understood that much later as an adult. A social pressure was put upon me to conform by not thinking about what I'd been told. Not thinking is not an option, we have to.

> but nothing I said forces anyone to do anything

Yes it does. Pressure was put on you and you caved. You're now repeating the same stuff, which puts pressure on others.

> I also don't think I'm saying anything novel or directly challenging;

Yes you were. You were making a load of claims (read again what you wrote). None of it made sense to me. That was novel and challenging, if it meant anything at all. I just don't think it did.

> without name calling

I didn't name call but sure I said some strong stuff - feel free to refute it. The questions remain unanswered. Until they are I stand by my calling it self indulgent. I did not call you a moron.

> What do we gain by this attack?

You perhaps reconsider what you're saying ("...I continued to breeze past the installation, laughing quietly to myself like I knew something these art people didn't" - and perhaps exactly that, you actually did) or perhaps you explain what that word salad means, and I learn something good and useful.

> It doesn't matter if you and I agree or disagree

It's not about agree or disagree, I'm fine with either, I can learn from either, it's about writing stuff that AFAICS means literally nothing in itself.

Sloppy thinking gets people killed. That's why I get upset.

Ironically the "missing of the point" seems to have become a point in itself even without the historic context. Weird accidental statements by society in its reaction like ignoring the virtuoso playing the Strativius in the subway station because they don't recognize the quality without the trappings. A mere portrayal would be a ham handed allegory but if it really happens a lesson can be learned instead of an expression of another's opinion.

I think thats why people ask for critique or feedback, because they don't know yet. If you had a teacher they would be right there to help you lean the words and how to figure that out. Asking for feedback is really just trying to use the internet as a replacement for a teacher or mentor.

Yes and no. I can find beauty in - or otherwise appreciate - simplistic creations as well. For example, a lot of contemporary photography is very little about technical skills and very much about selection, timing, subject and setting. I can find that highly engaging. But yes, there has got to be some thought behind it other than that it's supposedly "unique".

> Moreover, it made you think.

Lots of things make me think. I believe this is a simultaneously pretentious and simplistic approach to defining art.

> meta (...) original (...) derivative

What about beautiful? Emotional? Timeless and with lasting meaning? The kind of meta-art "commenting" on what art is or trying be "unique" that seems to make up the bulk of today's production is more than a century old by now.

> bullshit

Quoting this last because this is the core of my reasoning. The majority of the contemporary art world has long since lost any kind of connection to what's worthwhile, beautiful, thoughtful, insightful or interesting. It's a massive bullshit machine, propped up by nothing but a lot of pseudo-intellectual meta-reasoning about made-up abstract concepts commenting on themselves.

Many are provoked and angered by people getting famous for participating in reality shows or exposing their lives on Instagram. I can find the concept absurd, but it doesn't bother me as such. It's easy to ignore and if they can monetize their fame, good for them. That's between them and their audience.

As soon as something is considered art, on the other hand, it's considered to be of such significance that it warrants not only recognition, but also for example public funding, the interest of academia and a self-evident spot in any public place. It demands to be taken seriously, and people in positions of power will comply, no matter how inane it is. It's the naked emperor, if you will: it permeates society in ways that are systemically upheld by people who, when asked the question, probably couldn't explain what's actually good or beautiful or interesting about it, yet I'm expected to accept it at face value. For every blank canvas exhibited, there is one carrying true beauty that is left ignored. That bothers me copiously, however much I wish it didn't.