The social obligation to be bad at things • Hacker News Board

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#161

Post by robotresearcher » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #79

wbronitsky wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this! I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all, obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and conte…

> I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could have created this", "but you didn't"), but... ...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with you…

> I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art. I "know" it's worthless to me.

It's 103 years old and today you are taking the time to discuss it in public. There, at least, is a demonstration that this piece made a dent in the universe.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#162

Post by NateEag » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #58

s0rce wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my experience in most of my primary and secondary education (K-12) in Canada. If you were good at something right away, math, science, 2nd language, art, even gym class, you basically got some instruction and were able to learn a bit more and maybe even excel. This was my experience in Math and Science (I'm a Scientist/Engineer now). However, learning French, I struggled and rapidly fell behind. If you didn'…

"the system appeared to be designed around this idea" It is. If you have a bunch of people tied together by chronological age, who only in extreme circumstances can be held back or advanced early, in a 20th century classroom environment all sitting together listening to one person "teach", then structurally, an environment is created that can handle only one speed of learning. There is no good choice for that one spe…

Homeschooling is a simple, effective way to achieve "classrooms of three people".

It is brutally difficult, as you have to sacrifice many of the things you want to do in favor of things your kids want to learn and do, but it is worth every ounce of that sacrifice.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#163

Post by arexxbifs » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

jmcqk6 wrote: post #158

arexxbifs wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is tru…

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard…

Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :)

Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there.

Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages).

Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours).

There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#164

Post by random_kris » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

evmar wrote: post #12

I found that, as a person who (sometimes) creates things, my attitude towards other people who create things has significantly shifted. When I was younger I would just see the fault -- the typos, the narcissism, the pointlessness, the already-been-done-better-by-others -- of people's work. But after trying a bit, it sometimes (for the same reasons the OP talks about) creating anything new ends up being really hard in…

Couldn't agree more

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#165

Post by disagree0 » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

arexxbifs wrote: post #131

askafriend wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I think you're missing the point though. The whole significance of that exhibition is that esteemed artists are given a grand platform (with a long history) to express any idea they want and this (the 3 blank canvases) is the one they chose. That in and of itself is the art. They had no obligation to display those 3 blank canvases. In…

> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is tru…

Knowing artists that have done the blank canvas thing when invited to show work, they are often on board with your interpretation that it’s contrived and absurdly priced.

That our culture rewards such non-effort so generously is the set up.

“The mission” isn’t to make a statement. But to get a doofus with more money than brains to pay rent for no effort whatsoever so they can make art for themselves.

You haven’t even seen it and you had an emotional reaction enough to keep posting about it.

There’s no contrived setup required. You replied with a contrived setup about art the way you did. Others replied with a contrived setup about art the way they did.

Please explain how that amount of subjectivity in this story alone create a framework for objectively beautiful art?

Too many ways in which chemical loops in billions of brains can flow to suggest such a thing.

Whether you can based upon some theory of pure science doesn’t matter since it’ll end up a cognitively subjective answer.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#166

Post by kubanczyk » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

ngerrity wrote: post #85

leroy_masochist wrote: post #36

> I was at a liberating structures event recently, and one of the people I was working with related an anecdote in which he tried a party game as an ice breaker. Many of those are cringe, but this one sounded fun and inoffensive (it was a sentence continuation game where each person said a word following on from a previous one, in an attempt to construct something that sounded like an aphorism). Most people were relu…

I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly games like that all the time, but if you never try to step out of your comfort zone in a public setting, I think you're missing out on an opportunity to grow as a person. You might just have fun doing something you thought was stupid or you thought you would hate.

Ahh hello there, good'ol FOMO. Let me show you a little trick:

I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly games like that all the time, and if you never try to step out of your comfort zone in a public setting, I don't think you're missing out on an opportunity to grow as a person.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#167

Post by arexxbifs » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

disagree0 wrote: post #165

arexxbifs wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is tru…

Knowing artists that have done the blank canvas thing when invited to show work, they are often on board with your interpretation that it’s contrived and absurdly priced. That our culture rewards such non-effort so generously is the set up. “The mission” isn’t to make a statement. But to get a doofus with more money than brains to pay rent for no effort whatsoever so they can make art for themselves. You haven’t even…

That's precisely what angries up my blood: If the doofus is going to pay for it, The Right People has to acknowledge it as art first. And if they do that, it's suddenly awarded significance it doesn't deserve, because, hey, it's art!

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#168

Post by dorkwood » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #155

dorkwood wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you're posting your work with the goal of getting feedback, then that's totally fine. I'm not trying to say that all critique has to sound nice (I actually don't believe this at all). But if you are going to seek out critique online, I would like to offer some advice. Something I see a lot of beginners doing after they post up a piece of work is say "if anyone has any critique or feedback, I would love to…

> You should be able to discern what's wrong with your own work. 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.

I understand what you're saying, that to beginners there are a lot of "unknown unknowns", but not everything should fall into that category. Even with a real-life teacher or mentor I'd give the same advice: go to them with a problem you're having or something you're trying to work on, rather than asking for general tips on how to get better.

We might have different fields of study in mind. In everything I've studied, even a beginner should be able to compare their work to the work of others and identify things that they need to work on. Do you have an example of a field of study where a beginner could look at their own work and not be able to identify anything that needs improving?

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#169

Post by askafriend » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

arexxbifs wrote: post #163

jmcqk6 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard…

Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :) Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and…

> Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch.

But it's precisely the context that makes this art in my view. I don't think someone displaying 3 blank canvases in their garage would be the same. It's different when a highly respected artist chooses to do that in the Guggenheim. It adds an element of theater that produces an emotional response.

This is quite a messy conversation since the bounds are effectively "what is art?". But it's always a fun one to have.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#170

Post by pradn » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

arexxbifs wrote: post #107

mikeyouse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience after visiting a modern art museum with a creative friend of mine. I jokingly said "Even I could have done that" about one of the pieces and my friend replied, "But you didn't" -- hit me in one of those profound realization kind of ways. I started thinking about all of the effort it takes to envision something, find the resources, build it, work to get it displayed somewhere. Just creating…

If your works are displayed in a museum, you're not a struggling amateur. You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes. "Modern" "Art" is very far from someone actually creating something out of passion or curiosity. Last time I visited the Guggenheim, there were three different "works" from three different "artists" on display - all of them were…

All art worlds, including the international fine art world, require an amount of buy-in, or, if you'd like, delusion. The fine art consensus about what art is and what art is worthwhile is built on centuries of conceptual, aesthetic, philosophical, and market progression. If you don't believe in it, it's not for you. The problem with The Art World is that people think it's THE art world. There are many art worlds. You can always find another "art world", like that of C64 graphics creators. See people making motion graphics on Instagram, wallpaper artists on DeviantArt, folk artists around the world, hobbyist landscape artists. All of these have theories of what's worthwhile and what's not. It's unreasonable to use the standards of one in another. If, in The Art World, a clay folk figuring is cool but not worthy of exhibition, in the Indian folk art world, it might be what's actually worth making and continuing to make, not a white canvas.