Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The social obligation to be bad at things

notebook.drmaciver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 248 posts

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#191

Post by the_af »

robotresearcher wrote: post #161
the_af wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm unconvinced by this line of argumentation, which others have tried before. Age and my attention cannot define art -- are you saying that something that is new or hasn't caught my (very brief) attention is not art? Or let's say it's not about me specifically, but rather about public impact: if something is new and known only by very few people, so that it hasn't really made a big public impact, does this prevent it from being art?

My very standard toilet has caught my attention -- and discourse, dare I say -- way more than Duchamp's urinal. Would most people consider my toilet art? Or would it need to be put on display in a museum?

Can you think of any man-made things older than a century that you wouldn't consider art? I sure can!

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#192

Post by the_af »

vertex-four wrote: post #185
the_af wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does it matter? If the word "art" has indeed lost all meaning, does that change the way we interact with the world, or communicate with each other? It does for me. If "art" and "everything" become synonyms, I feel I've lost a valuable concept, and one I definitely use frequently. Your anecdote about the "don't hack this" label is indeed clever and funny, and it's making a statement I can relate to. It's like hackin…

> You're anecdote about the "don't hack this" label is indeed clever and funny, and it's making a statement I can relate to. It's like hacking the event, in a way. I took away something entirely different from it (I took it as a given that the vending machine was indeed art because someone had proclaimed it to be so, and proceeded to think about what it might have to say within the context of the space and the event)…

No-one is right about graffiti. I like graffiti too, by the way.

I think I'm as entitled to claiming something is not art as the author who claims it is. For some creations, the consensus will side with one or the other. Nobody can put pigeon feces on display in a museum and force me to think of them as art, no matter what they think.

A lot of people don't consider found objects "real" art, by the way. I'm not alone in this.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#193

Post by someguydave »

robotresearcher wrote: post #161
the_af wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, it’s mentioned as a canonical example of not-art masquerading as art in the eyes of many.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#194

Post by beaugunderson »

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 thought this PBS video about "Fountain" and similar pieces of art was very good at describing why they matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZlrHyzIwcI

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#195

Post by robotresearcher »

the_af wrote: post #191
robotresearcher wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm unconvinced by this line of argumentation, which others have tried before. Age and my attention cannot define art -- are you saying that something that is new or hasn't caught my (very brief) attention is not art? Or let's say it's not about me specifically, but rather about public impact: if something is new and known only by very few people, so that it hasn't really made a big public impact, does this prevent i…

I didn't even use the word 'art' let alone propose any of these definitions. I just pointed out that 'Fountain' made an impact on your choices today.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#196

Post by the_af »

robotresearcher wrote: post #195
the_af wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unconvinced by this line of argumentation, which others have tried before. Age and my attention cannot define art -- are you saying that something that is new or hasn't caught my (very brief) attention is not art? Or let's say it's not about me specifically, but rather about public impact: if something is new and known only by very few people, so that it hasn't really made a big public impact, does this prevent i…

I didn't even use the word 'art' let alone propose any of these definitions. I just pointed out that 'Fountain' made an impact on your choices today.

Fair enough. Would you say anything that I single out as worthless is, by the act of giving it my attention, worthy?

I assure you my toilet made an impact in my choices today of far greater import than Duchamp's found object.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#197

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

NateEag wrote: post #162
jerf wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It's also a very costly method that many people cannot afford. Doubly so if it'll impact the long-term career prospects of the parent that spends their time teaching.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#198

Post by acid__ »

executive wrote: post #175
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…

Don't think any of us could have done this beauty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

Okay, you're being sarcastic here, and I know this isn't your main point, but I think you're still underestimating how many of us actually have the time, resources, or know-how to make an 18 foot tall museum-grade painting

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#199

Post by [deleted] »

itronitron wrote: post #116
the_af wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The Fountain is just one in a series of Duchamp's 'readymades' which are found objects that became works of art when the artist identified them as such. Duchamp was not doing this to be a snob but rather to draw people's attention to appreciation of the design of everyday things .

[deleted]

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#200

Post by [deleted] »

Traster wrote: post #118

>When you say you're bad at something, people tell you that you're not, or treat it as weakness. As a Brit who has worked with Americans I think this is very cultural. From my judgement of my interactions if I say "I know nothing about this but..." there's probably a 50% chance I know more about the thing than you. If I say "Have you considered..." that means you're talking about my area of expertise. That's not been…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN