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

Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

thecreativeindependent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 188 posts

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#21

Post by squigz »

keiferski wrote: post #20
squigz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the explanation > The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying artists now are generally less skilled than artists from back then...? As for realism: isn't this still very much the goal of plenty of video game design, TV/movies, and various other forms of art?

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I didn't mean that artists are less skilled today, but that realism and technical skill are generally considered less important today than in the past. "Top" artists today are usually not considered so because they have amazing technical skills at drawing/painting/etc. The metrics for success are a bunch of other things I won't get into here, but hyperrealistic portraits aren't typically c…

That makes sense, thank you!

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#22

Post by keiferski »

smokel wrote: post #19
keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

I'm not sure if this trend will continue for as long as you fear. Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?). A strange culture developed wh…

I think it'll continue as long as high-end artworks are financial instruments. There is a lot of money invested in the idea that a painting by X well-known artist is worth millions and will continue to be worth millions.

That said, the art market is currently way down, and just anecdotally I feel like a lot of New Money (especially tech money) isn't that interested in art as much as the previous rich oligarchs were, so it may simply become less popular over time.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#23

Post by keiferski »

squigz wrote: post #21
keiferski wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I didn't mean that artists are less skilled today, but that realism and technical skill are generally considered less important today than in the past. "Top" artists today are usually not considered so because they have amazing technical skills at drawing/painting/etc. The metrics for success are a bunch of other things I won't get into here, but hyperrealistic portraits aren't typically c…

That makes sense, thank you!

Your video game comment made me think: maybe the modern equivalent of the art scenario I mentioned is in commercial art like video games or movies, both of which still have genres and are often directly compared to each other – "Call of Duty is a better FPS than Medal of Honor," and so on.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#24

Post by scruple »

keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

> I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc.

Same. Agreed. Where are you finding art elsewhere, then?

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#25

Post by smokel »

keiferski wrote: post #23
squigz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense, thank you!

Your video game comment made me think: maybe the modern equivalent of the art scenario I mentioned is in commercial art like video games or movies, both of which still have genres and are often directly compared to each other – "Call of Duty is a better FPS than Medal of Honor," and so on.

It makes a lot more sense to consider Hollywood and video games as the proper successors to classical art, and to see contemporary art as only a small strand in the evolution of art.

Somehow someone managed to convince the world that Hollywood is not real art, but some other arbitrary weird stuff is.

(To avoid confusion, I personally love the arbitrary weird stuff.)

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#26

Post by bjornsing »

Curtis expresses disdain for our generation’s reluctance to form groups and struggle for power. But I’m more inclined to think this is a good thing. Power struggle between groups is a zero sum game, while individual freedom is not. It’s true that individual freedom also leads to power structures, and that those can be oppressive to certain groups. But I think that problem is better addressed with individual and universal human rights.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#28

Post by SebFender »

smokel wrote: post #19
keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

I'm not sure if this trend will continue for as long as you fear. Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?). A strange culture developed wh…

If there's one critical thing we need is differences in opinion. Please continue sharing as it forces me to think differently - here and everywhere.

I'm all for helping others, and especially the weakest. But when I see students and other folks with full bellies and ideas considered the "weak" that's when I'm lost.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#29

Post by keiferski »

scruple wrote: post #24
keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

> I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. Same. Agreed. Where are you finding art elsewhere, then?

In terms of fine art, I mostly just follow individual artists and read art history books about past art movements / art forms. I don't have any specific suggestions, unfortunately.
Post reply on HN