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

41–50 of 188 posts

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

#41

Post by spinach »

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…

It's easy to look back at history and build a simple narrative, but during that time a lot of art was being made even by amateurs and people without much money. And the majority of drawings and paintings that are done are going to be lose to time and only the most well cared for survive. And then there are different types - pottery, basket weaving, etc. In several hundred years, the majority of art created now will be lost and people will be able to create a simple narrative about the art of our era as well.

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

#42

Post by andybak »

chefandy wrote: post #15
Animats wrote: post #7

Huh. "Computers can see us as large groups, but they’re glum and only aggregate us to sell us stuff. In reality, the computers give great insight into the power of common identity between groups. No one’s using that." That's from 2017. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case. From ISIL to Q-Anon to MAGA to LGBTxx, finding dispersed but like-minded people and using them to build a political movement is now common. Wo…

That wasn't true in 2017, either. Though the author makes some interesting points, he conflates catalysts, causes, and cultural movements and just calls it all self-expression, and casually makes some rather eyebrow-raising assertions in the process. This reads more like an idea he was trying to hash it for himself rather than a well-considered piece.

Is this your first day on planet Adam Curtis?

;)

I love his stuff but you really need to treat it as "thought provoking but utterly lacking in rigour". Treat it as a jumping off point for topics that might be new to you and as a nudge to view things from a different angle.

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

#43

Post by detourdog »

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 see art and religion as completely misunderstood in modern times. Art was the original science of materials. Early creatives simply manipulated the surrounding materials until they achieved mastery and understanding. This is what drives human achievement. Once a repeatable understanding is achieved the development effort morphs into science.

The contemporary art world was birthed from the financial industry. The financial art world can be very different than an individual's study of materials and the surrounding culture.

The financial art world of today may have no relevance to what is deemed art in 2054.

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

#44

Post by boppo1 »

squigz wrote: post #18
keiferski wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might have been a part, but it's more that the idea of self-expression as the prime value in art is mostly a 20th century thing. The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics is also a 20th century thing and largely came from photography and mass manufacturing. There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand. It's also worth noting…

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?

Artist here. Artists are indeed less skilled today, but there is an effort to improve the situation (ARC). Google 'twilight of painting'.

Concept artists are highly skilled, but they do something different than the painters of yore. They turn around decent looking stuff in a few hours. It's very impressive, but it (naturally) lacks the depth & thoughtfulness achieved by painters like Caillebotte.

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

#45

Post by leetrout »

detourdog wrote: post #43
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 see art and religion as completely misunderstood in modern times. Art was the original science of materials. Early creatives simply manipulated the surrounding materials until they achieved mastery and understanding. This is what drives human achievement. Once a repeatable understanding is achieved the development effort morphs into science. The contemporary art world was birthed from the financial industry. The fi…

> The financial art world of today may have no relevance to what is deemed art in 2054.

People with both money and art will not let that happen

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

#46

Post by dgellow »

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…

Lots and lots of artists recreate the same pop-culture characters over and over, with their own style. Doesn’t that count?

We even have remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels of movies, books, comics, games. Evolving universes and styles.

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

#47

Post by olsonjeffery »

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…

Capitalism and atomized market actors have subsumed the feudal patronage arrangements of the ancien regime.

Would you say that you love this current system, but hate the outcomes?

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by watwut »

squigz wrote: post #18
keiferski wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might have been a part, but it's more that the idea of self-expression as the prime value in art is mostly a 20th century thing. The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics is also a 20th century thing and largely came from photography and mass manufacturing. There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand. It's also worth noting…

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?

The thing about technical skills in drawing today is that you can learn them. Artists do know how to draw hyper realistically and if you have good fine motor skills, you can systematically learn it. End result is like a photography tho and it all costs a lot of time.

Meaning, whereas in the past, if you was the first one to figure out, say, perspective or some color, you was able to draw what others could not. You did something knew and you are remembered for it. Today, if you can draw super realistic portrait, you are one of many talented artists who learned that from a books and classes.

> 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?

No one knows artists behind video games. I do not thing realism is the distinguishing things behind artists who do video games, movies or tv. It is more of scene design, lightning, camera work etc that gets to be judged from the art side.

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

#50

Post by orwin »

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…

Agree, but i don't think postmodernism can go away. One thing i find fascinating about postmodernism is how antagonistic it is.

As it core, it's deeply anti-metanarrative, and i think that it's main structural characteristic. Which is, in a way, a bit anti-intuition, as we like to understand the world with meta-narratives.

I won't go into politics (basically, all parties create metanarrative, all use postmodernist arguments against each others), but one sign the world is really becoming postmodern is the state of particle physics, where physicists are more and more critical of theories seeking to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics. Once string theory and other "unifying" theories are completely abandoned (probably won't happen, but i'll never know), postmodernism will have become mainstream.

Post reply on HN