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

61–70 of 188 posts

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

#61

Post by chefandy »

andybak wrote: post #42
chefandy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah new to me, and I think I've had my fill. There are people saying things just as interesting that aren't shamelessly glib about it. As I said in my reply to your sibling comment: I'm an art school guy, so I'm well-versed in the idea of imprecise conceptual thinking and conveying how things feel rather than how they actually are-- that's art. But presenting how things feel as how they are isn't called art, it's called bullshit.

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

#62

Post by verisimi »

squigz wrote: post #16
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…

> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other…

They didn't have cameras, either, back then...

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

#63

Post by verisimi »

leetrout wrote: post #45
detourdog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Great comment. The tax loopholes require art!

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

#65

Post by andybak »

chefandy wrote: post #61
andybak wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah new to me, and I think I've had my fill. There are people saying things just as interesting that aren't shamelessly glib about it. As I said in my reply to your sibling comment: I'm an art school guy, so I'm well-versed in the idea of imprecise conceptual thinking and conveying how things feel rather than how they actually are-- that's art. But presenting how things feel as how they are isn't called art, it's ca…

To be honest, his forte isn't the written word. Watch a documentary or two. He has a fascinating style and is eminently (maybe too eminently) watchable.

"New Adam Curtis documentary just dropped" was really a thing for a fair while in the UK.

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

#66

Post by anigbrowl »

keiferski wrote: post #17
squigz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other…

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…

There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand.

'The work of art in an age of mechanical reproduction' by Walter Benjamin is a great read. There's a short but dense preface outlining the topic in purely Marxist terms; Benjamin was a Marxist and the essay was written in 1935 following his flight from Nazi Germany. However, the body of the essay develops its argument from first principles and doesn't require familiarity or agreement with Marxist theory to appreciate.

https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf

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

#67

Post by brandall10 »

keiferski wrote: post #17
squigz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other…

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…

The way I think about it is high art is considered innovative for its time.

By the time of the advent of photography, the skills of realistic painting had been fully fleshed out. Aside from the ultra-realism movement, there was no where left to go, hence turning inward w/ impressionism forward.

As modernism progressed, the avenues left to explore seem to get increasingly wild and crude in an effort to say something different... seemingly all that's left now for modern art is to share some unique perspective of the world, the rougher the medium, the better. Marcel Duchamp's Fountain is spectacular to me because it really called where it was all ending up.

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

#68

Post by aspenmayer »

borgdefense wrote: post #34
chefandy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That pretty much sums up Adam Curtis to me and I would say I am quite a fan. He is an amazing propaganda film maker but have to take him with a huge grain of salt.

> He is an amazing propaganda film maker

What would you say he is advocating for that you call propagandizing? Not that I disagree, per se, just curious how you’d articulate it.

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

#69

Post by anigbrowl »

verisimi wrote: post #62
squigz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other…

They didn't have cameras, either, back then...

They did have camera obscura and other optical devices to assist with the realization of perspective.

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

#70

Post by lifeisstillgood »

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…

The “art world” is wildly divorced from the tastes of the majority of people in society - one could uncharitably but not inaccurately characterise the modern art world as a means to arrange for low cost materials to be purchased for vast sums in tax advantageous ways.

If we look at an art form where there is a lot of validation by the majority of people, tv and films, we see people “painting the same thing” all the time because that’s what the “zeitgeist” is interested in

500 years ago there were very few books and the west European zeitgeist was mostly the bible anyway.

Post reply on HN