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

To speak meaningfully about art

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#11

Post by causality0 »

oldstrangers wrote: post #3

To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas…

And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work.

Good art makes the world a better place by existing and bad art makes it a worse place. True, that does mean it's contextual and can change over time.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#12

Post by trgn »

oldstrangers wrote: post #3

To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas…

> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school

Judging good from bad requires hubris, and a strong internalized belief in some kind of inalienable order. The inability to distinguish good from bad is an inability to distinguish between virtue and vice, wholesome and depraved, worthwhile and worthless. In other words, someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Which is cool. But lame.

Judging art is harmless. So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating.

> And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work.

That's a premise, which is relatively modern. With art, you can just known in your bones when something is good, and when something is bad. When in the presence of "good" art, there's a gravity you can physically not escape. That feeling can be intellectualized, of course, it makes for fun dinner conversations. Nonetheless, it is absolute.

All that said, the article is actually pretty good (although it is not to my taste).

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#13

Post by Animats »

jrm4 wrote: post #10
Animats wrote: post #2

A job soon to be taken over by successors to GPT-3. Soon, the chattering classes will be automated out of jobs.

Coincidentally, it definitely feels like something GPT-ish wrote this piece.

GPT-3 has a style. It's coherent blithering somewhat unconnected to the real world. This, not coincidentally, is the same style popular with bloggers, pundits, and people who have the need to create text without having much to say. GPT-3, unanchored to any underlying world model, shows this style in its purest form.

After you've read enough GPT-3 output, unanchored blithering becomes painfully obvious. The parent article does look like that.

This is a repost, by the way. The same article was posted on HN two weeks ago.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32235100

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#14

Post by tayo42 »

User23 wrote: post #9
abrokenpipe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder. I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject ma…

I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK." So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there. That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they…

Modern art includes a bunch of amazing artists like Picasso

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#15

Post by xcambar »

labrador wrote: post #4

I've recently become fascinated with Man Ray and Robert Rauschenberg and I don't know why. I have no intention of becoming an expert on art so I am not bothering to look up the theory behind their mixed media creations. Even if they had one, I'm not sure it would interest me. I'm more interested in what my reaction to art says about me. Art for me is a tool for self-discovery. What the artist or art critic says about…

A perfectly sane reaction to art.

Most people are not aware there can be a difference between "art I love" and "masterpieces of Art History".

You do not have to appreciate La Joconda or the Last Supper,just as you might like the art from your neighbor. Both are fine.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#16

Post by abrokenpipe »

tayo42 wrote: post #14
User23 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK." So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there. That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they…

Modern art includes a bunch of amazing artists like Picasso

I think he's referring to the more "out there" postmodern stuff

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#17

Post by the_only_law »

tayo42 wrote: post #14
User23 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK." So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there. That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they…

Modern art includes a bunch of amazing artists like Picasso

You should have seen the HN thread in some Picasso some months back. Turns out many were displeased with his works and styles.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#18

Post by austinjp »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #7
oldstrangers wrote: post #3

To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas…

I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder. I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject ma…

Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think you'd describe all the works as "good"?

Seems doubtful.

Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not equally good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some other quality, varying between the works.

So what are those qualities that might distinguish between all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find a fuller or more varied expression in other media?

> At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything

Check out Marcel Duchamp.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#19

Post by the_only_law »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #7
oldstrangers wrote: post #3

To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas…

I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder. I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject ma…

> In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures

Can’t agree with this one, two people I know that are the epitome of an “artist” are musicians.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#20

Post by myownpetard »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #7
oldstrangers wrote: post #3

To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas…

I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder. I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject ma…

> In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures.

You don't count film or photography? What about art that targets other senses besides vision like music or culinary arts?

Post reply on HN