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

I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#171

Post by [deleted] »

grey-area wrote: post #124
foobarbazqux wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you're saying, but we probably don't have the same interpretation of the words 'job' and 'artist'. More broadly, the nature of creativity is to challenge authority. Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain. Breaking the rules can be as simple as using an uncommon kind of brushstroke. It doesn't have to be against the wishes of whoever is paying for t…

Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain. You are indulging in a circular definition in which most creative stands in for best or most worthy art, which of course depends on the premise which you set up in the first place, and which is a peculiarly 20C view of art. Only with the break down of the patron system and in quest of a new definition of art and a new p…

[deleted]

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#172

Post by foobarbazqux »

grey-area wrote: post #124
foobarbazqux wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you're saying, but we probably don't have the same interpretation of the words 'job' and 'artist'. More broadly, the nature of creativity is to challenge authority. Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain. Breaking the rules can be as simple as using an uncommon kind of brushstroke. It doesn't have to be against the wishes of whoever is paying for t…

Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain. You are indulging in a circular definition in which most creative stands in for best or most worthy art, which of course depends on the premise which you set up in the first place, and which is a peculiarly 20C view of art. Only with the break down of the patron system and in quest of a new definition of art and a new p…

That was unnecessarily condescending. Incivility is against the guidelines. What I have to say doesn't lose its validity simply because you shame me for my point of view. If you were sure enough of your position, you wouldn't need to humiliate me about mine.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#173

Post by arrrg »

cjg wrote: post #161
arrrg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? I’m talking about definitions and the argument about definitions that’s happening here. Arguing about definitions is foolish, it’s point- and meaningless. Who cares what vandalism is? The important thing is how one views a certain act, not how one defines vandalism. That only clouds the issue. Also, I find people who think there are absolutes when it comes to this issue extremely funny.

I don't think arguing about definitions is pointless, although it often turns out that way. Take, for example, the classic "if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". Resolving this question comes down to seeing that it depends on how sound is defined: pressure waves in the air or a neural state change related to those waves hitting an ear. Once we see that a words (like "sou…

That tree example perfectly illustrates why arguing about definitions is pointless. There is no reason at all to ever really disagree about definitions (except maybe for convenience).

However you define sound, the material facts of the situation are unchanged. You do not change anything in reality by defining it differently, you are merely changing something in your brain, i.e. how sound is represented inside it. That is also why the tree question is anything but deep. It’s extremely straightforward, there is no mystery, it’s only our brains screwing up (in the way it represents things).

Therefore, if it seems like some word is differently defined by different people all that has to be done is that everyone has to make clear what their definition is, that’s all. There is no point arguing about it, there isn’t even much point in trying to come to an agreement (except convenience).

If everyone know everyone else’s definition of something it’s perfectly possible to talk about it, even if all individual definitions are contradictory, it would just be hard to keep track of everything.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#174

Post by foobarbazqux »

pfortuny wrote: post #142
foobarbazqux wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, fair point. I'll revise: the job of an artist is to break the rules intelligently. Also, I think you're conflating legality and morality. I can think of situations for all 8 cases of (legal|illegal)(moral|immoral)(agree|disagree). However, you're probably right that agreement/disagreement influences morality judgments.

So probably neither Raphael nor obviously Murillo nor Gongora nor probably any romantic poet were artists. Not to talk about the Egyptians. I do not know about Shakespeare 'breaking' any rules, or any pre-XIX Century painter. Or the Greeks, you know? What rules did the Parthenon's architect break? Or the sculptor of the Laocoon group? The 'breaking rules' stuff is all very well for some things but it is not the defin…

Incivility is against the guidelines, I don't want to argue with it.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#175

Post by arrrg »

Tichy wrote: post #151
arrrg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? I’m talking about definitions and the argument about definitions that’s happening here. Arguing about definitions is foolish, it’s point- and meaningless. Who cares what vandalism is? The important thing is how one views a certain act, not how one defines vandalism. That only clouds the issue. Also, I find people who think there are absolutes when it comes to this issue extremely funny.

presumably if you want to make a law about it, you have to define it somehow. What solution do you propose?

Lucky for me, I guess. I do not want to make a law about it.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#176

Post by grey-area »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #172
grey-area wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain. You are indulging in a circular definition in which most creative stands in for best or most worthy art, which of course depends on the premise which you set up in the first place, and which is a peculiarly 20C view of art. Only with the break down of the patron system and in quest of a new definition of art and a new p…

That was unnecessarily condescending. Incivility is against the guidelines. What I have to say doesn't lose its validity simply because you shame me for my point of view. If you were sure enough of your position, you wouldn't need to humiliate me about mine.

Incivility is against the guidelines. What I have to say doesn't lose its validity simply because you shame me for my point of view. If you were sure enough of your position, you wouldn't need to humiliate me about mine.

I struggle to see what you would find humiliating in either my post or pfortuny's above - you issued a remarkably general assertion (all art is x in any medium, in any time period) which is in my view invalid, and I offered a counter-example.

In my post and I believe pfortuny's there was no attempt to shame you for your point of view, just a disagreement with that point of view based on our understanding of art history. Disagreement is not incivility.

If you disagree and this is true of all things considered art you should be able to reel off lots of examples and easily disprove the counter-examples given, since your assertion holds true universally.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#177

Post by foobarbazqux »

grey-area wrote: post #176
foobarbazqux wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was unnecessarily condescending. Incivility is against the guidelines. What I have to say doesn't lose its validity simply because you shame me for my point of view. If you were sure enough of your position, you wouldn't need to humiliate me about mine.

Incivility is against the guidelines. What I have to say doesn't lose its validity simply because you shame me for my point of view. If you were sure enough of your position, you wouldn't need to humiliate me about mine. I struggle to see what you would find humiliating in either my post or pfortuny's above - you issued a remarkably general assertion (all art is x in any medium, in any time period) which is in my vie…

The problem is that you're talking down to me. If you can't or won't see this, I don't want to engage in a debate.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#178

Post by pfortuny »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #174
pfortuny wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So probably neither Raphael nor obviously Murillo nor Gongora nor probably any romantic poet were artists. Not to talk about the Egyptians. I do not know about Shakespeare 'breaking' any rules, or any pre-XIX Century painter. Or the Greeks, you know? What rules did the Parthenon's architect break? Or the sculptor of the Laocoon group? The 'breaking rules' stuff is all very well for some things but it is not the defin…

Incivility is against the guidelines, I don't want to argue with it.

Oups? I do not get this answer and never was my intention to be incivil. Mmh? Sorry if I hurt you but I was just being as clear as possible. And as assertive as the sentences I was reying to.

Possibly the 'please' in my comment is paternalistic, but then again your definition of the job of an artist is quite simplistic. So it may not be paternalistic but a plea for sensible speculation.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#179

Post by mcantelon »

epo wrote: post #146
mcantelon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banksy is adept at leveraging the Streisand effect.

You badly misunderstand something. The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence whereby trying to minimise attention actually increases it. "Banksy" has known all along that maintaining the mystique of secrecy would create attention where otherwise there would be none. So the exact opposite of the Streisand effect. His secrecy is to create attention, not avoid it.

I'm not talking Banksy's secrecy. I'm talking about the effect of provoking authorities and having their condemnation generate publicity that provides more incentive for Banksy.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#180

Post by foobarbazqux »

pfortuny wrote: post #178
foobarbazqux wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incivility is against the guidelines, I don't want to argue with it.

Oups? I do not get this answer and never was my intention to be incivil. Mmh? Sorry if I hurt you but I was just being as clear as possible. And as assertive as the sentences I was reying to. Possibly the 'please' in my comment is paternalistic, but then again your definition of the job of an artist is quite simplistic. So it may not be paternalistic but a plea for sensible speculation.

Alright, thanks for taking me seriously. I'm feeling a bit touchy today. I think the problem is that I'm using the words artist, job, rules, authority, and creativity in a very liberal way.

I guess my general point is that to be an artist, you have to be creative. To be creative, you have to do something new. To do something new, you have to depart from what exists in some way. Whatever exists can be called authority, tradition, or "the rules". And then something new is a challenge to that authority. If you build a skyscraper in a town with no skyscrapers, you are challenging authority, even if all the other towns have skyscrapers. When parents make a baby, it's a creative act, and the baby ends up challenging the authority of the parents; the baby breaks the existing rules of the family structure. It's the same with the work that an artist does. It doesn't have to be socially rebellious in nature. An expression of beauty that has not been seen before is breaking the rules about the limits of beauty.

Even more generally speaking, when an artist does manage to break the rules, they end up challenging our preconceptions of what can be - these preconceptions are the true "rules" - and it opens us up to a deeper experience of the world. As examples, anything that creates a feeling of awe, anything that touches on sublime beauty, is operating on this level. I think if you look closely, all of the artists you named are working in this way; it's not mere repetition of what came before.

Post reply on HN