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

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#21

Post by austinjp »

trgn wrote: post #12
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…

> 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.

Nah :)

Someone can judge a work as "good" or "bad" then shrug off any "responsibility" e.g. by dismissing further discussion.

Equally someone might judge a work to be neither good not bad but something else -- disruptive, satirical, insightful, humble, obsequious -- and willingly take "responsibility" for their judgement, i.e. defend, debate, discuss, modify it.

> Judging art is harmless.

This is strongly dependent on context. To someone's face? As a politician?

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

Fully agree :)

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#22

Post by abrokenpipe »

myownpetard wrote: post #20
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…

> 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?

In my opinion photography is close but still distinct enough that I would call it separate from art, film takes this even furthur. Cooking is way different from art, sure you can add the word "arts" after anything, but all it's really saying is that the thing is being done in a creative manner...

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#23

Post by labrador »

xcambar wrote: post #15
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.

I came up with this after watching several documentaries about Andy Warhol. In one, his brother says that he became very ill when he was 9 or 10. His mother took loving care of him and nursed him back to health. She would daily feed him Campbell's soup from the familiar red and white labeled can. That's when I found my answer: Art is personal. What the artist hopes for is that the viewer will have a similar reaction and appreciate it the way the artist does. He succeeded with his Campbell soup can series to say the least.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#24

Post by abrokenpipe »

the_only_law wrote: post #19
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…

> 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.

I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things.

My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one.

If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#25

Post by fleddr »

"But in conversation you will be unable to speak with others who do not share your tastes, you will be unable to defend these tastes beyond asserting that you like what you like, and you will be unable to understand the weakness in what you like because what you like is good, and what you do not like is not good, and that is the totality of your understanding of art."

The art world is already so off-putting, nice how the above tone of conversation doubles down on it. Can hardly get any more snobby. Modern art is a scam. It's ugly low skill garbage where winners are selected by jury, a type of incest.

In similar vain, all our buildings and infra are butt ugly.

How pathetic is that when archeologists dig up artifacts once belonging to the oldest of civilizations, their art is stunning and way ahead of us. We've artistically devolved, effectively to a state of no art. Which we then mask with bullshit like "art can't be defined", "it's in the eye of the beholder".

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#26

Post by the_only_law »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #24
the_only_law wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things. My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In…

What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#27

Post by abrokenpipe »

the_only_law wrote: post #26
abrokenpipe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things. My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In…

What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.

It's just my opinion

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#28

Post by danielam »

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.

And this notion is precisely one I reject. The author himself makes the distinction between art one likes and good art, though he doesn't offer an explicit metaphysical explanation and I wish to stay clear of any kind of relativism that may be implied. (My initial reading allows for competing interpretations of the article.)

For instance, if we take the example of the fine arts, we must distinguish between beauty and taste. Beauty is objective (and as a transcendental, is to be identified with the transcendentals of the good and the true). It concerns a thing's perfection in relation to some telos, some form. Taste, on the other hand, concerns one's subjective experience of pleasure experienced in the reception of a thing. This is why we can, in principle, speak of someone having poor taste or refined taste. Poor taste is undiscerning and lacking in sensitivity, even going so far as to prefer vulgarity to refinement. If beauty were a mere matter of taste, then we could not speak of good or bad taste, or of garishness and the sublime, except as a glorified way of saying "I like this, but not that; this pleases me, that does not". I do not accept this view, though it is the received and conventional view today. A shabby and nihilistic view rooted, no doubt, in our Cartesian inheritance.

Now, this doesn't automatically mean that there can be no debate about the beauty of an art piece. Indeed, the very possibility of debate presupposes a distinction between beauty and taste, between the objective and the subjective reception of a thing. What it does mean is that aesthetic judgement is, like moral discernment and logical reasoning, something that requires not just capacity, but something that must be refined and perfected. If we debate such things—the good, the true and the beautiful—we do so with a view of conforming ourselves to the truth, and in the case of beauty, our tastes with the beautiful, just as through ethics we seek to conform ourselves to the good.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#29

Post by pizzathyme »

fleddr wrote: post #25

"But in conversation you will be unable to speak with others who do not share your tastes, you will be unable to defend these tastes beyond asserting that you like what you like, and you will be unable to understand the weakness in what you like because what you like is good, and what you do not like is not good, and that is the totality of your understanding of art." The art world is already so off-putting, nice how…

This framework and article don’t just apply to traditional painting art. This applies to any art: video games, movies, TV shows, books, even web design. Discussion of all of these things would be elevated if people can separate what is good and bad from their own preferences.

Edit: typo

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#30

Post by fuifrgrf »

fleddr wrote: post #25

"But in conversation you will be unable to speak with others who do not share your tastes, you will be unable to defend these tastes beyond asserting that you like what you like, and you will be unable to understand the weakness in what you like because what you like is good, and what you do not like is not good, and that is the totality of your understanding of art." The art world is already so off-putting, nice how…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN