21–30 of 34 posts
Gotta love how some of the spectators on the larger Joseph Heintz the Younger painting enjoy the entertainment. Too bad that these images predate the invention of popcorn!
> predate the invention of popcorn Popcorn's been around for thousands of years.
Too bad that these images predate the wide availability of popcorn in the old world and its common usage as a snack eaten during entertainment.
Great art is rooted in the hardest of human emotion. Is why we look back to ancient culture with reverance and sometimes nostalgia. We wouldn't want to be there in the midst of the brawl, most of us moderns would rather jump from the bridge. But our human spirit and memory recognizes the suffering and sacrifices of the ancestors. It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense, as…
> those with the means to produce it don't have any great emotions. Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.
That said >it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to...rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.
The rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other came from a society with strict rules about honor and dueling, and they dueled over honor.
So I'm not sure if the artists of today do have emotions that compare to the particular emotions that were very common in a society with duels for honor that had a significantly different economic and educational system than our own.
Sure we're all humans, but we're not all exactly the same despite that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those with the means to produce it don't have any great emotions. Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.
there are incredibly wide swathes of society which go on about modern decadence and have outsized respect for violence as being somehow ennobling. As an example some people think the tough guys of the past who killed each other over women's handkerchiefs were real men and possessed of emotions more potent than those of the girly men that exist nowadays. This is not necessarily what was being claimed, just that there…
sometime around the mid to late 1700s people started getting the idea that Hamlet was all about how he was a vacillating guy who could never come to a decision because the play's stated reasons for doing things were no longer believable, that is to say The Character Hamlet had significantly different emotions and opinions on things that we cannot understand or accept as stated.
If anyone's played Assassin's Creed II (or any of the Ezio games) (these older games were produced with help from historians) Ezio's scar comes from a street fight on Ponte Vecchio in Venice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTXd7L01pI2
Ponte Vecchio is in Florence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense This is a tautology, no? There's plenty of great art being made today by people feeling the same emotions as those in the past.
Well "great" is rather subjective. But in terms of collective agreement we can conclusive say there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today. As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently. It consisted of a woman sitting in urine ...but with a kind message asking bystanders to please not poop in her tank.. The link if you fail to believe it. https://www.nytimes.com…
By its argument, people in wartorn nightmares should be making 'great art': Gaza, eastern Congo, etc. The most violent parts of the wealthy world should be where 'great art' comes from.
> there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today
Little is made like it was in the past, thankfully. It's not like it used to be. The world changes.
> As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently.
I think you'll need to convince people of that claim, especially given the unsophisticated old cliches expressed in this thread which don't seem to reflect much understanding.
> consisted of a woman sitting in urine
For example, that's all you understood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense This is a tautology, no? There's plenty of great art being made today by people feeling the same emotions as those in the past.
Well "great" is rather subjective. But in terms of collective agreement we can conclusive say there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today. As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently. It consisted of a woman sitting in urine ...but with a kind message asking bystanders to please not poop in her tank.. The link if you fail to believe it. https://www.nytimes.com…
Yes, but you claimed there was no great art in the "classical sense." Of course there's not; if it was contemporary then it wouldn't be classical.
Adding to that, your single data point to show the apparent vacuity of contemporary art which we can collectively agree on isn't very convincing at all when a dozen counter examples could trivially be found.
And all that while you admit yourself that what you're saying is completely subjective in any case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those with the means to produce it don't have any great emotions. Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.
there are incredibly wide swathes of society which go on about modern decadence and have outsized respect for violence as being somehow ennobling. As an example some people think the tough guys of the past who killed each other over women's handkerchiefs were real men and possessed of emotions more potent than those of the girly men that exist nowadays. This is not necessarily what was being claimed, just that there…
Are you so certain that there are no longer groups with strict rules that feature individuals who enact violence upon each other over those rules?
Hell, they'll even fight over a lady wearing the wrong color, and fight in attempts to get ladies to wear their colors rather than the rivals'.
The act is perhaps less frequent, but I have no idea to the historical prevalence of such behavior as opposed to the prevalence of its existence in the media of the time. For instance, I am sure that there were not all that many people rescuing fair maidens from towers, but it crops up in the art of the time fairly often.
But, the prevalence of the behavior is not really at issue so much as the particular emotions which I think still exist given the example of gang members killing each other over women just as the Venetians of old did.
Great art is rooted in the hardest of human emotion. Is why we look back to ancient culture with reverance and sometimes nostalgia. We wouldn't want to be there in the midst of the brawl, most of us moderns would rather jump from the bridge. But our human spirit and memory recognizes the suffering and sacrifices of the ancestors. It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense, as…
People in some moshpits would beg to differ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense This is a tautology, no? There's plenty of great art being made today by people feeling the same emotions as those in the past.
Well "great" is rather subjective. But in terms of collective agreement we can conclusive say there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today. As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently. It consisted of a woman sitting in urine ...but with a kind message asking bystanders to please not poop in her tank.. The link if you fail to believe it. https://www.nytimes.com…
van Gogh sold one painting in his life, Vermeer died in debt, and that's just off the top of my head.
And it goes all sorts of ways, too. Bach was relatively succesful in life, but then largely forgotten for decades after his death, but never saw anything like the current prevalence of his influence.
We really can't say, today, what our kids or kids kids will be studying in art history, what'll be referenced in popular culture, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there are incredibly wide swathes of society which go on about modern decadence and have outsized respect for violence as being somehow ennobling. As an example some people think the tough guys of the past who killed each other over women's handkerchiefs were real men and possessed of emotions more potent than those of the girly men that exist nowadays. This is not necessarily what was being claimed, just that there…
>The gang members beating the shit out of each other come from a community with strict rules about honor and fighting, and they fight over honor. Are you so certain that there are no longer groups with strict rules that feature individuals who enact violence upon each other over those rules? Hell, they'll even fight over a lady wearing the wrong color, and fight in attempts to get ladies to wear their colors rather t…
At any rate I was trying to demonstrate that there are lots of people who hold these ideas and thus it is somewhat absurd to assume someone who thinks these things must be an LLM, but it is also true that I went off on a tangent arguing that not just was it not a surefire tell that it was written by an LLM (that the poster had an opinion the person I responded to found absurd), but also that there were perhaps arguments for the view as first posted.
So I will now put it in a different way: it is often said that history does not exactly repeat itself but it rhymes, sure, there is some rhyming going on between gangs and duelists and Samurai and Pirates and people doing violence for kicks in bar fights, but generally words that rhyme also mean different things and are different words.
So humans are alike and different at the same time; yes they can have similar emotions, but it seems sensible that perhaps bravos dueling in Venice or Florence would have different emotions that we might not understand, even of a complicated sort, available to them than is currently experienced by most artists - as per the original post that started this subthread.