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

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#31

Post by yladiz »

pizzathyme wrote: post #29
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

It's really impossible to separate good and bad are from your own subjective opinion, as there is no true objective criteria that you can judge art by. There are criteria that can be chosen -- for example, how did the artist apply light to their painting -- but these criteria 1. depend on the specific kind of art (in the same vain, not all paintings utilize light in the same way or for the same purpose) and 2. are inherently subjective because they are being chosen by a subjective being.

The closest we can maybe come to being able to objectively judging art is as a collective/society saying that some art is good, and that the opinion holds true over time.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#32

Post by oldstrangers »

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…

What you appreciate is the "craft" of art. Which is great, the work of talented artists that are able to craft amazing scenes and stories is truly beautiful. Eventually though, you need something more than just the aesthetics of it all.

I think its safe to argue that after thousands of years of art, we (the viewer) evolved to want more from it all, and the art world responded in kind.

A really subversive piece of art work (Ai Weiwei) is a lot more stimulating than a beautiful portrait (Rembrandt).

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#33

Post by vonnik »

This essay would have been 10x better if the author had included at least one concrete example of every category they were attempting to use in their framework; eg

> Art that is good and to your taste

> Art that is bad and to your taste

> Art that is good and not to your taste

> Art that is bad and not to your taste.

Just tell me what you mean so that I can figure out whether I agree or not, please!

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#34

Post by oldstrangers »

causality0 wrote: post #11
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.

If there's a piece of art out there that can demonstrably make the world a worse place, than that's a pretty compelling piece of art.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#35

Post by [deleted] »

yladiz wrote: post #31
pizzathyme wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's really impossible to separate good and bad are from your own subjective opinion, as there is no true objective criteria that you can judge art by. There are criteria that can be chosen -- for example, how did the artist apply light to their painting -- but these criteria 1. depend on the specific kind of art (in the same vain, not all paintings utilize light in the same way or for the same purpose) and 2. are in…

[deleted]

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#37

Post by lhorie »

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…

But that sentence isn't arguing for the notion of some "absolute good art". If I had to criticize it, it would be to say it doesn't go far enough by still accepting the concept of good vs bad art, whereas I think interesting discussions are multidimensional.

For example, why do you defend archeological architecture? Are the pyramids "good" because they are opulent? That sounds like a sensible stance at a glance, but then what of the Burj Khalifa?

Is Calvin and Hobbes not acclaimed? Is it not art? What of obscure manga about gender identity?

Why is Turning Red controversial? Who is it relatable to, and does that matter?

Suddenly equating one's opinion w/ "good vs bad" seems superficial. There's historical context, there's political commentary, and commentary on the commentary, and how that shapes the rest of the contemporary works.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#38

Post by stagas »

I believe there is a category error when we try to say anything about art as art is a mode of being or a mode of experience which cannot be put into words, the same way we can't talk about what the color red looks like or explain what the sea or the sky look like. They can only be experienced. Now, when I see someone talking about "art", there is probably a hidden word next to it they are referring to. It could be art "industry" or art "people" or art "culture" but never art in itself. Even what i'm saying now is not about art, i'm really talking about art "discourse" and art "experience". But they're still away from the thing in itself which cannot be put into words. You just feel it and when it's felt, you can call that art and noone has to agree with you.

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#39

Post by myownpetard »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #22
myownpetard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I don't think I've ever heard such a circumscribed definition of art before. Did you get this conception of art from somewhere or is it just a personal redefinition of the word?

Re: To speak meaningfully about art

#40

Post by 4lp »

vonnik wrote: post #33

This essay would have been 10x better if the author had included at least one concrete example of every category they were attempting to use in their framework; eg > Art that is good and to your taste > Art that is bad and to your taste > Art that is good and not to your taste > Art that is bad and not to your taste. Just tell me what you mean so that I can figure out whether I agree or not, please!

I find these categories to be self explanatory. How would an example help you here?
Post reply on HN