41–50 of 51 posts
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 ar…
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!
Plenty people out there applying academic rigor and discipline to discourse on this subject. This is not that.
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?
The art of explanation, and communication, is finding enlightening ways to make sure your audience understands your frame, even if some will find it repetitive, while others to stretch to grasp it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Any reccomendations on a paticular documentary? Or better yet a biography? Have been meaning to read one on Warhol.
A job soon to be taken over by successors to GPT-3. Soon, the chattering classes will be automated out of jobs.
This is a very HN/SV take right here. Most technologists are philistines (hence the obsession with art automation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find these categories to be self explanatory. How would an example help you here?
As good writers expand their audience, they slowly narrow the things they consider self-explanatory, because the wider your audience, the fewer shared understandings they all have. The art of explanation, and communication, is finding enlightening ways to make sure your audience understands your frame, even if some will find it repetitive, while others to stretch to grasp it.
[1] https://www.frieze.com/article/ourselves-and-our-origins-sub...