Post by redonihunter in Question for whomever.

Viewing post in Question for whomever.

Urgh. Art comes from artisanship. Not many people have this in their mind when talking about "art". It has no inherent deep meaning. A cook creating a delicious meal also creates art. What is the "meaning" of the meal?

Just because someone expressed their feelings or tried to convey any meaning through the craft, does not make it a work of art. A diary would be art, if applying this logic.

There is the trope of the death of the author and I agree with that one. It basically says, the creator's interpretation of their work is no more valid than any other interpretation.

Sure, there is a tiny subset of art, where the creator actually tried to hide some meaning in it. Circumventing censorship comes to mind, that one has a very long tradition actually. Or often trying to put extra cleverness into the work that is not immediatly noticeable.

So, yeah, much of art discussion is too intellectual, and also too emotional. Pretentious. And a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes". No one wants to admit stupidity. So if acclaimed "artist" does wierd things or literal nonsense, a flock of art appraisers praise it, not taking into account the face value of the thing being garbage non art. The later works of Jackson Pollock come to mind. He painted "normally" first, but later did those dripping "art". After he was established, his stuff was art by definition, even when looking like random doodlings. It is like the fame of those Kardashians.

And often enough, acclaimed artists lose touch with reality and think what they do is art, just because they did it. Or because they put emotion in it. And if people do not understand their art, or dare to interpret it differently, it is the people's fault and not their own.

---

The Stanley Parable is a very clever 4th wall breaker game exploring the various ways a certain scenario could end, by looping the player around to try again differently. Since the game is all about easter egg hiding, no doubt the creators hid all sorts of things to be discovered or be interprated.

But applicability is a thing. We humans like to make associations where there are none. Simulacrum is term that describes part of the phenomenon. And it can be applied to works of art as well, when you find meaning in it. Sometimes the creator even hid that meaning in it for you to find.

But a creator should not whine, if the meaning found is not the meaning that was put in there. If that was the intention, the creator failed in that task. If the artisanship is well enough, that does not really matter, but it might hurt the ego of the artist.

Practically we could say that there are two skills. The art skill to make the art. And the skill of hiding meaning in such a work. Actually, there is a third skill, which is communication based and would descibe the ability to formulate the hidden meaning in a way that people could understand it. And my guess is, that many a artist forgets the third one and is hurt if people just do not understand them through their work.

Like Reply

mintykiwi336 days ago

I don't like the mud you're slinging at abstract art. Just because it looks nonsensical to YOU doesn't mean there's no technique involved. Paintings in the "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue" series have been vandalized multiple times-and the restorations look different in texture and depth to nearly everyone who sees them, despite being "just colors".

In fact, a good drip painting needs you to consider how to angle the canvas and how hard to drip the paint each time in order to give it layers of color and texture without using a brush. And that's without mentioning that they take days to dry. They're definitely not just some effortless thing.

And do you really think that cooking is art SOLELY because of how complicated the recipe is? do you think the deeper meaning of certain culturally important foods depend on? An apple dipped in honey on Rosh Hashanah is so heavily symbolic, and yet it only has two ingredients.

Like Reply

redonihunter336 days ago

Soo, what now? "Abstract" "Art" is difficult to make and therefore art? Was that some irony on your part, or did you really just now reuse my argument about artisanship? That it is art, because there is skill involved. Because, well, that is why cooking is also art, yet you seem to think it is not.

But you brought forth the explanation that it is complicated to make those dripping stuff, and hence is not effortless and hence is more than just colors (and therefore art).

But with both things, just because one does drip colors or prepares food, it does not say much about the skill involved. A display of great skill is needed to make it art, instead of just doodles or lunch.

You also seem to think that symbolism alone makes a thing art? Maybe this is translation issue. The grammar in your last paragraph is not clear. But no matter, intent, symbolism, meaning (deep or not), is all not enough to make a thing art. There is a reason for the term "a work of art". You still need the artwork for there to be art.

And, uhm, actually, where did you see me slinging mud at abstract art? If any, I slung mud at most of what people call art. It is the case of not wanting to admit stupidity. So "artists" can get away with delivering anything. No matter the merit of the work.

It is the same danger righteous people face. They did right and became righteous. But now, what they do is righteous because they do it, and no longer because it really is right.

I value stuff like the concept of death of the author and avoidance of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Considering something art, just because an artist made it, is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Like Reply

mintykiwi303 days ago

i sharted on your balls

Like Reply

itch.io

Viewing post in Question for whomever.