The Truth about Modern "Art"

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Truth about Modern "Art"

Post by Terrapin Station »

Dubious wrote:I never heard of one's Weltanschauung expressed like that before. My condolences! Nevertheless, there was obviously some input necessary by the artist in creating his output. It was a stroke of genius when he labeled it but seriously, how do we know that any reprocessed escargot feast was his creation; that our tribute to his genius wasn't misplaced? To confirm validity would require some DNA testing...before investing.
None of that would matter to me. When I say that I like a work, I'm not saying anything that hinges on who actually created it, what their intentions were, or anything about its socio-historical context or anything like that. I'm saying that I like it as an aesthetic object or process, that it aesthetically appeals to me. Maybe it was accidental, or the person who claimed to make it didn't actually make it, maybe a computer made it, maybe it was a found natural object, etc. None of that matters to me, at least insofar as appreciating it as an aesthetic object. I might be interested in those sorts of things more on a trivial level.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Truth about Modern "Art"

Post by Terrapin Station »

Arising_uk wrote:
Pluto wrote:... And who are you to tell me about what poetry is.
I'd have thought that was the point of the video? We are your objective standard not you.
Except that people aren't objective, and saying that lots of people are or make right, are or make objective standards just because they agree with each other is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
If not then art is just what you think it is and I'm an artist just because I think I am and by this definition I can be one without doing any actual work which makes it all pretty much a meaningless pursuit but then maybe it is.
You can call yourself whatever you like. It won't amount to much without other people playing along.

That's what this comes down to. Play along with the stuff that you agree with and like, and ignore the other stuff. We don't need anyone to be objectively right (about what's really art, what's really good and bad, etc.) for that to work.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Truth about Modern "Art"

Post by Arising_uk »

Terrapin Station wrote:Except that people aren't objective, and saying that lots of people are or make right, are or make objective standards just because they agree with each other is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. ...
Fair enough, "We are your standard."
You can call yourself whatever you like. It won't amount to much without other people playing along.
In other words a standard?
That's what this comes down to. Play along with the stuff that you agree with and like, and ignore the other stuff. We don't need anyone to be objectively right (about what's really art, what's really good and bad, etc.) for that to work.
Ok but if no-one agrees or likes it then are you still an artist or just a very bad one?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Truth about Modern "Art"

Post by Terrapin Station »

Arising_uk wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:Except that people aren't objective, and saying that lots of people are or make right, are or make objective standards just because they agree with each other is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. ...
Fair enough, "We are your standard."
You can call yourself whatever you like. It won't amount to much without other people playing along.
In other words a standard?
If that's what you consider a standard.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that people don't like and dislike things in ways where lots of other people follow suit with them for sociological and psychological reasons. So that wouldn't be the issue here.
That's what this comes down to. Play along with the stuff that you agree with and like, and ignore the other stuff. We don't need anyone to be objectively right (about what's really art, what's really good and bad, etc.) for that to work.
Ok but if no-one agrees or likes it then are you still an artist or just a very bad one?
You're an artist to the people who consider you an artist (including yourself), and not an artist to the people who do not consider you an artist, and a good or bad one per individuals' assessment of your work. There aren't answers to those sorts of questions aside from/independent of what individuals think--which is just the point.
Post Reply