Random Thoughts Thread

[Mattias]

Are you even allowed to say you engage with art without having a glass of wine in your hand that's worth more than a few grand?

[Five_X]

I have a nice big tea mug with my initials on it.

[Mattias]

Can you swirl it around dramatically while talking down to the lower class? Or at least own a monocle?

[Five_X]

Are you trying to align me against the proletariat, you dastardly class traitor?

[Deathhappens]

Down with the bourgeoisie!

[Mattias]

OH HOHOHOHOHO

[Deathhappens]

OH HOHOHOHOHO

Αnd ESPECIALLY her!

[Ideofago]

Kant would say we "judge" art but I think that feels a bit too intentional and critical. You could say you engage with art, or maybe more passively you experience it, and aesthetics as a whole. "Engage with" is my favourite, since even if you go "wow big robot cool" it's still an engagement of a kind.

yknow what i decided i actually like saying consume because it sounds like im eating art but outright saying im eating art is too obviously silly so instead i say consume which is just obnoxiously silly which is very art i think

[Deathhappens]

yknow what i decided i actually like saying consume because it sounds like im eating art but outright saying im eating art is too obviously silly so instead i say consume which is just obnoxiously silly which is very art i think

Y'know, I've heard of "elevating stupidity into an art form", but I don't think this is what people generally mean when they say that...

[Snow]

yknow what i decided i actually like saying consume because it sounds like im eating art but outright saying im eating art is too obviously silly so instead i say consume which is just obnoxiously silly which is very art i think

I like this it also implies taking art in to become a part of yourself, art vore if you will

[Deathhappens]

Is appreciating art an external process wherein you receive something from the art and internalize it or an internal process wherein your reaction to the art is in itself the catalyst of internalizing it?

Does this sentence even make sense?

[Comun]

The question makes sense. I think it's the former for me, but the answer always changes from person to person. I'd say it depends a lot on how much you liked your high school literature teacher and what they had to say.

[Five_X]

Art is like a pineapple, it's delicious but the tingly feeling you get from it is actually it trying to devour you in response.

[Mattias]

Is there an art installation somewhere where it's just a video feed of people looking at another art piece earlier in the exhibit?

[Ideofago]

Is appreciating art an external process wherein you receive something from the art and internalize it or an internal process wherein your reaction to the art is in itself the process of internalizing it?

Does this sentence even make sense?

both

- - - Updated - - -

Is there an art installation somewhere where it's just a video feed of people looking at another art piece earlier in the exhibit?

i'm trying and can't find a specific time period to attach that to
but the concept of the relationship between artwork and consumer has been the talk of the town for quite a while, and putting the consumer as the figure in question seems a very obvious way

a mirror would be more effective, honestly

[Mattias]

The true 3000 IQ play would be to have a shitty art piece at the start, but treat it as the hypest thing in the show. Then ten minutes in have the camera feed and a "hey look at these posers" sign. Then have a third one later focused on the second one saying "watch their faces for the moment they realize that they were on the first screen ten minutes ago", and fill that room with a bunch of obvious places for a hidden camera, so they start looking for it, even though it isn't there.

Fuck, I've seen what the Art Gallery of Canada buys, it can't be worse than 'Voice of Fire'.

[Deathhappens]

The joke is that once you're past 1 to 1 drawings of people or environments and whatnot there's no such thing as shitty art. You could lock an art critic in a padded room and they'd still find artistic merit in it. I think Ratman had a good take on the subject somewhere somewhen not very long ago, let me see if I can unearth it

- - - Updated - - -

found it

No, actually, let me get further hung up on this one word you used in context I don't really care about.

What you're basically saying is 'most people would agree Quasimodo looks fucked up because of the eye and jaw'. Now, I am a sculptor. This causes certain deformations in aesthetics. When I look at an ass, I calculate its weight and fat ratio and try to figure out whether it's supported by the thigh fat or hanging on the pelvic muscles, which will give it somewhat different motion dynamics within which lie aesthetic values deeper than just your old 'the ass was fat'. At some point during this process of aesthetic deformation, Quasimodo begins to look beautiful, as I come to appreciate the way his weight shifts as he moves to constantly support his hunched back. Should I make a statue of Quasimodo? Maybe, but for the most part this will be appreciated by people with similar sensibilities.

If I went into the opposite direction and made a statue of perfectly symmetrical Roogi Shicky, Dullahan would walk into the atelier and knock it over and say that such a lifeless schizoid construct could only have been conceived by a sick mind twisted by the craving for that which it does not truly understand and cannot accept in its true form. But I'm sure some otaku could also walk in and think it looks neat.

Art academia (and the people who publish those papers) is basically that, a bunch of nepotistic circlejerks between people who share some or most of their deformations in their aesthetic sensibilities. I should know, I'm a part of it. If you try to make commercial art, and try to figure out what the fundamental aestethic values of mankind are, you will quickly find out that these values are dictated by culture, which is to say, fashion trends exist. Right now we just happen to be pretty deep into the schizoid construct territory.

tl;dr symmetry is not a fundamental figural or facial aestehic. A study which demonstrates that 'humans like symmetric faces' probably isn't showing a truly symmetric face because it doesn't exist, it's showing something that looks close enough that the audience and test-maker thinks it is. Rough symmetry is no symmetry at all, one detail deforms the entire thing. You can't even say that the body develops symmetrically, because brain hemispheres and the heart exist. Cavemen were more interested in drawing animals from the side than drawing them from the front.

Big tits, however, are a truly universal value.

[pinetree]

Is there an art installation somewhere where it's just a video feed of people looking at another art piece earlier in the exhibit?

Yeah, reaction videos are very popular.

[Ideofago]

The joke is that once you're past 1 to 1 drawings of people or environments and whatnot there's no such thing as shitty art. You could lock an art critic in a padded room and they'd still find artistic merit in it. I think Ratman had a good take on the subject somewhere somewhen not very long ago, let me see if I can unearth it

- - - Updated - - -

found it

honestly for this discussion to even begin to be worth it we would have to go to unspeakable conceptual lengths that would not either be worth it

[Petrikow]

The words of a coward.