The problem is part of my life is being an artist which means incorporating the things I’ve learned that I want people to understand into my artistic work.
Have you ever considered that artist don’t actually owe you something?
do you know what a thought exercise is? You’re saying that you derived ideas from the works you cited, which is the entire point of a thought exercise. A thought exercise or an experiment in technique is different to a finished work; these fucking people belong in textbooks for artists, not museums, because they are not expressing anything. If you’re getting some emotions expressed at you from these works, you most likely get them from blank walls and stains in wood as well; you are the artist in that situation, not them.
Have you ever considered that artist don’t actually owe you something?
They owe me loads; I paid taxes which housed the works that pushed out the curative attention that society has a limited amount of, over works that would have been much more deserving and poisoned YOUR OWN FIELD OF ENDEAVOUR.
Those fucking people literally ruined the world of paintings, and you’re there continuing to encourage them.
so you think that the purpose of visual arts is literally nothing more than to express emotions and aesthetic beauty? Is that seriously the only kind of “expression” that you can imagine?
Something to think about: here is an artist very clearly explaining to you that they got something out of these works that you obviously missed or did not perceive and you’re not even a little bit curious as to what it might be, already deciding that there is no way there is anything of value there, and I think that’s just very unfortunate
so you think that the purpose of visual arts is literally nothing more than to express emotions and aesthetic beauty?
I actually indicated that there is another aspect to it, but since you’re not pointing out your ideas completely, I’ll let you go back to my post and see if you can get it through the non-subtly expressed text I wrote.
here is an artist very clearly explaining to you that they got something out of these works that you obviously missed or did not perceive and you’re not even a little bit curious as to what it might be, already deciding that there is no way there is anything of value there, and I think that’s just very unfortunate
Yeah, I’d care if the works were distinct enough to express different emotions instead of “I dumped the paint on the canvas randomly, without fine motor control, good thing I have buds in the CIA” which, BTW is the point of this thread.
You literally said to me that as far as you can perceive, the works you cited are “not expressing anything” and then compared it to the emotional experience of staring at a blank wall. I really don’t know how I’m supposed to read this other than that you think these works of art are pointless because they don’t inspire emotions within you and that you literally have not wrapped your head around the things that they are actually expressing
Well, here’s the thing. There is a story about a writing assignment, where a student is asked to describe a street. They find it difficult. So the teacher asks them to describe a house. They still struggle. The teacher asks them to describe a wall. They still struggle. The teacher asks them to describe a brick. The student finds all kinds of interesting details to describe in the brick due to its texture, shapes of pores, etc.
The thing that you are missing is that the world around us is full of minuscule details and things that can spark our imagination and show us things if we sit there and consider them. These things are not created by auteurs, they simply exist, and its up to us to look at them in detail, and due to our humanity, we can extrapolate all kinds of ideas from them.
When I say “those works are not expressing anything” I am saying that the majority of the expression is being done by the interpreter. The same interpreter could look at a blank wall, and due to the details within that wall, they could see and think about all kinds of different things.
When someone goes for a walk in a naturally occurring forest, they have lots of different thoughts and emotions. Who is the artist?
My proposition is that if you actually have the balls to call yourself a artist, you need to put in some actual fucking effort and actually do something better than a brick does by existing. Because if you don’t , and what you make gets called art, it destroys the fucking meaning of the word ART, since if everything is art, nothing is art; since nothing separates things that are art from things that are not art.
The other point you are completely missing is that these works have value as instruction materials and thought experiments within the world of art to DEVELOP techniques; these works are unfinished and need to be contextualized in different ways in order to achieve something beyond possible techniques of applying paint to canvas. Take for example 4:33 by Cage; it is an effortless piece of shit that anyone can recreate, but it has value as a teaching material to let you be aware that silence in music is important, ambiental sounds can participate with and color your art in different ways, etc etc. It is not an expressive piece of music, but in terms of being a thought experiment to teach musicians, it’s very useful.
The problem is part of my life is being an artist which means incorporating the things I’ve learned that I want people to understand into my artistic work.
Have you ever considered that artist don’t actually owe you something?
do you know what a thought exercise is? You’re saying that you derived ideas from the works you cited, which is the entire point of a thought exercise. A thought exercise or an experiment in technique is different to a finished work; these fucking people belong in textbooks for artists, not museums, because they are not expressing anything. If you’re getting some emotions expressed at you from these works, you most likely get them from blank walls and stains in wood as well; you are the artist in that situation, not them.
They owe me loads; I paid taxes which housed the works that pushed out the curative attention that society has a limited amount of, over works that would have been much more deserving and poisoned YOUR OWN FIELD OF ENDEAVOUR.
Those fucking people literally ruined the world of paintings, and you’re there continuing to encourage them.
so you think that the purpose of visual arts is literally nothing more than to express emotions and aesthetic beauty? Is that seriously the only kind of “expression” that you can imagine?
Something to think about: here is an artist very clearly explaining to you that they got something out of these works that you obviously missed or did not perceive and you’re not even a little bit curious as to what it might be, already deciding that there is no way there is anything of value there, and I think that’s just very unfortunate
I actually indicated that there is another aspect to it, but since you’re not pointing out your ideas completely, I’ll let you go back to my post and see if you can get it through the non-subtly expressed text I wrote.
Yeah, I’d care if the works were distinct enough to express different emotions instead of “I dumped the paint on the canvas randomly, without fine motor control, good thing I have buds in the CIA” which, BTW is the point of this thread.
You literally said to me that as far as you can perceive, the works you cited are “not expressing anything” and then compared it to the emotional experience of staring at a blank wall. I really don’t know how I’m supposed to read this other than that you think these works of art are pointless because they don’t inspire emotions within you and that you literally have not wrapped your head around the things that they are actually expressing
Well, here’s the thing. There is a story about a writing assignment, where a student is asked to describe a street. They find it difficult. So the teacher asks them to describe a house. They still struggle. The teacher asks them to describe a wall. They still struggle. The teacher asks them to describe a brick. The student finds all kinds of interesting details to describe in the brick due to its texture, shapes of pores, etc.
The thing that you are missing is that the world around us is full of minuscule details and things that can spark our imagination and show us things if we sit there and consider them. These things are not created by auteurs, they simply exist, and its up to us to look at them in detail, and due to our humanity, we can extrapolate all kinds of ideas from them.
When I say “those works are not expressing anything” I am saying that the majority of the expression is being done by the interpreter. The same interpreter could look at a blank wall, and due to the details within that wall, they could see and think about all kinds of different things.
When someone goes for a walk in a naturally occurring forest, they have lots of different thoughts and emotions. Who is the artist?
My proposition is that if you actually have the balls to call yourself a artist, you need to put in some actual fucking effort and actually do something better than a brick does by existing. Because if you don’t , and what you make gets called art, it destroys the fucking meaning of the word ART, since if everything is art, nothing is art; since nothing separates things that are art from things that are not art.
The other point you are completely missing is that these works have value as instruction materials and thought experiments within the world of art to DEVELOP techniques; these works are unfinished and need to be contextualized in different ways in order to achieve something beyond possible techniques of applying paint to canvas. Take for example 4:33 by Cage; it is an effortless piece of shit that anyone can recreate, but it has value as a teaching material to let you be aware that silence in music is important, ambiental sounds can participate with and color your art in different ways, etc etc. It is not an expressive piece of music, but in terms of being a thought experiment to teach musicians, it’s very useful.