I'm 200 pages into a book on the economics of contemporary art and while I've learned scads of things and have had my perspective on "art" revised almost completely, the greatest impact it has had, as far as this discussion goes, is why do we keep asking this fucking question? What do we get out of it? There will never be a time where someone will make a thing, someone else will love it, and still someone else will hate it. No amount of arguing over the objectivity or subjectivity of art will change that. Brilliant technicians will continue to go ignored, opportunistic hacks will continue to get rich and the glitterati will continue to pay millions of dollars for mundane objects of special provenance to annoy their friends. So what do we really get out of this discussion, considering it is truly the pseudointellectual sound of one hand clapping?
It's a perfectly valid question. I got a lot out of reading the different opinions below. I think what you mean is this: "I kleinbl00, now 200 pages into a book on the economics of contemporary art, get nothing out of this discussion. Since I am not interested in this discussion, the question must be a "fucking question" and any subsequent discussion is "the pseudointellectual sound of one hand clapping?" My honest answer-seeking question is this: What do you get out of dismissing the question (and to some extent, the questioner). If you think the questioner is being disingenuous or just wants attention, then ignore, but cco did some work preparing this question and seems to care. My guess is cco is half your age and is exploring questions like this for the first time. Others will do the same and will be referred to this discussion. I love you kb, as you know, even more than _refugee_ -- and I am here to STAND UP for questions and questioners. ok, I put on my bicycle helmet: Come at me.why do we keep asking this fucking question?
So what do we really get out of this discussion, considering it is truly the pseudointellectual sound of one hand clapping?
It's not, though. It's the same opinions that always come up, none of which have any basis in anything but "here's how I feel about this" which gets answered with "but here's how I feel about this so you're wrong" when the very nature of the discussion is "what is art?" I mean, this was two weeks ago: That "I read a book" quip is my way of saying "rather than staring into my navel like usual and shouting for the echo, I've actually dug a little deeper into the discussion and now not only do I no longer have any patience for this discussion, I'm beginning to recognize it's mostly asked and answered by people who have zero interest in reading a book." Why does it piss me off? because it's the ONLY question we ask about art. HUBSKI: Let's argue what is or isn't art for the nth time.
In two weeks, I will be seeing three Shakespeare plays over two days. I want to be totally immersed in the play. I want it to take me unquestioningly into the stage world, and ideally for me also Shakespeare's world and also the shared experience with my fellow play-goers. What I do not want to do is suddenly be asking, "What the fuck?" What's the director thinking? Why did they do that? Isn't there a better way to deliver those lines? If I start asking questions during the play - that's a bad thing. I would like to ask some questions after the play: How many layers of meaning are in those beautiful lines? What happened there that made me cry - how did they do it? Why is the villain the most charismatic character in this play... and questions like that. What I am describing above is transferable to other art experiences like film, but perhaps not visual art.
Excellent points. So let me get this straight. You are saying, let's not ask: "Am I being objective or subjective? Is this bad art or good art?" Let's say what's good and not so good, back up our opinions with thoughtful information about literature or art, and invite a response. Is that it?
I'm saying "let's not take a vital discussion and back it up to meaningless abstractions to the point where it can contain both '50Shades is objectively crap' and 'I suspect that even objectivity is to an extent subjective - but the scientists might disagree.'" "What is art and why?" is broad. "Is contemporary art 'art'?" is broad. Any framing of the discussion that allows someone to strawman up a harlequin romance into making a point that encompasses Picasso and Renoir isn't raising the tenor of the discussion, it's lowering it.
Agreed While I still maintain that the OP has a right to ask his original question, there are much better questions like, "Whose opinion of art, film, whatever, is worth paying attention to?" The NYT Book Review article posted here addresses that. I ignore a lot of #askhubski questions for many reasons: time, do I want to engage?, etc. But probably mostly because it might not be the best question for the situation under discussion. Thanks for that insight. Every question contains several underlying assumptions that turn the question one way or another. I think what you've pointed out is that the "fucking question" you referred to is one of those - and there are better questions. Thanks kb.
It makes people feel safer if they can rank things, klein. It makes us think that the world is quantifiable, measurable, cut-out-and-sew-up-neatly-able. If we can say what makes good art we can effectively say "This is right" and "this is wrong" and nothing makes a person feel better than being right. Emotions are gooey and ooey and so we try to negate them, with discussions like "Can art be objective? What is good art?" Instead I guess we could all go around looking at things and reading things and then feeling the things those things make us feel, but that...that would be like acknowledging there is no universal truth. Maybe like Kim Davis admitting that other peoples' happiness and marriages don't impact hers. Maybe that's why.
But we can't. We never do. It goes like this: A: "I have an opinion!" B: "I also have an opinion." C: "I like art." D: "Fuck art." A: "You are not contributing to the discussion." D: "The discussion is facile." E: "What does facile mean?" D: "It means this whole discussion is the infinite loop of discussion boards." CALL ME D
I had such trouble with this ideal growing up in a really strict religious home. There is such a severe amount of security in knowing there is an order of things. When I grew up I became so confused and honestly terrified by the idea that it is EXTREMELY possible that life makes no sense, that no matter what I did everything still wouldn't amount to much universally speaking. It was honestly the toughest thing to unlearn and honestly I have to keep working at it from time to time. Although even now I still hold some things to be universally true.
There is honestly only one I really consider universal and that is the respect for life. Even then I question that. I think my belief stems from the idea that if it wasn't some universal principle then I'm saying in some circumstance killing, and the ruining of peoples lives could be completely acceptable. My view on it now is that although we may not be able to protect life in every circumstance there is still some weight, some moral imperative to protect life no matter the circumstance.