Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

-domi- t1_j7yrizv wrote

I tried, and gave up after reading half of an article addressing Candice Bergen roles. For this to be interesting requires a lot of background knowledge and context, and I'm asking for a summary, so we can all appreciate why OP thought this was noteworthy.

Either help or don't, acting triggered helps nobody.

−31

V6Ga t1_j7ydctw wrote

> I think most art isn’t in the eye of the beholder as far as the artist is concerned at least, which is why most artwork comes with an artist statement.

I'd say most non-representational art is modern, pointing strongly at post-modern. I cannot really imagine a nonrepresentational artist who would not at least entertain the idea of death of the author being a valid talking point.

They certainly accept that there is a level of expertise in criticism, so they would not likely say that any and every person's opinion is of equal value, but I really have trouble imagining a non-representational author denying a suitably prepared viewer to take whatever reaction that viewer has to a piece.

Or in other words I have trouble making sense of a non-representation artist not allowing the beholder to exactly assign beauty, independent of the author/artist's intent.

1

V6Ga t1_j7yccjo wrote

I don't think they have a definition of art like that; rather they are frustrated that abstract art (or classical music, or opera) is given a place of honor in place of art they themselves enjoy.

Why is fine art given public monies, and sound systems are not? More people get enjoyment from sound systems than will ever even know that piece of art exists. And their enjoyment of sound systems is exactly about conveying a feeling or a vibe.

NB: I hate sound system music; but I am well aware that it is way more popular than any so-called fine art.

−4