Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7seos wrote

Reply to comment by ourobor0s_ in thorns and berries, me, graphite, 2022 by sime1art

That’s what makes art interesting. If you wanna go paint a pretty sunrise with birds chirping because it’s pretty then that’s fine but I’m not gonna look at it or think about it for very long if it’s just surface value, Unless of course you have more to offer in the landscape.

1

ourobor0s_ t1_iu7uq4t wrote

it can make art interesting, yes. if an artist makes a piece as an obvious metaphor then it is the obvious intent of the artist for their metaphor to be understood. that being said, art does not exist purely as a vessel for metaphor. there are many pieces I can point you to that aren't "a pretty sunrise with birds chirping" that definitely convey a message without something being a concrete representation of something else. often art is an interaction between the art and viewer in that the emotion it creates in the viewer is part of the experience. this kind of thing can't always be put into words. so I personally think it's almost insulting to artists who aren't creating a political cartoon or a concept album (or other forms of obvious metaphor) to try and overanalyze something to the point of thinking everything represents something concrete. often it doesn't.

also why did you respond to me three times?

2

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7v3ip wrote

Well In that case hopefully that artist is never put in an art school where they have to write about their work. Your opinion is perfectly valid. Im just done stating mine because people downvoted me to fuck for expressing it.

0

ramrug t1_iu8hxpz wrote

I'm genuinely curious now. Why do they have to write about their work in art school? I can understand if they have to explain how they created it, like the techniques they used. But what's the purpose of a story? Is it some kind of multidisciplinary course where they need to be both good painters and good writers to get good grades?

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu8ps3j wrote

Becusse art is an academic discipline and not just about self pleasure

0

ramrug t1_iu8rxrt wrote

But the story is also self pleasure. It's just another piece of creative work in addition to the painting.

3

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu8uv9h wrote

It’s not a literal story it’s meant to explain you as an artist and why what you’re doing is worthwhile

1

twinhighmaintenance t1_iu8gmx8 wrote

I think you're perhaps confusing description for content.

If you don't see how any works of art are interesting without having them described to you by the artist or a curator, then that does not mean the artist or curator should describe it to you. That is a You Problem.

Now, if the artist were in a school or competition, where they have to describe art in order to complete some sort of goal like a qualification or to win a prize, then there is an expectation to describe it.

But that isn't related to the content of the art. The content is still there regardless of the description or criticism.

I guess earlier you weren't trying to moralise about art and gatekeep art, and were just wanting to express an opinion you have about what you'd like from artists, however the way you expressed your opinion was definitely moralising, demanding, and inferred that any opinion other than yours isn't valid. So I guess that's why you have been heavily criticised by art community over it.

1