"children are the best artists" - picasso13/f/taiwan wrote:
"we're all artist in our own special way" -7th grade teacher
"those who do, work; those who don't, rule" -henry mckinley
"If you live in a glass house, don't be chucking stuff about."
"I find that if you just talk, your mouth comes up with stuff."
he didn't mean that literallyCybargs wrote:
"children are the best artists" - picasso13/f/taiwan wrote:
"we're all artist in our own special way" -7th grade teacher
"my 5th graders can paint better than you" high school art teacherUzique The Lesser wrote:
he didn't mean that literallyCybargs wrote:
"children are the best artists" - picasso13/f/taiwan wrote:
"we're all artist in our own special way" -7th grade teacher
crushed my dreams to become an aspiring artist
Because quality painting and photography, like any other art form, requires an eye for it.
And culture. Like I give a f*ck what someone has of that. Like that has any relevance outside of your circle.
But back to Like science pics. What degree of insecurity one must have to even be marginally annoyed about someone else's false sense of being into it. So what? Just smile and move on.
And culture. Like I give a f*ck what someone has of that. Like that has any relevance outside of your circle.
But back to Like science pics. What degree of insecurity one must have to even be marginally annoyed about someone else's false sense of being into it. So what? Just smile and move on.
Does one especially need a background in fine arts to appreciate beauty when they see it? I can understand how that would help if you want to have some sort of discussion about the meaning of the piece. The problem with a bunch of uninformed "science fans" is that they're generally not critical consumers of information and often lead to ignorance perpetuating more ignorance.
Obviously an issue only in the science world.
you have to develop an eye for beauty. if you are untrained or don't have an aesthetic sensibility, how are you to appreciate a painter or sculptor's work? this is dilettantism of the worst kind. only an american would ask this sort of question. if science requires specialist knowledge, why is an art different? the "ignorance perpetuating ignorance" problem is as much a concern in art as in science. people who dismiss "culture", mostly because they have none, are trivial. ilo clearly only conceives of culture as something functional, to benefit his own fashionable accoutrement and 'lifestyle'.DesertFox- wrote:
Does one especially need a background in fine arts to appreciate beauty when they see it? I can understand how that would help if you want to have some sort of discussion about the meaning of the piece. The problem with a bunch of uninformed "science fans" is that they're generally not critical consumers of information and often lead to ignorance perpetuating more ignorance.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-24 11:04:08)
when you live in a society that isn't the materially obsessed american one, 'culture' accounts for quite a lot more of your social status and standing than your disposable income. class in europe is generally determined as much by social mannerism, etiquette, culturedness etc. as by what car you drive, or whether or not your kids are being groomed to work at the salk institute. this may shock you.Ilocano wrote:
And culture. Like I give a f*ck what someone has of that. Like that has any relevance outside of your circle.
You've got to get off your high horse about culture. The average Brit and American are just as uninformed about art and don't you deny it. Identifying beauty is not a skill you learn, either. Granted, people have different standards for that, which explains why people will buy both horrible, kitschy items and modern art what-the-fuck-is-that pieces.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you have to develop an eye for beauty. if you are untrained or don't have an aesthetic sensibility, how are you to appreciate a painter or sculptor's work? this is dilettantism of the worst kind. only an american would ask this sort of question. if science requires specialist knowledge, why is an art different? the "ignorance perpetuating ignorance" problem is as much a concern in art as in science. people who dismiss "culture", mostly because they have none, are trivial. ilo clearly only conceives of culture as something functional, to benefit his own fashionable accoutrement and 'lifestyle'.DesertFox- wrote:
Does one especially need a background in fine arts to appreciate beauty when they see it? I can understand how that would help if you want to have some sort of discussion about the meaning of the piece. The problem with a bunch of uninformed "science fans" is that they're generally not critical consumers of information and often lead to ignorance perpetuating more ignorance.
The people who pay abhorrent amounts for a paint splash from a jet wash just because of the person who held the bucket.
Social status means nothing to me. I'd rather drink beer with some janitor than have tea with your royal family.
yeah right okay, that's why you constantly brag about the aspirations you have pinned on your kids, or your middle-class lifestyle. please. you are full of it. you're just like dilbert. fine with class and matters of wealth until it comes to some part of culture or society that you feel shut-out from or ill-disposed to. such a thin charade.Ilocano wrote:
Social status means nothing to me. I'd rather drink beer with some janitor than have tea with your royal family.
and no desert, kitsch and modern conceptual art are kind of their own thing. they don't really overlap with the classical art work. classical art abhors kitsch, and has a huge conflict with modern conceptual art, too. conflating the taste of people interested in 'beauty', which denotes a classical-traditional conception of art and aesthetics, with people that are into trendy young conceptual stuff... is a huge error. they are like different 'disciplines', if you will. like confusing the interests and area of the biologist with the physicist, if that rough analogy holds any water.
and yes, identifying certain forms of beauty is entirely a skill you learn. or let me guess: you think art critics are swooning idiots? "it's all subjective, man". oh okay. we're into serious intellectual waters now.
are no different in the art-market that people who buy a gauguin because of its famous provenance. art buyers are art buyers. rarely are they actually art appreciators. that's why the best art collections are all in private institutions, or state-owned. the private art market is about prospecting and making money, no matter what. the "abhorrent amount of money" is normally always divorced from instrinsic artistic merit. putting an artwork through the process of reification is a crude approximation.Ilocano wrote:
The people who pay abhorrent amounts for a paint splash from a jet wash just because of the person who held the bucket.
ok don ilocanoIlocano wrote:
Social status means nothing to me. I'd rather drink beer with some janitor than have tea with your royal family.
We can agree on something, there. I'll admit I don't have a great deal of experience reading contemporary art criticism, and no, I never said that. I do think that there is a certain amount of bullshittery you do so you look like you know what you're talking about, which is why there have been those social experiments getting critics to praise the work of fake artists.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah right okay, that's why you constantly brag about the aspirations you have pinned on your kids, or your middle-class lifestyle. please. you are full of it. you're just like dilbert. fine with class and matters of wealth until it comes to some part of culture or society that you feel shut-out from or ill-disposed to. such a thin charade.Ilocano wrote:
Social status means nothing to me. I'd rather drink beer with some janitor than have tea with your royal family.
and no desert, kitsch and modern conceptual art are kind of their own thing. they don't really overlap with the classical art work. classical art abhors kitsch, and has a huge conflict with modern conceptual art, too. conflating the taste of people interested in 'beauty', which denotes a classical-traditional conception of art and aesthetics, with people that are into trendy young conceptual stuff... is a huge error. they are like different 'disciplines', if you will. like confusing the interests and area of the biologist with the physicist, if that rough analogy holds any water.
and yes, identifying certain forms of beauty is entirely a skill you learn. or let me guess: you think art critics are swooning idiots? "it's all subjective, man". oh okay. we're into serious intellectual waters now.
i don't think it's bullshittery to dupe a critic into praising a "fake artist". i think it's just a dupe. it's doesn't invalidate taste or discerning of good work. that's a completely specious and silly hoax. it's the sort of bullshit a science-type would delight in because "it's all bullshit", simply because there are no empirical yes/no, right/wrong, good/bad distinctions in art. "bullshittery"... i'm exasperated by this term. keep on engineering.
It doesn't. Money is a means, not an end all. I don't judge based on social status or degree of culture.Cybargs wrote:
ok don ilocanoIlocano wrote:
Social status means nothing to me. I'd rather drink beer with some janitor than have tea with your royal family.
if money is not an end at all then why are you constantly talking about how your children are going to go into high-paying jobs. if money is just a means, not an end, why aren't you encouraging them to become professional dancers, and follow their hobbies?
because they have asian hobbies to become a corporate manager or engineer at nasa or some asian shit.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
if money is not an end at all then why are you constantly talking about how your children are going to go into high-paying jobs. if money is just a means, not an end, why aren't you encouraging them to become professional dancers, and follow their hobbies?
High paying jobs are still a means.
a means to an awesome life of going to galleries to look at art because it's the done thing to do, right?
and no, most people who are not bothered about status or culture would say that college is for broadening the mind and becoming intellectually well-rounded. not taking a subject that will lead to a high-paying job. that's a very means-based conception of college. so again: why aren't your kids going to study music at college? just seems confusing that you profess to be so indifferent about class and money, but then everything seems quite... money-centric. nevermind. cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.
and no, most people who are not bothered about status or culture would say that college is for broadening the mind and becoming intellectually well-rounded. not taking a subject that will lead to a high-paying job. that's a very means-based conception of college. so again: why aren't your kids going to study music at college? just seems confusing that you profess to be so indifferent about class and money, but then everything seems quite... money-centric. nevermind. cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.
No, those people fall into 1 of 2 categories.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
most people who are not bothered about status or culture would say that college is for broadening the mind and becoming intellectually well-rounded.
a. Idiots.
b. Trust fund babies.