>>2927 That is a very good read, I also recommend watching a documentary called Exit through the gift shop, I think it was on channel 4 last night, you might be able to catch it on 4OD
>>2926 People who are heavily involved in the subject get incestuous and self-referential.
If it's good, art helps you make connections without you having to really work beyond paying attention. And connections are the basis of learning and understanding.
Watch the second part in the 'Expanded Conceptualism' talk on the channel.tate.org.uk site they just posted. That should clear things up a little. It's very interesting.
If you basically assume all art is useless and all of everything is actually just as useless because we could just opt of and die quicker: Then art really comes down to being a choice of a person to make and comunicate something through established (or newly established from previously established) art-media and then to call it art; By doing so it becomes something which can be discussed in the context of all previous art.
So, art can be seen as a kind of parrarlel to living (and being involved in a culture, and politcal culture) in a similar way that popscience is the paralel of science, but not itself science.
Of course aesthics and skills were a huge advantage to finding a mate in early human comunities. So it's a product of our evoloution. Height, skills and intelect were/are concidered sexy.
Asking 'what is art?' is a bit like asking 'what is music?'
There's so many different genres and styles to explore. But I do think it's good to read a bit about the artists too, find out what they were trying to do.
In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to understanding art is this prehistoric idea that it is all about portraying an object, and as accurately as possible. Give me some Jackson Pollock any day.
Always got a tad confused how people could 'understand' landscape paintings or classical paintings, however could not 'understand' a black square on a white canvas. I mean I don't even know why people think they have to 'understand' art.
>Always got a tad confused how people could 'understand' landscape paintings or classical paintings, however could not 'understand' a black square on a white canvas. I mean I don't even know why people think they have to 'understand' art.
Autist detected. You don't understand people. At all.
That's not even close to correct, though. There are entire musical styles dedicated to escaping repetition, and that definition pretty much rules out half of all popular classical music, too.
All you need to know about art is that if it's not some form of skillfully painted or sculpted piece of work with a classical or religious theme, lovely naked ladies (NO PUBES) are a bonus, then it's basically rubbish.
