Originally Posted by
allah
Everything has "unifying characteristics" but the depth of a person can be measured by their determination to define things as categorically as their abilities allow. It’s exactly because the word art has unifying characteristics ad infintum that the term is so hopelessly stupid in the first place. If Byzantine architecture is art to me, and TV soap opera is art for you, and if the word art covers both things in their respective conversations equally (which it does), then there is a fatal flaw in that word’s descriptive power. The word art only serves to confuse where there should be no confusion and give the pretence of equality between humans where no equality exists.
The only way to talk meaningfully about the things you like is to do exactly that; explain why you like them. It is that simple!! If you cannot construe why Bosch's paintings are art then Bosch is not art to you; one need not mask their perfectly natural ignorance with cowardly ambiguity. It’s a horrible, pathetic way to give oneself reassurance because its based on the feeling that you should think a certain thing despite the fact that you cannot! This works both ways, so even though I like Bosch, I do not attempt to put my tastes on a pedestal with those of my superiors unless I am able to by fighting tooth and nail, in which case it’s unlikely that they really are my superiors. Bosch is what Bosch is, but it can be more or less art depending on the observer. High art is merely that which is admired by whomever has only enough intelligence to understand it. There is no difference between art and high art; they are the same thing just not for the same person at exactly the same time. You have to keep moving! But nobody should feel ashamed when their instinct tells them that their evaluations of art are less than anyone else’s so long as they’ve exhausted their analytical skills trying to discern why, because we can hardly be blamed for using only the tools at our disposal. In fact this last sentence may be way too forgiving because where there is instinct there is usually room to improve; all it takes is honesty, fortitude and that most holy of faculties, and my pet-favourite: masochism with intent!
The problem of explaining what art is occurs when someone is already able to explain the things they obviously like but are unable to explain the things that their instinct tells them they should like. Their instinct is probably right but they are not ready to call it art until they try a fuck load harder. There are no special rules regarding art. It must come under the same scrutiny as everything else and I’ve found that one of the first benefits of this scrutiny is the realisation that if ever a word needed to be gotten over, it’s this one. To use a colourful analogy: typographic man is, at heart, a destructive being and when his tools are not sharp enough he cannot use them to dig deeper his coffin. It’s like replacing all the letters in the English alphabet, A through to Z, with X. This symbol wouldn’t be enough for intelligent people to communicate with in written code; they’d need more symbols, more consonants, and at some stage HTML. Where gaps in our understanding occur we shouldn’t stuff them with nonsense, we should begin the long hard road to explaining them. For example, imagine if this inane attitude was used in the sciences; we’d never have looked deeper than our skin, never would have stopped to consider our organs, never discovered cells, never discovered our molecular composition and ultimately DNA. Take this as you will, but even if you think that the arts and sciences are subject to different rules (an attitude I think of as largely a cop-out) you have to admire the superior work ethic.
I repeat, the only meaningful way to talk about the things you like is to explain why you like them. When a word becomes so vulgar in its inadequacy, so repugnant and useless so as to describe everything and nothing, I fuck it away. Most of my aggression comes not from the fact that when people usually use the word art they have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about at all, but from its prevalent use by people under pressure to disguise their natural ignorance. It’s like, well as soon as they say “its art” the conversation is supposed to be over. Its not fucking over retards, it hasn’t even begun!! To the best of my knowledge I personally have never used the word art in defence of my tastes, at least not since I’ve become an adult. For example I spend quite a lot of my time making, or trying to make music. I’d never call it art. If asked for an explanation of what we do, I would explain what instruments and techniques we use (this is the most important) and then explain exactly what the lyrics were intended to mean and finally why various juxtapositions are used instead of others. This is the only meaningful way I can talk about the music I’m involved in.
You’ll notice I’ve used the word Art a lot in my argument. That in itself means nothing except how god-awfully stupid this language can be. I shouldn’t have to (except maybe as a term of denigration). And if the word art is kinda dumb then don’t even get me started on the word artist. I reserve an enormous black font full of scorn and hate deep within my stomach for that one...
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Personal Message
alt models and failing at life
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage
Bookmarks