11

Show comments

4 comments

Art is ridiculous. Sure I appreciate looking at cool things, but at the end of the fucking day when Hemingway says the grass was green...HE MEANS THE GRASS WAS FUCKING GREEN! There isn't always an entire essay hidden in these small lines. There isn't always deeper meaning.

If you really want to get down to it, Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder. This saying is so true. That anon didn't mean anything more than what he displayed on the screen. But to other people's psyche it was totally different. People took angles on something that he never thought were even there. Even though this is just a .greentext, it points out some very real things.

Everything we do can be considered art. And if that is the case, then NOTHING is art and art never existed in the first place. The only thing that truly exists is our interpretation of the world around us. To each their own, and to all a good night.

[–] Sarcastaway 1 points (+1|-0)

That anon didn't mean anything more than what he displayed on the screen. But to other people's psyche it was totally different. People took angles on something that he never thought were even there.

I'm gonna play devils advocate here for a moment, even though I hate the modern art movement with a passion. I think art is anything that is specific enough to be unmistakeable, or vague enough that it becomes a sort of Rorschach test. If your art is so vague that anyone can find meaning in it, isn't that sort of beautiful in itself?

Everything we do can be considered art. And if that is the case, then NOTHING is art and art never existed in the first place

There's actually an artistic movement for that called Dada. Including such master works as Duchamp Fountaine, 4'33", and L.H.O.O.Q

I heard about Dada a long time ago, and forgot about it until now. Thanks for resurfacing this memory for me.

And yea, I can see your point. People do generally try and make a piece of art for a purpose, and generally this purpose falls into a category that most of us here can determine to be art.

[–] MirrorMan 1 points (+1|-0)

i think the issue here is a conflict of language versus the senses. A division between description with the express purpose of creating universal understanding and subjective experience. A lot of "pointless" thought conflicts stem from trying too hard to attach formal labels onto everything.

In my experience words must be acknowledged from a safe distance lest they swallow you whole. Take "unique". The desire to feel like a significant individual is universal. It is not a unique pursuit to create the appearance of uniqueness. Which is why so many "quirky" people end up so similar. They are grouped by the very common spirit of the pursuit of uniqueness.

In the same vein you have "meaning". There are universal truths that are meaningful which resonate with all, but have zero originality/individuality as a prerequisite to being understood universally. Then there are personally meaningful creations that run the high risk of not being understood by many or any because the subjective experience is integral to the transference of meaning. When people make it their goal to make something "meaningful" they too often try to fuse both under one umbrella. Expecting their subjective interpretation to be universally understood or mistakenly believing they are the creator and owner of a common universal truth.