Edit: you've unfortunately been posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments repeatedly. That's not ok. Would you please review the rules and stick to them from now on so we don't have to ban you?
>So: why should we--why should anyone--care about your half-arsed opinion?
I don't think you effectively critiqued yakshaving by repeating what he said about the commentating art community. Their opinions are worth no more than his, my, or your half-arsed opinions. You haven't defended them when he's speaking against pretentiousness.
Art is art, and it doesn't need an adhoc recital of catch phrases and in-words performed by those gathered around. In saying "You just don't understand", you gilt no dirt.
There's no need for a bait and switch. Yakshaving didn't criticise the art, he criticised the chatter, which is just a gussied up version of "I like the colour" and "The way it creaks in the breeze gives me the heebie-jeebies".
Its like a party after a hanging, and regardless of whether it is a painting, or an outlaw, there's something uncomfortable and unnatural about people gathering around to nod their heads in satisfaction.
Where does this strawman of art commentating come from? Loud people at parties?
Have you ever read a good book on art theory or art history? By whom? Have you ever, as an artist, sat around with someone in the same practice and wanted to talk about the meat of what it is you're doing? 'I like the colour' is a fine thing to say, but anyone who is even slightly curious will follow it up with I wonder why? or I wonder if there are any colors I don't like or any of a million other questions. Letting it sit at 'I like the colour' is kind of lame.
Or maybe all discussion of art is 'a gussied up version of "I like the colour";' in that case, then all software engineering is making colored lights blink in patterns--see how useless it is to ignore complexity?
There's a lot of "you don't understand" in this response.
Does this imply that all art has some objective meaning, or value, and some people fail to recognize that while others are consistently able to appreciate it?
I'd say that enjoying art is subjective, and if you don't find value in a certain piece (or even in a certain genre) that's not a failing of the observer to "understand" properly.
I also don't find concrete structures in the desert visually appealing, nor do they enrich me in some way. Perhaps in person they would.
Thank you for more eloquently writing the reply I wanted to write.
Even the backlash against art that strays from mere visual sugar isn’t new in our history. This criticism is so stale that it already ran a cycle in the 30s and ended with destroyed art, imprisonments, and the return of neoclassical art under state supervision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition
Does being this rude normally work well for you in society?
> What you've written, though, is a very, very lazy critique of art appreciation.
No it isn't, because I haven't written a critique at all. I shared a fairly simple opinion broadly in response to some people's reactions of some other people's negative reactions to this work.
> You make a real juvenile start just calling it "snobbery,"
The ad hominem here is inappropriate.
> I'm sure Centre Pompidou is objectively "way more interesting" than the Louvre, why does the Louvre even exist? Thanks for clearing that up.
Objectively? How have you read a position of objectivity into my comment? This is a discussion about art, which is inherently subjective.
> What, did you go to Paris once and have a bad time?
I love Paris. I haven't the slightest clue where you got this idea.
> So: why should we--why should anyone--care about your half-arsed opinion? ... and why should I respond?
Good question. Why did you respond?
> therefore people who do understand that thing are, what, somehow insulting you?
No. I have neither said nor implied that. You should try interpreting other people's comments more charitably in future.
> Just shut up. Let people appreciate things and shut up.
These words — and most of your words that precede them — are entirely inappropriate for this forum.
If you would like to attack me personally, I'd be happy to share my personal phone number with you and you can say all of this to my face.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is. Please especially avoid the tedious tit-for-tat flamewar thing.
I haven't written a critique at all. I shared a fairly simple opinion
You shared a negative opinion, and did so in writing. Perhaps you wouldn't call it a critique because you didn't use sound reasoning, but I would call that defense critique snobbery: you still dismissed other people's pastimes by invalidating their experience ("it's not that deep").
I suppose I'm deeply into music snobbery. I enjoy analyzing good pieces of music, and even use high-falootin' words like tritone, dominant, resolution or syncopation. And I enjoy sharing such an analysis with peers, it happens quite often that they see structures or patterns that I haven't noticed yet. Because for me, understanding the structure behind a good piece of art heightens my enjoyment.
I would ask if throwing out unfounded opinions normally works well for you in society, but I suspect it probably does. For the record, I reserve rude comments for the internet.
I don't want to have a phone call with you about your boring, detrimental attitudes towards art and other people's appreciation of it. I go out of my way to inject myself into discussions exactly like this one because, as I said, I repeatedly see engineering-brained people (who have a lot of sway) going out of their way to deride Other People's Good Time, and I want you to stop doing it.
Let people enjoy things, it doesn't hurt you. Leave them alone.
dang|3 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've unfortunately been posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments repeatedly. That's not ok. Would you please review the rules and stick to them from now on so we don't have to ban you?
Alan_Dillman|3 years ago
I don't think you effectively critiqued yakshaving by repeating what he said about the commentating art community. Their opinions are worth no more than his, my, or your half-arsed opinions. You haven't defended them when he's speaking against pretentiousness.
Art is art, and it doesn't need an adhoc recital of catch phrases and in-words performed by those gathered around. In saying "You just don't understand", you gilt no dirt.
There's no need for a bait and switch. Yakshaving didn't criticise the art, he criticised the chatter, which is just a gussied up version of "I like the colour" and "The way it creaks in the breeze gives me the heebie-jeebies".
Its like a party after a hanging, and regardless of whether it is a painting, or an outlaw, there's something uncomfortable and unnatural about people gathering around to nod their heads in satisfaction.
widjit|3 years ago
Have you ever read a good book on art theory or art history? By whom? Have you ever, as an artist, sat around with someone in the same practice and wanted to talk about the meat of what it is you're doing? 'I like the colour' is a fine thing to say, but anyone who is even slightly curious will follow it up with I wonder why? or I wonder if there are any colors I don't like or any of a million other questions. Letting it sit at 'I like the colour' is kind of lame.
Or maybe all discussion of art is 'a gussied up version of "I like the colour";' in that case, then all software engineering is making colored lights blink in patterns--see how useless it is to ignore complexity?
SamPatt|3 years ago
Does this imply that all art has some objective meaning, or value, and some people fail to recognize that while others are consistently able to appreciate it?
I'd say that enjoying art is subjective, and if you don't find value in a certain piece (or even in a certain genre) that's not a failing of the observer to "understand" properly.
I also don't find concrete structures in the desert visually appealing, nor do they enrich me in some way. Perhaps in person they would.
boc|3 years ago
Even the backlash against art that strays from mere visual sugar isn’t new in our history. This criticism is so stale that it already ran a cycle in the 30s and ended with destroyed art, imprisonments, and the return of neoclassical art under state supervision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition
yakshaving_jgt|3 years ago
> What you've written, though, is a very, very lazy critique of art appreciation.
No it isn't, because I haven't written a critique at all. I shared a fairly simple opinion broadly in response to some people's reactions of some other people's negative reactions to this work.
> You make a real juvenile start just calling it "snobbery,"
The ad hominem here is inappropriate.
> I'm sure Centre Pompidou is objectively "way more interesting" than the Louvre, why does the Louvre even exist? Thanks for clearing that up.
Objectively? How have you read a position of objectivity into my comment? This is a discussion about art, which is inherently subjective.
> What, did you go to Paris once and have a bad time?
I love Paris. I haven't the slightest clue where you got this idea.
> So: why should we--why should anyone--care about your half-arsed opinion? ... and why should I respond?
Good question. Why did you respond?
> therefore people who do understand that thing are, what, somehow insulting you?
No. I have neither said nor implied that. You should try interpreting other people's comments more charitably in future.
> Just shut up. Let people appreciate things and shut up.
These words — and most of your words that precede them — are entirely inappropriate for this forum.
If you would like to attack me personally, I'd be happy to share my personal phone number with you and you can say all of this to my face.
dang|3 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tremon|3 years ago
You shared a negative opinion, and did so in writing. Perhaps you wouldn't call it a critique because you didn't use sound reasoning, but I would call that defense critique snobbery: you still dismissed other people's pastimes by invalidating their experience ("it's not that deep").
I suppose I'm deeply into music snobbery. I enjoy analyzing good pieces of music, and even use high-falootin' words like tritone, dominant, resolution or syncopation. And I enjoy sharing such an analysis with peers, it happens quite often that they see structures or patterns that I haven't noticed yet. Because for me, understanding the structure behind a good piece of art heightens my enjoyment.
widjit|3 years ago
I don't want to have a phone call with you about your boring, detrimental attitudes towards art and other people's appreciation of it. I go out of my way to inject myself into discussions exactly like this one because, as I said, I repeatedly see engineering-brained people (who have a lot of sway) going out of their way to deride Other People's Good Time, and I want you to stop doing it.
Let people enjoy things, it doesn't hurt you. Leave them alone.