[cicdw]

It's great that people are interested in art and interpretation, but this piece reads like someone trying to come up with a naive critical theory of art in a vacuum, completely independently from the centuries of theory that have already been developed. And to claim that Dada and James Joyce had no lasting influence is comical.

[mock-possum]

Yeah it’s like - an interesting start, but some things it spends oddly little time on, as if they’re self-evident -

> the only real narrative found in graphics are in design and advertising, which feedbacks to leading fine artists to distrust narrative as it implies commercial considerations (note the use of predominantly, there can still be fine graphic arts that possess narrative)

Why no explanation about or examples of the narrative inherent to design / advertising / commercial work? I can guess, but why make me guess?

> the authoritative or interpretive imposition of Narrative, wherein the artist or a prominent critic imposes a narrative on the work that has had the narrative removed.

In what sense has it been removed? How is that accomplished? What’s an example of art that’s had the narrative removed?

… it’s all just kind of unsatisfying. I want either historical or modern examples of all these things, otherwise it’s all just… sort of abstract pontificating, imo.

Really, for an author so concerned with narrative in art… it’s seems like they kind of fumbled adding it to their own work here. I’m left wishing there was more to the story.

[grimpy]

...and not just decades of art theory, but any familiarity with the actual art objects themselves.

Looking at the author's other (prolific) posts, I can't help but wonder if this is AI spam.