The Chat Thread

Moonlight-Moonlight

11111
Staff member
Elite rep power
Joined
Nov 30, 2023
Posts
9,699
Rep Power
7,541
being able to talk about how something was created, even just describing historical circumstances and biographical details about the author(s), is so much more respectable than speculating about why something was created. autopilot NPC plebeians can do neither and only discuss art in terms of how much they "liked" or "enjoyed" it, but speculating about meaning is usually a tedious and narcissistic exercise that seems to devolve into self-congratulation and masturbation in most circumstances (because people will relate everything back to themselves -- what it meant to them). discussing how the artistic visions, choices, circumstances and perspectives of different authors, video game studios, animation studios, or musicians shaped their art tends to be a much more worthwhile component of art criticism. it also requires you to *know things*
 

Moonlight-Moonlight

11111
Staff member
Elite rep power
Joined
Nov 30, 2023
Posts
9,699
Rep Power
7,541
on the subject of defining substantive art critique, i love this scaruffi polemic:
  • The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
  • Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
  • The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
  • The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
  • The critic is the real artist.
 


Write your reply...
Top