>sifting through the trash cans outside Bob Dylan’s Greenwich Village apartment
i think it's a good metaphor for "art-history" studies. I could never understand people writing about art, analyzing some painting texture, style of brush strokes, author intent, historical context or whatnot, or digging into artist biography or their development; not in order to learn how to make art, mastering the craft, but for the sole sake of analysis, critique or "art appreciation".
Art is just there, a thing in itself, you either get it or not, either it talks to you, personally, or not, and you can create one too, you may have more or less talent but making art is not a prerogative of "artists" as some kind of special breed.
It's kinda like talking a whole lot about coding style and programmer bios instead of just writing code and building things.
As an example of that, SV only recent got tech museums since we were too busy building and not appreciating, with Steve W. heavily involved in funding those.
"In 1989, Wozniak sold the unsuccessful CL9. Since then, he has spent most of his time donating money to various charitable organizations in San Jose, including the Tech Museum of Innovation, the Children's Discovery Museum, and the San Jose-Cleveland Ballet."
> I could never understand people writing about art, analyzing some painting texture, style of brush strokes, author intent, historical context or whatnot, or digging into artist biography or their development; not in order to learn how to make art, mastering the craft, but for the sole sake of analysis, critique or "art appreciation".
You don't get more out of art if you know its context?
For example, it's interesting to know that much of art, starting with Impressionism was a response to photography (https://kiamaartgallery.wordpress.com/tag/influence-of-photo...). Previously, art was judged based on how realistic it was. But when photography came around, painting could not compete. So artists had to come up with new methods and goals. Some wanted to make the viewer experience a feeling, even if that meant not literally painting truth.
Another example: the Surrealists used Freud's work on free association, dreams, and the unconscious in their own work.
Or this poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinger-Johannisthal-1908.... While the characters are interesting, there's more to it than that. It was originally designed for a 1908 air show in Germany. That's only five years after the Wright brothers' first flight! Airplanes were still brand new. Doesn't that impact how you see the characters here?
I certainly agree that anyone can create art, but I don't believe that the only thing worth doing with art is either creating it or blindly consuming it. To bring it back to your programming example, don't you get more out of Babbage's Difference Engine when you find out that it was built in the 1990s -- and worked?
In literary criticism too, there have been approaches that look at texts themselves without concern of who wrote it and when it was written. Much of what makes a text aesthetically notable and meaningful is the text itself and not its external context.
Appreciation of art itself can be carried out without reference to Artist biography and the history of art.
Art certainly can be appreciated entirely "inside" the art, yes. Doing so can be a fine tool! But I believe it's wrong to dismiss all possible meta-analysis of art. Some things add more to an understanding, appreciation, or the importance of art.
Well, I’m all for learning more about things one is interested in but over-analyzing a work of art can be deconstructive , by breaking it down into pieces and assigning to familiar categories or “buckets” you may lose the sight of the whole when looking at it as a sum of its parts.
Kind of like when you focus on details but then just can’t zoom out to see the whole complex beast.
Dylan was always against reduction of his works to e.g. civil rights causes and all that , like they teach in schools now, it’s a forced perspective, even if has some truth in it, it’s like putting his song in a cage in a “zoo” and sticking an easily digestible label on it for people too busy or too lazy to think for themselves. I’m all for unschooling.
"His most recent book is Hater: On the Virtues of Utter Disagreeability."
It seems to me sometimes like nearly all journalism has become "this thing, which you might like or think has some redeeming features, is completely awful" with as haughty a tone as possible. It's the best way to manipulate people who don't respond to Taboola.
I like cars. I got a book on the history of V-12s in general. Some people might not be interested in that.
I got a book once about Michelangelo's life without any particular interest in viewing his art. Somewhere I lost interest in watching sports, but I still have (comparatively) some interest in reading about it. If it's good writing.
I don't watch movies any more, but will read about them, or read scripts sometimes.
My only opinion about Dylan is that I have never heard a cover of his song that doesn't sound better than him.
What I like about Dylan is that his lyrics seem to try to avoid cliches rather than over use them so he uncovers truths that go against the social memetic way of thinking.
Who hates Bob Dylan songs? Secretly, everyone. Yet nobody is brave enough to admit it because Dylan is weird and rambly, and people feel like it's something they should like. It's a Schrodinger's fan of sorts: a Dylan fan doesn't exist unless a Dylan fan is observed. Once one idiot pipes up at a party, then come the pretenders, all pretending to enjoy his sermons.
The reason people pretend like they like Dylan is because they're afraid of being outed as "uncultured" by folksy-music bullies—the worst kind of bullies. These bullies get irrationally angry when they suspect someone is anything less than an enthusiastic fan of their inoffensive, milquetoast "music."
Rambly. Boring. Call it what you want, but it's not music. It's an old man yammering on about something for a few minutes. Bob Dylan was the world's first podcaster, and we didn't even know it.
13 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 53.9 ms ] threadi think it's a good metaphor for "art-history" studies. I could never understand people writing about art, analyzing some painting texture, style of brush strokes, author intent, historical context or whatnot, or digging into artist biography or their development; not in order to learn how to make art, mastering the craft, but for the sole sake of analysis, critique or "art appreciation".
Art is just there, a thing in itself, you either get it or not, either it talks to you, personally, or not, and you can create one too, you may have more or less talent but making art is not a prerogative of "artists" as some kind of special breed.
It's kinda like talking a whole lot about coding style and programmer bios instead of just writing code and building things.
"In 1989, Wozniak sold the unsuccessful CL9. Since then, he has spent most of his time donating money to various charitable organizations in San Jose, including the Tech Museum of Innovation, the Children's Discovery Museum, and the San Jose-Cleveland Ballet."
https://biography.yourdictionary.com/steve-wozniak
You don't get more out of art if you know its context?
For example, it's interesting to know that much of art, starting with Impressionism was a response to photography (https://kiamaartgallery.wordpress.com/tag/influence-of-photo...). Previously, art was judged based on how realistic it was. But when photography came around, painting could not compete. So artists had to come up with new methods and goals. Some wanted to make the viewer experience a feeling, even if that meant not literally painting truth.
Another example: the Surrealists used Freud's work on free association, dreams, and the unconscious in their own work.
Or this poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinger-Johannisthal-1908.... While the characters are interesting, there's more to it than that. It was originally designed for a 1908 air show in Germany. That's only five years after the Wright brothers' first flight! Airplanes were still brand new. Doesn't that impact how you see the characters here?
I certainly agree that anyone can create art, but I don't believe that the only thing worth doing with art is either creating it or blindly consuming it. To bring it back to your programming example, don't you get more out of Babbage's Difference Engine when you find out that it was built in the 1990s -- and worked?
Appreciation of art itself can be carried out without reference to Artist biography and the history of art.
Kind of like when you focus on details but then just can’t zoom out to see the whole complex beast.
Dylan was always against reduction of his works to e.g. civil rights causes and all that , like they teach in schools now, it’s a forced perspective, even if has some truth in it, it’s like putting his song in a cage in a “zoo” and sticking an easily digestible label on it for people too busy or too lazy to think for themselves. I’m all for unschooling.
"His most recent book is Hater: On the Virtues of Utter Disagreeability."
It seems to me sometimes like nearly all journalism has become "this thing, which you might like or think has some redeeming features, is completely awful" with as haughty a tone as possible. It's the best way to manipulate people who don't respond to Taboola.
I like cars. I got a book on the history of V-12s in general. Some people might not be interested in that.
I got a book once about Michelangelo's life without any particular interest in viewing his art. Somewhere I lost interest in watching sports, but I still have (comparatively) some interest in reading about it. If it's good writing.
I don't watch movies any more, but will read about them, or read scripts sometimes.
My only opinion about Dylan is that I have never heard a cover of his song that doesn't sound better than him.
What I like about Dylan is that his lyrics seem to try to avoid cliches rather than over use them so he uncovers truths that go against the social memetic way of thinking.
Who hates Bob Dylan songs? Secretly, everyone. Yet nobody is brave enough to admit it because Dylan is weird and rambly, and people feel like it's something they should like. It's a Schrodinger's fan of sorts: a Dylan fan doesn't exist unless a Dylan fan is observed. Once one idiot pipes up at a party, then come the pretenders, all pretending to enjoy his sermons.
The reason people pretend like they like Dylan is because they're afraid of being outed as "uncultured" by folksy-music bullies—the worst kind of bullies. These bullies get irrationally angry when they suspect someone is anything less than an enthusiastic fan of their inoffensive, milquetoast "music."
Rambly. Boring. Call it what you want, but it's not music. It's an old man yammering on about something for a few minutes. Bob Dylan was the world's first podcaster, and we didn't even know it.