Why are we so illiterate about Art?

[Fake Boris]

Yes, this is the only conclusion I can come to.

There are plenty of intelligent persons on Apolyton, who can debate politics, history, economics, science and philosophy in a competent way.

Why is it that everyone is so illiterate when it comes to Art? The trend is generalized: only a fraction of usually intelligent people have something intelligent to say about Art. Could it be that art is not considered seriously? Why is it that an intelligent person would accept that art is here to manipulate emotions, and that's it?

Discuss.

[Drake Tungsten]

Because art is homo-gay?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Because art is homo-gay?

[mrmitchell]

Art cannot be measured.

[BeBMan]

Does the "we" include yourself, or are you, Boris, the only guy at Poly who's not illiterate in this matter?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Art cannot be measured.

Well, the point of 'measuring' art (in a metaphoric sense) is to put aside your personal preferences when judging it.

[monolith94]

I'm art literate.

[Verto]

Because the art I like is not the modern-throw-some-paint-at-canvas art.

I doubt anyone wants to talk about, say, Thomas Kinkade, since he's probably not considered avant garde by the psuedo-intellectuals.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by BeBro
Does the "we" include yourself, or are you, Boris, the only guy at Poly who's not illiterate in this matter?

I don't know if it includes myself.

Illiterate was not the exact word, I fear. It has more to do with the (wrong IMO) conception that art is purely subjective, that if you like it then it's fine, etc.

I had thought Brecht would have put the last nail on the coffin of this dumb idea.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Verto
Because the art I like is not the modern-throw-some-paint-at-canvas art.

I doubt anyone wants to talk about, say, Thomas Kinkade, since he's probably not considered avant garde by the psuedo-intellectuals.

This is a problem, too. There is nothing wrong with traditional stuff. However, by definition, art has to be in some part avant-garde. When it ceases to be, it becomes a social construct at the hand of the ruling elite.

(Though some would argue that even the avant garde is a social construct used by the elite, which is another debate).

[monolith94]

That's a good painting, but your snotty attitude actually makes me want to like it less.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Verto
Because the art I like is not the modern-throw-some-paint-at-canvas art.

I doubt anyone wants to talk about, say, Thomas Kinkade, since he's probably not considered avant garde by the psuedo-intellectuals.

[img]

Verto! Are you sure you're not really my grandmother? The similarity in taste is uncanny.

jon.

[Asher]

That's because people who insist they know art have crap taste. It's a no-win situation.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by joncha


Verto! Are you sure you're not really my grandmother? The similarity in taste is uncanny.

jon.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto
Because the art I like is not the modern-throw-some-paint-at-canvas art.

I doubt anyone wants to talk about, say, Thomas Kinkade, since he's probably not considered avant garde by the psuedo-intellectuals.

We have several Thomas Kinkade paintings, and they really are nice.