This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The take on “modern art” isn’t great. The impressionists were the first to engage with photography, and everyone loves those haystacks, water lilies, and ballerinas. In its day, the work was criticized for being sloppy, unprofessional , vulgar in technique with visible strokes, not much mixing of color, chaotic, lacking craft, etc, which may as well be Luke’s objections to “modern art”. Photography itself would take a while to be accepted as fine art. All the while the two continued to influence each other. Consider that photorealism was a post war counter movement to abstract art, but that it wouldn’t exist without either the embrace of abstraction or the widespread diffusion of photography and its idioms in society. Or think about Andy Warhol reproducing the objects of mass production in the setting of fine art. Such work only makes sense in a society that can print at will. This is Art having a conversation with the consequences of mass printing and the quotidian. Consider the work of Roy Lichtenstein, who appropriated the techniques used by comic books, but blew them up and put the ben-day dots in the foreground, as if they are the subject. They are striking in person.
I seriously wonder if the author, or the people who levy these criticisms in general, have ever been to a museum. Liechtenstein’s pieces are big and experiencing them is different in person. Clifford Still made huge, abstract, minimal pieces that can only be appreciated in person (20’ wide). Pollock’s paintings are 10’ wide. Reproduction on a phone screen loses something as a medium. It’s not just the form factor, a work taking up your entire field of view, the setting, the loss of texture, etc, but our relationship to our phones themselves. In a museum, when forced to confront a work of art, you have an actual thing in front of you - it obviously took effort and other people value it and think you should value it too. They chose to show it to you and you implicitly accepted a contract when you entered to attempt to engage with it. A phone is just the opposite. Every image on a phone is disposable and ephemeral, and asks nothing of us.
Phones serve us pablum or turn everything else into it. So anyway, go to a museum. As your parents might say, eat your broccoli, you may like it.
Lichtenstein appropriated more than just the look, he stole the panels too.
https://nextpanel.blogspot.com/2011/08/roy-lichtenstein-plagiarist-or-art.html?m=1
More options
Context Copy link
Agree with you on the wider point, and that impressionist/abstract expressionist/etc. art needs to be viewed in person. The point I'd add is that paintings might be flat, but they're not 2D objects. You haven't experienced a painting, particularly an impressionist/abstract one, until you've been able to walk around it and see it in 3D space. Both Impressionists and Pollock, for instance, play fascinating tricks on the visual cortex as you walk from side to side, closer and farther. When I'm looking at, say, a Monet, the first thing I try to do is to stop staring at a flat image and to let my eyes relax into it, let the "3D" image appear, let the brain create depth and parallax as I move around it. Same thing with many abstract expressionists, and in some cases they're carried by such subtle features that you can only see them in person, such as Ad Reinhardt's black canvases.
Note that this is not a defence of "conceptual art" that's all concept and no art. The grouches here are largely right about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link