I keep seeing people complaining about people thinking too much about art, about it becoming too intellectualized and losing being about feelings. To what extent is that a legitimate complaint and to what extent is that clever capitalist content creators finding a less suspect way to complain that people are figuring out their tricks?
If you are making art for profit, you will have to consider to atleast some extent what type of content a consumer would be interested in. That said, it is possible to have art made for a consumer that also has personal meaning to the artist.
As an artist, I've found there needs to be a balance between marketability and personal connection when making art. If something is purely based off of what I know will sell, I'll get bored and the art will be uninspired and dull. If it's purely based on what I want to draw with no concern for the consumer, I'll have fun making it but little luck selling it.
I would also say there is a place for dull and boring art. Dull and boring art tends to be very clear in its messaging, removing the possibility of confusion.
I suppose I should try to clarify why I'm asking. I've seen several commentaries on various platforms about the Stanley Parable, video essays, etc. The most common interpretation I've seen is that the game was saying there was something wrong, violating, about the act of criticism itself. A few other things after got me thinking. In particular, a Bethesda dev's article about Starfield that amounted to "people have no idea what the intent of a creator is or why things are like they are in the created work so (politely) shut up, please." That made me reflect on the fact that the people interpreting the Stanley Parable were also people making content for money (articles, YouTube video essays, etc). And then it gets more complicated when you factor in legitimate concerns about parasociality.
Like any artform - once it exists in a medium where an outsider can see it, the outsider's opinion isn't inherently invalid for for not being 'official'™. There can and will be personal biases in any interpretation. This is expected. By sharing discourse amongst critics, there is great transformative power with facets like social commentary and marginalised groups finding a source of representation.
We have death of the author. We have subtext in everything that can possibly be the subject of analysis. We even have dorks who will try to rule 34 and/or ship every character in their own fanfiction.
a Bethesda dev's article about Starfield that amounted to "people have no idea what the intent of a creator is or why things are like they are in the created work so (politely) shut up, please."
That's art for you. What an artist have created could be liked or hated by others, whether they understand or not. Though when it comes to shared arts, such as games, it's the artist or dev's duty to convey their idea or intent.
To what extent is that a legitimate complaint and to what extent is that clever capitalist content creators finding a less suspect way to complain that people are figuring out their tricks?
For me it depends on the person who hears/takes the complaint. If he humbled himself and listened to any complaint, he won't need to complain about complaints.Though when it comes to shared arts, such as games, it's the artist or dev's duty to convey their idea or intent.
I think I agree with most of what you said but this makes me hesitate. What if the intent were something more nebulous? Like using a game to explore an idea where you have no firm conclusion about the thing yet? Duty might be the wrong word. People prefer that intent is conveyed but there is really nothing owed there. David Lynch does fine despite not quite conveying his intent. I could see something like that working for a game.
Urgh. Art comes from artisanship. Not many people have this in their mind when talking about "art". It has no inherent deep meaning. A cook creating a delicious meal also creates art. What is the "meaning" of the meal?
Just because someone expressed their feelings or tried to convey any meaning through the craft, does not make it a work of art. A diary would be art, if applying this logic.
There is the trope of the death of the author and I agree with that one. It basically says, the creator's interpretation of their work is no more valid than any other interpretation.
Sure, there is a tiny subset of art, where the creator actually tried to hide some meaning in it. Circumventing censorship comes to mind, that one has a very long tradition actually. Or often trying to put extra cleverness into the work that is not immediatly noticeable.
So, yeah, much of art discussion is too intellectual, and also too emotional. Pretentious. And a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes". No one wants to admit stupidity. So if acclaimed "artist" does wierd things or literal nonsense, a flock of art appraisers praise it, not taking into account the face value of the thing being garbage non art. The later works of Jackson Pollock come to mind. He painted "normally" first, but later did those dripping "art". After he was established, his stuff was art by definition, even when looking like random doodlings. It is like the fame of those Kardashians.
And often enough, acclaimed artists lose touch with reality and think what they do is art, just because they did it. Or because they put emotion in it. And if people do not understand their art, or dare to interpret it differently, it is the people's fault and not their own.
---
The Stanley Parable is a very clever 4th wall breaker game exploring the various ways a certain scenario could end, by looping the player around to try again differently. Since the game is all about easter egg hiding, no doubt the creators hid all sorts of things to be discovered or be interprated.
But applicability is a thing. We humans like to make associations where there are none. Simulacrum is term that describes part of the phenomenon. And it can be applied to works of art as well, when you find meaning in it. Sometimes the creator even hid that meaning in it for you to find.
But a creator should not whine, if the meaning found is not the meaning that was put in there. If that was the intention, the creator failed in that task. If the artisanship is well enough, that does not really matter, but it might hurt the ego of the artist.
Practically we could say that there are two skills. The art skill to make the art. And the skill of hiding meaning in such a work. Actually, there is a third skill, which is communication based and would descibe the ability to formulate the hidden meaning in a way that people could understand it. And my guess is, that many a artist forgets the third one and is hurt if people just do not understand them through their work.
I don't like the mud you're slinging at abstract art. Just because it looks nonsensical to YOU doesn't mean there's no technique involved. Paintings in the "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue" series have been vandalized multiple times-and the restorations look different in texture and depth to nearly everyone who sees them, despite being "just colors".
In fact, a good drip painting needs you to consider how to angle the canvas and how hard to drip the paint each time in order to give it layers of color and texture without using a brush. And that's without mentioning that they take days to dry. They're definitely not just some effortless thing.
And do you really think that cooking is art SOLELY because of how complicated the recipe is? do you think the deeper meaning of certain culturally important foods depend on? An apple dipped in honey on Rosh Hashanah is so heavily symbolic, and yet it only has two ingredients.
Soo, what now? "Abstract" "Art" is difficult to make and therefore art? Was that some irony on your part, or did you really just now reuse my argument about artisanship? That it is art, because there is skill involved. Because, well, that is why cooking is also art, yet you seem to think it is not.
But you brought forth the explanation that it is complicated to make those dripping stuff, and hence is not effortless and hence is more than just colors (and therefore art).
But with both things, just because one does drip colors or prepares food, it does not say much about the skill involved. A display of great skill is needed to make it art, instead of just doodles or lunch.
You also seem to think that symbolism alone makes a thing art? Maybe this is translation issue. The grammar in your last paragraph is not clear. But no matter, intent, symbolism, meaning (deep or not), is all not enough to make a thing art. There is a reason for the term "a work of art". You still need the artwork for there to be art.
And, uhm, actually, where did you see me slinging mud at abstract art? If any, I slung mud at most of what people call art. It is the case of not wanting to admit stupidity. So "artists" can get away with delivering anything. No matter the merit of the work.
It is the same danger righteous people face. They did right and became righteous. But now, what they do is righteous because they do it, and no longer because it really is right.
I value stuff like the concept of death of the author and avoidance of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Considering something art, just because an artist made it, is the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Yes. It is attesting agency and intent into that random garbage. This neglects your own ability to see patterns in chaos. Pattern is the wrong word. Beauty might be better.
On a clinical and trivial level, we can say, our brain is hardwired to make connections. Probably to predict things. If you can't move anyways and eat what you can filter out of the sea water, why develop a brain. But if you can move, you need to avoid danger and seek things that help to procreate. Like food, shelter, other types of your kind. If you do not understand your surroundings to a degree, your prediction organ and memory cannot help there.
We are bipeds with actuators. We hunt by running and by throwing things. We can even do both at the same time. But the physical capabilities to throw acurate are seriously lacking with muscles and nerves as a mechanism. It should not be possible, yet we can do it. By brain power and spatial awareness. The required brain power to increase range is stupendously expensive. But if you have no fangs and claws, it is what will bring food in your stomach.
But brain power is general purpose and can be used for other things... ;-) All this is a theory I once heard to explain evolution of brain, and why we have "intelligence" and our closest cousins have not. It is very expensive and not needed, as all the animals prove. The payload of having a better brain is just not rewarding in the beginning. But it is, if you need it to throw better, just as predators have better teeth, can smell better, and so on. And they did find a lot of throwing stones in or near water holes.
This also explains why we like music and sports with any type of ball. Even the fascination for guns. We like that stuff, because it appeals to something our brain evolved to be good at. Music is timing and timing is needed to release that stone in the right moment to throw with those pesky slow nerve impulses.
Anyways, that predition organ of ours is very good at seeing patterns and making connections to previous knowledge, so good, it even sees patterns and things, that are not there. Like seeing things in cloud shapes.
That much of our lives now is in the abstract does not change that ability. We can even use it for completely abstract or invented things, and also to create such things. For fun. Or to express ourselves. To appreciate artisanship of others or cleverly hide an abstract meaning in a digital work. Or to apply a thing we see to another situation.
Putting meaning to random garbage is wrong, because it leads to superstition. We want simple answers and control. It makes the chaos around us more bearable. You can absolutely see the similarites and have a chuckle about the irony or weird coincidences. But if you seriously take a meaning of it, you will hence forth knock on wood, avoid ladders and black cats, the number 13, or burn some old women with a funny nose, just to make sure - she made your milk spoil and the crops bad, ever since she moved to your village, after all.
To end this philosophical rant on a lighter note, we also like games because of our expensive brains. They want to be entertained, and playing a game, or appreciation of a story, art, music or even the search for deeper meaning the art, will all provide such entertainment. We like that stuff. And we like to craft. And to argue, including about art ;-)
I had to google that.
But that parsing of things is so advanced and non simple, that all sorts of disturbances can happen. On the other hand, our capability is also so immensly large, that most of those variances make no difference in every day life. Only, every day life became quite complicated.
Our brain is also master in lying to itself and ignoring things. And to invent things. Seeing connections in unrelated things and creating a conspiracy theory out of it, seems quite normal compared to that.
Noteable would be the thing with counting basketball players and not seeing a gorilla walk past the screen. Or how they managed to induce a fake memory about a childhood event in some participants - they would just invent the details themselves. Much of the supernatural people claim to have experienced can be sufficiently explained by this. You need not be sick to see ghosts in shadows. That is just your brain doing it's thing.
But that thing is also what let's us appreciate art. See a mustache wearing plumber in a red suit, instead of a bunch of pixels.
i think that thinking about art is exactly what makes it so emotionally loaded in the first place. when we think about art, we inevitably have to think about the context it was made in, and that leads to a lot of important discussions. the only creators who don't want you to think about their art are creators who don't care about it.
