Hacker News Reader

Comment by tasogare | Hacker News Reader

> low effort art will trend back to $0

This is being continuously disproved since decades by contemporary art.

Most contemporary art has a lot more effort put into it than you think. It’s perfectly okay to not value that effort, but things like those “black squares” or whatever actually aren’t just that. If you see them in person, you can see how the different brush strokes overlap and theoretically signify different things.

> If you see them in person, you can see how the different brush strokes overlap and theoretically signify different things.

You had me until this bit

Son, see the weave on the emperor's gown and how it's delicate changes in weave and texture signify the greatness, taste and glory of our leader.

Mama! Yes but ....

Respecting nuance in other other people's perspectives, even if you don't see it, is a good skill to learn.

The example you're using isn't contemporary, it's over a century old, and it's a design for a stage curtain. It's not valuable for the effort put in * (it's literally just a solid black painted square), it's valuable because of the point in time it represents w/r/t art history

* edit for clarity: what would be commonly considered technical artistic effort, although a large % of graphic designers would disagree with that as composition is a skill, and conceptual artists would disagree due to the thought put in (which imo feels post-hoc but hey ho)

Just to expand on that, I love Malevich as an artist. I've travelled specifically to see exhibitions of his and his contemporaries' works. If I had large amounts of spare cash and I were in a position to buy an original, I probably would. From an artistic pov, I feel the ideas he introduced are extremely important. From a technical pov, I think his colour and composition are superb. From a conceptual pov his art is a pretty laser-sharp distillation of the ideas he had regarding what art means or can mean. From a personal, professional point of view, I'm trained as a designer, and worked as a designer and illustrator. The tenets of constructivism and suprematism have been formational to much of my approach to design.

So, it's not that being technically spectacular in some arbitrary "really accurately painted or drawn picture of reality, like a photo" way makes art valuable (photography effectively destroyed that a long time ago, sorry!). It's that it has some special significance. If that significance is more than personal, as in it has some historical/cultural significance, then it becomes valuable. There's no point to it, it's art. So w/r/t original subject, above reasons make me think twice about any knee-jerk cynicism I have toward it (which I do have, I just have to have an open mind)

Art is what people say it is. Its appreciation is what probably separates us from the animals and certainly separates us from the AIs.

We say "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder", because it's true. There will be no accounting for a persons own taste or for what society finds fashionable today or over time.

If what you personally call Art and its story speaks to you then it is valuable. If others share that feeling then it is even more valuable. It's just that simple.

I personally like the idea of commissioning art like what big families did back in the Renaissance, but use Social P2P networks like what is already happening with customized digital Avatar makers/artists. NFTs have a role to play here equivalent to an old Renaissance painter signing the bottom of the painting, only now it's with the owner(s) and all future owner(s) signatures there for all to see.

Animals certainly appreciate beauty among each other[0] probably also in the environment[1].

AI can be trained to recognise and prefer beauty as well.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-b...

[1] https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/sir-david-attenboro...

I'll give you the Animals as your likely right and it's more a turn of phrase than a logical argument, however I have to respectfully disagree with regards to AI. A thing that is trained to recognize and prefer is exhibiting behavior - it is not experiencing 'appreciation' with all that implies at the human level. A machine may pick good art out of a line up but that art will not improve its mood or inspire it to take up painting or make it want to write a poem to an old lover it was reminded of. AI can be useful in creating art perhaps, but I don't see it ever as an end user consumer of art's appreciation.

But how good are they going to be at laundering money? I can't imagine they're going to be in the class that contemporary art is in, so they aren't really comparable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com