Hacker News Reader

Comment by TimTheTinker | Hacker News Reader

Wow, the emperor truly has no clothes.

I've said this many times -- I contend that the actual product, the creative output as it were, of much modern art isn't the thing itself, but what is said about it.

Nothing ugly (or invisible!) is self-evident, even to the most highly trained senses. They all require many words of explanation in their own little ways.

No one would go to a restaurant where each dish requires a paragraph of text to "appreciate" the taste and texture, and is unpalatable otherwise...

View on HN

"No one would go to a restaurant where each dish requires a paragraph of text to really appreciate the taste and texture..." One assumes that you've never eaten with a 'foodie' or attended a wine tasting.

I have, and since it was good food/wine I certainly could have enjoyed it without the words that were said about it.

In other words, what was said enhanced the experience without being essential.

We wouldn't eat food or drink wine that requires many words of explanation to even be palatable - that was my point.

“I guess I do have a question about the chicken...”

Portlandia: Colin the Chicken

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G__PVLB8Nm4

That's a really funny clip, thanks for the link!

And if you're from outside the US and the video is blocked, here's another link to Colin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErRHJlE4PGI

The people who argue that aesthetics and beauty aren't required for art basically reduce art to novelty. Whatever rubbish you throw together, as long as it's a new arrangement of rubbish and you have some pretentious GPT3-esque word salad to describe it, is enough to get modern art fans off. Or you get the modern art fans who say art is just about 'creating a reaction', but wouldn't be quick to support Confederate statues or other things that happen to not align with their personal views, despite it causing quite a reaction. For some reason beauty and aesthetics get bashed more and more in recent years.

I agree with a lot of that, but there's a difference between something being art and something being worthy of support.

If you buy into the idea that art is about creating reactions, then the reaction that you're going for is very important. In fact, maybe it's the main way you judge whether the artwork or is good or not. From that perspective, you can consider a Confederate statue art but unworthy art.

That just kicks the can down the road. It basically boils down to "art is stuff I like". Art also has a reputation of opening people's minds and letting them see the world differently. By the logic of worthiness, people should never support art unless it's basically propaganda for their own beliefs (which is what I believe modern art functions as).

Astute observation, especially in the age of social media.

As for your restaurant example, I would gladly pay for it. I didn't pay enough attention to many things in my life until I got to know them better.

Made a small edit to my comment above to clarify.

I appreciate well-explained masterpieces -- both in art and in food -- where the explanation enhances the experience without being essential to even being able to enjoy it at all.

The same goes for music with lyrics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com