bunch of art/phil/theo stuff i wrote on twitter. further down = older = i probably agree with it less
self consciousness abt artistic/cultural traditions n where one fits w/in them is prolly responsible for crippling a lot of art. i think art would be better if we were all naive n individual about beauty. j a feeling i have its all feeling
@gnostiquette: Non-conceptual "art" is not art. Pure representation, even idealised representation, is mere illustration
it's not possible to have an artistic relationship to field recordings? children's drawings? im not feeling brave enough to confront her about it (she is very nice; i've talked with her before) but this seems very silly to me. like i can see the point is to attack guys (and artists) who think drawing a really accurate landscape is what being a artist is all about but i dont see why thats the way that its being done. either u say something like "i can impose whatever concept i want on whatever i want" or u have to talk about limited frameworks being applied to and dirtying teh process. but the problem definitely is not solved by limiting teh process using some distinction that comes from interpretation of what happens after teh process is over. this isnt chemistry or something you cant use artistic categories with objective force
one of teh big problems w teh way usrs are trained by industry to think about art is that teh qualifications needed to call sth "perfect" are negative and objective (think "flawless"). it trains u to lower ur standards. asks you not to imagine that sth's making you laugh and smile and love everything whenever you meet it is in any way distinct from something fitting together really well. tricks u into thinking that the only reason to dislike sth is because youve gone through all the elements (i.e. visuals, sound, writing) and you can point to one or more that are done wrong in this specific way. so when youve decided sth pretty much does everything that it wants to do right you finish right before doing the actual important part of figuring out if you like what it wants to do (positive, subjective). i HATE talking about art using these words im tempted throughout to add qualifiers liek "what u understand to be" but im a good boy im submitting to this nonsense to talk abt the thinking that creates teh concepts
I know the real reason AI art is bad. It’s because the AI can’t suffer. We need to focus on making an AI that can experience true agony, then the art will follow.
am i going insane why are like 90% of tje quotes for this "so true!" this is funny but wrong and deeply evil to think. good art always comes about Despite suffering. most of the time when people suffer they wont do much besides try to bear it. im going cut my arm open and bleed all over so you think my painting is worthwhile. some times a blank canvas is prettier
i bet being an artist os all about cackling like "ive caught you in my trap! you have no choicw but to see beauty in all things !"
"art is political" is a formulation that comes from people who have found absolute ness by way of politics nd see its likeness in art. i dont mind hearing it anymore
I've yet to hear any genuine criticisms from people that don't like this album [bcnr ants from up there]. They all just say it's overrated or bad. Let's talk about this
i think its ok for people not to articulate to you why they dislike something. like what is the point of asking ?? do you want to le epic own the bcnr hater by catching them blubbering about nothing as if it means they didn't hear the album and feel the way they did about it ?? do you want to make them listen to music "more deeply" ?? how can you tell that they already do not ?? "they can't express their thoughts about it" is not an answer; expression of the experience here has v little to do w the depth of the experience itself. this is bc u r writing poetry about your reaction; there is no rigorous scientific vocabulary by which you will have been given a causal explanation for why someone doesnt like a work of art
succumbing to teh reply/quote bait for the purposes of an example now : IMO it is really lame when indie rock guys try to make their music more serious and artistic by writing for more serious and artistic instruments nd thereby culturally regressing. like obviously the problem i have is not a cultural/historical one (though i put it in those terms). it is just that to me the record feels inauthentic . this is the only kind of criticism you can make but this is the kind of criticism you can also always negate ! we understand criticism like this by analogy . you have felt other records are inauthentic but as long as you see nothing that would evoke that feeling here then TOUGH LUCK my criticism is not grounded in reality/"genuine" and is meaningless 2 u (we say "i don't see it").
this doesnt mean that its impossible to communicate just that criticism itself is artistic and if you dont know what other people mean by it then no one can really help but yrself n all u can do is look harder. like the best response you can have to "y r u asking??" is "i want to understand other perspectives" to show good faith but teh wanting comes from a lack of exp in da potential for subjectivity in art-understanding and a misunderstanding of the point of art criticism nowadays, that point being to confront you with a coherent and iconoclastic subjectivity such that you understand the possibility for depth in taste and be freed from any aesthetic standard but your own
when u look at art teh truth is being revealed to YOU and ONLY YOU. like the point is not to flail around splashing until you find an island of objectivity/"genuine criticism" which you can grapple onto forever and wade comfortably. the point is to drown
suzieminiike: genuinely i think its important to be iconoclastic in yr art tastes because we live in a world where general consensus and associations of quality have been shaped around an optimized machine for maximum quarterly profits
presenting a strong image of subjectivity is teh only thing a critic is capable of doing for other people anymore
PragerU: What is the ultimate source of morality?
look around. i can't think of a single good reason to ask this question
i actually dont think that memes are important + recycling and making-more-consumable older nonsense artistic movements is not really impressive sorry for hating. from a like social perspective (ie tracing similarities in art-history to see more general cultural economic etc similarities) might be fruitful but i know less about that i do think that people only compare memes to dada because it makes them (memes) feel more legitimate
y r all the art games plot-driven ? explain this to me without saying teh form is limited. its like saying 2001 is peak art-film or the dark side of the moon is peak art-music. its cool if u like them (i will not argue that they r bad even if i dont like them) but it is a lame place 2 end if you care abt art nd not games
gaming wont be art until we develop games that appeal 2 beauty nd (eventually) a kind of "disciplined playing" th way that u can watch film nd listen to music with total focus. th attentive state of mind that u need to consume art as art rubs HARD against interactivity i think. when u look at art u r in some way engaging w things as symbols nd not as objects (seeing them as changeable or subject to yrself). even th idea that i can change things, or maybe even that there is an I to change things, does not enter into other forms bc that breaks symbolism. i do not think that art games r impossible on principle. but i think there are obvious problems that people do not like approaching purposefully bc doing so involves sacrificing easier but less complete ways of approaching forms that r already disposed 2 them (those approaches) th way games r not. this means we have to reject most if not all claims that a game is art (this means stuff like disco elysium too. u can say its fun, narratively compelling, but its not what art games shld be) or we will die without seeing a substantive change. picked an example ik everyone likes but still works w/in a framework of interactivity nd fun even if its interaction is weaker nd choices r character-defined. i feel there r unimaginable mechanical nd aesthetic joys to be had if we give up th game-ideal of effective interactivity. like i hope we imagine games not as really smooth and immersive choose yr own adventure books, but as something more like a big and powerful sensory toy-sculpture. everything within its range of motion is beautiful, but in some way you feel it doesnt change though youve moved it. the point of the toy is that it affects you !
Many so-called leftists will suddenly turn into conservatives the moment you mention space exploration, cybernetics, genetic engineering, artificial wombs, geoengineering, indefinite life extension, automation, or any number of other cosmist technologies.
this was a cool reminder 2 me that transhumanism-as-identity is pretty much the same thing as obsession w sci fi aesthetics. why the hell r "space exploration" and "cybernetics" ahead of technologies that r actually useful. please stop turning "i think this is cool" "i think this is lame" into morality. have some humility
onkyokei is th only music that is rly about smallness of self nd in that way it is teh music that is most abt the grass and the wind and the mud on the ground
stop acknowledging anthony fantano. stop saying his name. stop watching his videos. stop watching people who say his name. whenever some1 says the first syllable of his name put your raised index finger to their mouth. some days i refuse to believe kids see ghosts is a real album. whenever im reminded of him i get immediately disappointed that we have not moved on. what does he add! he has no critical consistency, presents no strong image of subjectivity, and says next to nothing that would even flirt with meaning. AND hes smug on top of it. hes like a redditors idea of an art critic
IMO in educated liberal circles that are disproportionately atheist, the pendulum swung too far in the direction of every atheist being embarrassed about their own atheism. ... Within 15 minutes of me posting this someone whined that my belief system was not leaving them alone. I can literally talk about any of my other beliefs on this platform, but I mention my lack of belief in an ancient conception of a god or gods and suddenly I am bothering folks. many people blaming r/atheism. They deserve a little more sympathy IMO. When you are a preteen and you are trying to come to terms with the fact that all of the adults around you sincerely believe in ancient fairy tales, you would act like that too.
"sincerely believe in ... fairy tales" misconstrues religion pretty irredeemably. when some1 puts flowers on the grave of a loved one they dont "believe" there is a corresponding natural phenomenon in the way a scientist "believes" gravity is because of x or cells divide in x way. why should religion have anything to say about the laws of nature and their interactions? if some1 actually believed the eucharist was identical in atomic makeup to human flesh they would be obviously confused, i feelthanks to evolution and natural sciences we don't need a theistic explanation of the natural world (and in fact most established religions do a rather poor job - Genesis, etc)
th only thing i can imagine applying to what this guy is saying is "god created the world", which is more an expression of wonder at th existence of th world than a scientific assertion (ie that god is some physical thing causing other physical things). at the very least the fact that god stands OUTSIDE of the world definitionally means only that "god created the world" stands at the end of a series of why?s that stretches back to the beginning of time n limit of scientific inquiry, and so it says nothing abt the worldand religion as a social phenomenon/people's intuitive belief in God are easily explained by psychology - many people will have a strong sense of believing in anything if they're socially primed to do so
and should this make it less worthwhile? would psychology's natural reasons for simone weil's religious ecstasy be able to fully explain what makes it of religious interest? physical explanation seems to miss the point entirely
i am noted for saying there is "no good reason" 2 do a discog run. no longer do i believe this! the first good reason is exorcism
theres a whole world out there nd usrs into (in a general sense) Lost Media r only concerned w sensationalism nd familiarity. y shld yr interest in general media preservation stop @ names u happen 2 recognize? its lame imo 2 have an interest founded on willful ignorance is all
[img: chipmunk w mouthful corn] finding that early gy!be record mattered 2 th gy!be fan, th media preservationist, and th lost media fan. th gy!be fan won fkn big!! its fkn awesome 2 wring th record that you wanted 2 hear for 10+ yrs out of th hands of obnoxious channers who thought it was cool 2 gatekeep gy!be of all things; that kind of universal closure is almost exhilarating. th media preservationist is excited as well, albeit not on as personal of a level, 2 have a widely accessible copy of all lights fucked online. it's another instant in th history 80s/90s home taping culture -- another piece of th historical picture of th art has been recovered. art is real fucking important regardless of quality, novelty, or name!! th lost media fan is neither of these. th lost media fan places importance on th particular work, th search/discovery of which they will have learned of from fans and preservationists, while purporting to be invested in th general understanding of art and history
these two necessarily conflict immediately outside th area of concern of th well-intentioned internet users in question you will find youtube channels uploading rare and previously undigitized film and music daily. i know of record collectors who dedicate a significant portion of their time to junking and digitizing indiscriminately. even online, partially-accessible files are salvaged regularly from protective (understandably so; different subject) tracker users and run-down websites. th sheer volume of digitization and recovery going on demonstrates th frequency with which gaping holes in th collective knowledge we may not even have known of are closed, which in turn attests to however many more have been left unfilled. instead of taking to heart this call-to-action inherent in every addition to th information superhighway, th emphasis on th work's particularity leaves th lost media fan with an idle satisfaction
th emphasis i see of th "discovery" of some work is th understanding that th media worth finding is that which we associate with a story that interests, a cause inherited, or a name recognized. in this regard, lost media fans turn media preservation into an act of passive consumption. it exists with th assumption that there is nothing to learn about firsthand, and, consequently, no serious work to be done in reaching outside th bubble of knowledge formed by pop culture and th slop th lukewarm whim-driven internet machine feeds us. th most hardworking lost media fan you will find will scour th internet and travel to kentucky to scour video store bargain bins (my knowledge of this subject is limited because i have only dealt with music) to ask about a film they had heard about on a podcast, staking claim to a universal love for art when in reality their interest is passive, having been ignited th moment th story was sold and th film was shrouded in th mystique of th unknown
media preservation is never so glamorous nor so intimately involved w nostalgia and narrative -- motivations that come from a lack of perspective. th mantle of th universal has to be taken up to justify this detached fetish-interest. you cant be a fan of something youve never experienced; its not possible 2 lay claim 2 an unknown particular except through some universal. a gy!be fan lays claim 2 their love for th band's music as a whole; their interest in th unknown is genuinely and fully tied 2 their universal. th media preservationist lays claim 2 their love for art as a whole; their interest in th unknown is genuinely and fully tied 2 their universal. th lost media fan cannot lay claim 2 love a specific work and instead lays claim 2 their love for its context (whether it be a scene, a form, or art as a whole), yet they dont explore th universal they lay claim 2 Beyond th particular work; if they did, it would be very unlikely that they be as concerned with th particulars in question
IMO as a consumer of art u shld have jst as much vision+conviction in a certain ideal of beauty as an artist does. there is clearly no universal aesthetic/set of evaluative concerns 2 familiarize yrself with. the artistic sensibilities that govern consumption r the same ones that govern creation. beyond th baseline judgement of quality (whether or not some piece fulfills th framework it sets for itself), evaluation can be nothing other than a comparison btwn 2 particular ideals. 2 engage with art at all w/o an ideal is conversation without speaking. figure out what u like! too often i see th attitude online to be one of trying rly hard to like everything u hear as though music is being heard but I am not hearing music. one of my fav things is to know someone else's ideal to the point at which i can recall the specific feeling or texture or whatever that all the stuff they like has in common. its an impossible thing 2 put into words from case to case bc its seeing a part of a soul
think discussion of art on social media necessarily leads 2 th formation of surface-level heuristics for being cool online that run counter directly 2 genuine evaluation. "pulse demon LOL bad" is just a social signifier + i doubt this person listened to th whole record. problem is that it leads potential in-group members who do not recognize it as an opinion formed fr appearing a certain way online to assuming th same of dismissive approach. i thnk abt this a lot but i still think th mental map i have of th subject is far from complete heres when i most recently talked abt it nd casted a bit of a broader net:
rym by existing as a hybrid social media / criticism platform actively encourages this transforming of evaluationof art into a social media tool. imo u have to be actively fighting this to have worthwhile opinions
good morning good night is my fav example to use of this so im going to talk abt it first 2 describe th problem bc bcnr is like a more advanced manifestation of th same deal by actively participating in that culture. like can u seriously think th rating for good morning good night is below 3.00 because 1571 people all independently listened to it without 1) planning to rate it on a social media criticism site 2) looking at opinions on the site to figure out how everyone else is consuming it nd taking that 2 be how it should be listened to. bc they feel justified in adopting th opinions of other users they share social identifiers w contributes to th building of an online identity. everyone logs on and sees the meme sine wave album and rates it poorly bc its the meme sine wave album and not even because theyre interested in evaluating it as art !!
you've made a really great point here thank u for writing all of this. it's unfortunate that a lot of ppl fall into the trap of chasing for a status on rym or try and fit into a circle of users. i know u already established that having an objective database isn't possible but i still believe that encouraged behaviours like fake rating and hate rating are harmful to the database. the website is really great as a standalone cataloguing tool and it would do plenty of people a lot of good to use it that way
"i want to fit in" etc is not what im talking about i think because i dont mean that theres a desire for homogeneity in th way that u understand from that statement. everyone is Trying to establish their own individual persona but because of whatever niche internet subgroup theyre a part of, commonly-held opinions w/in said group become identifiers For that group until u necessarily have to say u like (or more noticeably, dislike) xyz album/artist/genre to fulfill the initial individualistic desire. i do think its fine for a group of people to have the same opinions as long as they come from an understanding of an album/artist/genre on its own (what i hope has gone on here w stuff like gmgn etc) instead of like the specific subculturally-held image of w/e album/artist/genre
