It sounds like they have actual,proper art museums where the author lives.
None of that scam modern art crap with minimal effort just to make a buck by touting it highly.
Thanks to the internet,REAL art can be shared en masse,and this series is the meta of that.
Disagree, if you ask somebody like you to define and refine their definition of "real" art, all you will get is a description of the art they like or tolerate. Postmodern thought tells us that anything can be art. Art can't be "good" or "bad" except relative to your opinion, i.e. there is no "good art", only "art I think is good". Whether the art is ART (and therefore "real art") is indisputable.
In a global sense this is true as far as the idea that anything can be art. But we can also all agree on certain principles that will allow us to evaluate that art. There are certain ideas of function and form that might help us evaluate something as good or bad.
For example, you might say there are no bad poems or no bad poem types, but perhaps a specific sonnet or a specific limerick can be bad because it does not function well in the form.
I would never argue that the Michael Bay Transformers film is not art. Of course it's art. But by any established measure of what it means for a movie to be "good", it isn't. Now you could of course argue that those established measures are just as subjective as anything else, and that is true. But I also think that's missing the point.
Discussing art with the premise that everything is of equal value is boring because it does end up in a purely, "I like this...I don't like this" form. It ignores the make up of the art itself, such as authorial intent, audience interpretation, reaction, implication, subtext, symbolism, mood, tone, context, framing, etc. It removes the emotional element of art. That feeling of chills when you read something that particularly touches you, that overwhelming sense of grandeur when you've found something that you can't help laughing or crying or feeling any other involuntary emotion towards, is negated by the idea that everything is equal. Do we think the Godfather is a better movie than Transformers because we have been told that it is a better movie and we just internalize that, or is there something in the way it is made that leads most people, or even some people, to come to that conclusion? Are there functional aspects that are in the work, on purpose or by accident, that create a specific reaction in people?
To put it another way, it's the difference between Nihilism and Atheistic Existentialism. Nihilism says nothing means anything. Atheistic Existentialism says sure that may be true, but then we as individuals can create meaning from that nothingness. To stop a conversation of art at the point that you say everything is up to your own opinion is to relinquish yourself to a Nihilistic artistic experience. The Existentialist artistic experience would be to ask what we can agree are things that we value in art.
2.jpg?1641781308)
