• dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Very succinctly so I don’t end up writing another wall, I generally agree with you on these points. Where we differ I think is that I feel context can add depth and richness (as in the Jester painting) but that the work itself should contain some INTRINSIC depth and richness.

    The analog discussion I think we are having is “are placebos good medicine?”. Do you feel better after taking them? Sure. I suppose that makes it hard to say they are not medicine. At the same time, it’s the act of consuming them that gives them the effect, not anything to do with the content.

    • Nangijala@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I genuinely disagree with you on the placebo argument, but that is okay.

      Sometimes I like an abstract painting or sculpture because of shape, color, composition and so on. I don’t think abstract art would be popular with many people is the works didn’t stir something in them just by how they looked.

      Again, I completely respect that this type of art doesn’t do anything for you, but I think you are entirely wrong in claiming that there is nothing to abstract art unless there is a title for context. That isn’t true. Abstract art can evoke all kinds of emotions in people without any context. Disgust, euphoria, sadness, happiness, fear, anger, calmness etc. It is not a trick that an abstract art piece can evoke emotions. It is simply a matter of the art piece being created by someone who has an eye for composition, color theory and is in tune with the emotion he or she intents to transfer onto the canvas.