• whaleross@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Yep. If you look into history there are plenty of examples of political powers promoting arts of all tradition for their own purposes.

    But you know who were on the fronts of practically banning modern art in the first place? Check out Entartete Kunst, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art. So does that make all traditional and figurative art problematic now?

    And you know what other art was “not understood” by it’s creators until later? Oh, boy. Fucking most of it, because a lot of art is expression and exploration, and theory is the understanding after, despite academics and theorists in fine arts have been trying to center the entire scene around themselves rather than the artists for the better part of the 1900s until today.

    • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Im saying if, as is pretty strongly stated upthread, beauty comes entirely from the context, and the piece does not factor, by that metric, this genre is ugly, disgusting, vile.

      I did not say that it is the case. I am responding to someone who defended this genre by saying people who dont like it do not understand the history.

      Please read before replying.

      • whaleross@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Damn, my dude. You sure have impressive reading skills to find all of that in “this is shit”.

        Not to mention the truly phenomenal, remarkably exceptional, astonishingly outstanding writing skills required to wield, utilize, employ, and make strategic use of a dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon, and vocabulary compendium in order to lend, bestow, confer, and imbue an exaggerated, inflated, and artificially magnified impression, illusion, and semblance of substance, gravitas, and argumentative weight.