Rec
šØ
i think a lot of people still have this very conservative view of art. sure, drawing, painting, sculpture, and all of those mediums that have been seen as legitimate forms of art for thousands of years, are art. i feel like some people still view those as the ONLY legitimate forms of art. i think most people can agree we have accepted photography as art in the past century. why is our idea of what art can be, so narrow ? performance can be art, social media posting can be art, group blogging can be art, cultivating an affective commons can be art, hanging out can be art. you are no better than those who say a blue square cannot be art.
Jan 2, 2024
Comments
was literally just thinking about how curly hair routines are performance / ephemeral art. makeup too of course or a good outfit.
Related Recs
Rec
š§āartā, media, whatever you create you create as a mode of expression first and foremost (which, imo, is why we all have a semi-innate distaste for work that feels derivative, disingenuous, or commerce-oriented claiming to be art.)
i think the arts landscape we find ourselves in (and the postmodernism of it all) incentivizes art that inspires dialogue, that is meant to captivate an audience and ideally a large one in both the fine arts and pop art arenas, and so we often congregate to forms like moving image, and other easily disseminated, easily digestible forms to express what is capable of being expressed through a variety of forms
if no one was there to receive our art we would still express ourselves. people expressed themselves before we had comms tech enabling immediate, mass dissemination. per meagre_graemeās rec, forms with an emphasis on utility such as cuisine, materials work, etc. would certainly be viable and more āoptimalā modes of expression, but writing would not go anywhere. photography would not go anywhere. the means by which people who do not consider themselves āartistsā express themselves and use their creative faculties to capture and romanticize their lives would become the means by which weād all express ourselves in the absence of an audienceā¦ so per taterholeā¦ does the audience even matter?
i think the arts landscape we find ourselves in (and the postmodernism of it all) incentivizes art that inspires dialogue, that is meant to captivate an audience and ideally a large one in both the fine arts and pop art arenas, and so we often congregate to forms like moving image, and other easily disseminated, easily digestible forms to express what is capable of being expressed through a variety of forms
if no one was there to receive our art we would still express ourselves. people expressed themselves before we had comms tech enabling immediate, mass dissemination. per meagre_graemeās rec, forms with an emphasis on utility such as cuisine, materials work, etc. would certainly be viable and more āoptimalā modes of expression, but writing would not go anywhere. photography would not go anywhere. the means by which people who do not consider themselves āartistsā express themselves and use their creative faculties to capture and romanticize their lives would become the means by which weād all express ourselves in the absence of an audienceā¦ so per taterholeā¦ does the audience even matter?
Rec
āinspired by a tweet i saw today idk,, i'd rather be an art liker than a media consumer
Rec
šI donāt think art is ever bad or useless, but I think that propaganda masquerading as art is.
I just met up with a friend and former coworker who now organizes art projects and murals for public housing communities and his job has added so much to these neighborhoods. Kids who are in the epicenter of the global art world in NYC but completely removed from the moneyed culture controlling it are able to explore, learn about, and create art because of the nonprofitās work.
The murals are also done with input and approval from the community at every point to create something that they feel is beautiful and look forward to seeing every day. The collaboration between the artist and the community is what gives the work value. The funding for this also comes from private arts grants, itās not any money that could ever be allocated to improving plumbing or heating or any material other concerns of the community.
Art is subjective so slapping a mural up without any input of the audience feels to me like a work of propaganda. I think throwing up a trendy mural that reflects the current tastes of the macro-consumer culture without and thought or specificty to the real material culture surrounding it is an act of propaganda. Painting some corny non-native flowers on a building so that people will want to take a photo with it and then eventually want to build a matcha labubu cafe with $9 drinks is an act of propaganda by development companies.
Creating a work that doesnāt honor, let alone acknowledge, the life of the space it inhabits will always be artless. In a vacuum, the flower mural has nothing inherently bad or artless about it, but you simply canāt divorce public art from its setting: the public. Their houses, shops, the streets they walk every day, the cats hanging around the sidewalks, the yard that always has the prettiest marigolds pop up in the fall or whatever it may be that makes that place feel like home to the community.
I just met up with a friend and former coworker who now organizes art projects and murals for public housing communities and his job has added so much to these neighborhoods. Kids who are in the epicenter of the global art world in NYC but completely removed from the moneyed culture controlling it are able to explore, learn about, and create art because of the nonprofitās work.
The murals are also done with input and approval from the community at every point to create something that they feel is beautiful and look forward to seeing every day. The collaboration between the artist and the community is what gives the work value. The funding for this also comes from private arts grants, itās not any money that could ever be allocated to improving plumbing or heating or any material other concerns of the community.
Art is subjective so slapping a mural up without any input of the audience feels to me like a work of propaganda. I think throwing up a trendy mural that reflects the current tastes of the macro-consumer culture without and thought or specificty to the real material culture surrounding it is an act of propaganda. Painting some corny non-native flowers on a building so that people will want to take a photo with it and then eventually want to build a matcha labubu cafe with $9 drinks is an act of propaganda by development companies.
Creating a work that doesnāt honor, let alone acknowledge, the life of the space it inhabits will always be artless. In a vacuum, the flower mural has nothing inherently bad or artless about it, but you simply canāt divorce public art from its setting: the public. Their houses, shops, the streets they walk every day, the cats hanging around the sidewalks, the yard that always has the prettiest marigolds pop up in the fall or whatever it may be that makes that place feel like home to the community.
1d ago
Top Recs from @kef
Rec
ā„ļøi love hearing peopleās voices. i will call you up at any hour of the day, even if itās just to say hi. phone calls are underrated.
Rec
ā„ļøas a transsexual, youāll often find yourself in the beds of other transsexuals. this comes with the territory. and like any girl, i want attention. i want affection. i need validation from feeling wanted. validation from pleasing others. i want to feel like iām good enough. i am like a 14 year old girl with no mother, clutching to a doll. i have been learning to let go