Alt Text
Show parent replies
The post below is a reply to another user
not gonna block you because you engaged substantially. i actually agree with parts of what you’re saying, but i think there’s a misunderstanding in what i meant.
“isn’t that why they are artists? and why they can become artists?” yes!! precisely!
if they were discussing theoretical concerns all the time, it would be prohibitively difficult to create, and would paralyze them. it’s not a criticism that they don’t know ‘it’ (the ‘it’ in question being achieving art in its highest form!).
frequently it’s perfectly fine not to have a theoretical understanding, although it can lead the artist to do things counter to their own interest without them realizing it, which was my point.
i’m not saying they should be like me, i’m expressing frustration and mourning the loss of artists getting in their own way unintentionally. i don’t criticize because i think i am better, i criticize because i think they are doing something of vital significance that i have a lot of respect for.
i’m not bringing arbitrary criteria to bear on the art itself, expounding a regimented theory of what makes ‘good’ art. i’m saying the only criteria art in the true sense can have is criteria that creates itself.
sometimes however, the person that is a vector for the creation of the piece prevents it from doing so, in accordance with their own short term interests. that is disappointing to me, particularly because the sediment that is created today is the foundation for future art.