Re:A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsessio...
by phoe-krk on Monday September 02, 2019 @09:21AM
(#20858949)
You misunderstood my question. I asked, "Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent?", with a stress on the "I".
I find it worthwhile to listen to people who describe what touches them and what they are indifferent to. However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point of view, which I personally find silly due to the fact that art is an inherently subjective experience.
Re:A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsessio...
by coldtea on Monday September 02, 2019 @09:32AM
(#20859012)
>However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point of view, which I personally find silly due to the fact that art is an inherently subjective experience.
I don't think that's settled. For that matter, I don't think that's true.
Re:A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsessio...
by ulisesrmzroche on Monday September 02, 2019 @08:06PM
(#20862668)
It’s not inherently subjective. There’s good and shit.
Like how there’s good code and shit code.
Because else you're in an endless loop, where you define what you like by what you like.
It is (or, perhaps, it has been) generally understood, that being schooled into things, learning about them, their history, aesthetic rivalries and ideas abotu them, and appreciating the cultured opinions of people who have studied them more, helps one appreciate finer things and cultivate their preferences.
The alternative, "because I like it", sounds like a regression to childhood.