News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I don't "get" art by b0rsuk on Monday June 18, 2012 @02:30AM (#4125267)
And that's why I dislike "art" - because too often the only thing that makes something art is a label. Without it, it would be a skippable youtube video. His comment about the photo of a woman sitting in a chair is spot on. Nobody would give it five seconds if it was in somebody's summer collection, because it does look like a boring holiday photo. The article's author may have cherry picked, but it's true that art lacks fundamental safeguards against crap. If you have a reputation, you can post almost everything in the art thread.

I value aesthetics more than art. It's much better defined. Not everything that looks nice is an art, but in worst case you're left with something that looks nice ;-).

Re:I don't "get" art by minikomi on Monday June 18, 2012 @03:28AM (#4125393)
There are only two hard things in Art: critic invalidation and naming things.
Re:I don't "get" art by geon on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:11AM (#4126738)
> value aesthetics more than art. (...) something that looks nice

"Aestethics" doesn't really require anything to look good.

Personally, I think LMFAO[1] and Robyn[2] looks absolutely terrible. But that tickles some part of my brain, and I enjoy the aestethics of it, in all it's uglyness.

[1] http://www.starsentertainment.com/media/articles/images/l/m/...

[2] http://plusmen.blogspot.se/2011/06/rye-rye-never-will-be-min...