Re:I don't "get" art
by scott_s on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:48AM
(#4126964)
I expect that whatever shows up in the MOMA to be the 10%. Further, the "intention of the artist" is completely lost if there is no explanation, and the work is shown in a gallery without context. Something has to give.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
> I expect that whatever shows up in the MOMA to be the 10%.
Fair enough.
> Further, the "intention of the artist" is completely lost if there is no explanation, and the work is shown in a gallery without context.
However, some of the strongest form of art today (prehistoric cave painting) have lost all of their context and hope of being understood. I think we can manage without any explanation most of the time.
OT, and tardy to boot, but your comment reminds me of the only song I know about cave painting, "The Caves of Altamira", by Steely Dan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBCa9WPHlWI
"Before the Fall, when they wrote it on the wall, and there wasn't even any Hollywood..."
Prehistoric cave paintings have an anthropological interest outside of just their artistic interest. I'm much more interested in those as a scientist than as I am about someone trying to appreciate art.
The stuff that shows up in the MOMA is surely the top 10% for some audience; otherwise a curator wouldn't have bothered with it.
If you're expecting that it should also be in your top 10%, well, then you have created yourself an expectation. If eventually that stops being fun, there are other things you can do.