Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
It's dumb only in the context that one didn't understand what kind of so-called "art" I had in mind when I posted the comment. What's also "dumb" my friend is assuming I meant all alternative or otherwise different types of art, especially when in fact I didn't. But if you really wanted to know what I meant you might have asked rather than opening with the not at all surprising insult gambit.
I'm sorry but, for example, a handful of metal hospital bedpans welded together along with a congested mass of other metalic odds and ends, old water pipes and toilet drains, purchased for say $100K and put on display in the main entrance of a large building, is in my view quite simply... crap.
Same with someone who slathers themselves with paint and wallows around like a pig in a sty for a while and then passes it off as art. Complete crap. People who pretend to appreciate such crap would just as likely buy a wall full of used asswipe if it was signed with the right name.
Visual art is at it's core a matter of taste. You're of course free to enjoy that kind of "art" if that's your thing. I won't be so impudent as to call such people's opinion "dumb", but I reserve the right to maintain my opinion the thing itself is crap.
I hope it's more obvious as to the kind of art I was referring to in my earlier post.
Thank you.
|
The type of art you're referring to is exactly as obvious as in your previous post: the type you don't like, and which other people refer to as an acquired taste.
You posted in a thread that attacks the idea of there being such a thing as acquired taste, implicitly agreed with it, and stated it applies to art as well.
If what you were actually trying to say was that in art, acquired taste is a key concept for the appreciation of many pieces, but that occasionally, the term gets abused to defend pieces not worth defending, then I fully agree with you. I'd also say that you did a rather bad job at getting your point across.