Your approach to art is a beautiful combination of a toddler and a grumpy old man. It's immature, ignorant and stubborn in its refusal to actually listen to what others are saying. You have made so many straw-men that it's difficult to consider your posts as being neither well-intentioned nor inviting a meaningful discussion.
One thing is to say 'I don't get it, this is not for me'. Another is to lie down on the museum's floor and start kicking and screaming in a tantrum about the lack of artistic merit of something like the Black Square without a glimmer of open mind and the tiniest will to at least attempt to understand it before dismissing it.
And all you're doing is complaining that someone doesn't like what you like, and trying to invalidate their opinion through ad hominem. Sorry, but I don't need to engage with the thing the same way you do to form and voice an opinion on it. That's just the way it is.
This is one of the straw-men. No one is complaining about you not liking what other people like. No one. Not a single person. Even the authors of these pieces wouldn't complain. That is not the point whatsoever and yet you are bringing it up in many posts.
People are frustrated that you insist on your 'opinion' being valid when the position you hold is void of a thought. It's actually a lack of an opinion. It's a tantrum. You have eyes, you have the time and perhaps even the interest to look, and yet you put your head in a sand and claim that the darkness you see gives you enough data to claim whether something has artistic merit or not.
The frustration comes from witnessing the blatant and confident ignorance, not from whether you 'like' or 'dislike' something.
"I think this piece of art is overrated as it has comparatively little content for the amount of interest it generates" is very much not a non-opinion.
You're not offering any reason why I should form my opinion in any way other than the way I do, you're just trying to invalidate my opinion because you think how I formed it is wrong, again without offering any reason why that is so. Yes, perhaps if both your and my opinions were informed by the same facts we would agree. But so what? That doesn't invalidate my opinion, and I'm not going to shut up. I'm just going to keep calling out low-effort garbage when I see it. I don't care if it frustrates you. If that lowers your opinion of me I'm fine with that; I also don't have a high opinion of the people who think this sort of trash is deep.
You seem to really have very little education, perspective, and experience regarding art. When you have very little education, perspective, and experience, your opinions are irrelevant and it frustrates people to see someone so content (and self-righteous) in their ignorance
Someone on this thread likened it to watching a boxing match and then complaining that they aren't using their legs. This is a good comparison. I would also compare it to having only eaten chicken nuggets your whole life and then complaining that a serving of foie gras isn't filling enough.
Yes, the foie gras isn't really filling, the boxers aren't using their legs, and the art doesn't look like real life. But your judgement is based on ignorance. You lack the vocabulary to describe what you're seeing-- but more than that, you lack the eye to even see it in the first place. And instead of conceding that you just don't really know what you're talking about, you double down and insist that you're actually privy to some profound truth about art. It can't be that the countless Art History PhDs, renowned critics, museum collections, and artists who see the relevance of Warhol based on years of study and consideration are correct. No, your perspective is greater because you... were dragged to a museum one time and didn't really pay attention? Because you have delusions about "effort" and the difficulty of trompe l'oeil? For fuck's sake, read a book.
If all you can do is tell me that I can't be right because I'm less educated on art than someone who doesn't agree with me, that just tells me I'm probably right. I'll stand in front of an art PhD and tell them their degree is worthless and a waste of time because it didn't teach to see something an uneducated idiot like me can see.
Sorry, you can't get me to shut up through ad hominem and appeals to authority. You have to actually convince me I'm wrong. Argue your point or don't bother; you're just wasting your time otherwise.
Would you stand in front an astrophysicist PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can’t see dark matter and supersymmetry? Would you stand in front of an archaeology PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can obviously see that aliens created the pyramids? You don’t know what you’re talking about. Your idea of art as a purely subjective study isn’t held by anyone with even casual knowledge of the field. It’s like claiming mathematics is subjective because we all have different favorite numbers.
Multiple commenters have used pathos and ethos to argue with you because your understanding is so rudimentary and your ignorance so great that to argue the nature of art with you would be like trying to teach algebra to an ape. You cannot comprehend an actual argument from your starting point.
I for one don’t really like Warhol. I’m a spurned formalist along the likes of Greenberg and Fried, and I think the true inheritor of post-modernist conceptualism lies with Minimalists like Serra, Morris, Smithson, etc. I’m not convinced by Baudrillard, and I think the strongest Warhol is his early and late periods where he was much more concerned with illustration and surface treatment, respectively. I am still not such an uneducated simpleton so as to make the claim that Warhol isn’t art or worthy of art historical study. -This- is what an argument against Warhol looks like. Demonstrated knowledge of art history, methodology, and reasoning. You are claiming people aren’t engaging with you but you lack the fundamental skills to be engaged with. Again, this is like arguing mathematical proofs with someone who can’t multiply two numbers. Read a book!
>Would you stand in front an astrophysicist PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can’t see dark matter and supersymmetry? Would you stand in front of an archaeology PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can obviously see that aliens created the pyramids?
No. Obviously I don't have the same respect for all fields.
>-This- is what an argument against Warhol looks like. Demonstrated knowledge of art history, methodology, and reasoning.
See, you're misunderstanding. You expressed an idea in the form of an argument that might convince someone educated the same way you are, of its truth. I simply made an appreciation and then explained how I got to it. It was never meant to be convincing, it was just meant to be out there. And all I got were a bunch of people who said I shouldn't say that, or I shouldn't look at it that way, yet could offer no reason why I shouldn't say that, or why I shouldn't do that. You're doing it, too; you're just telling me to read a book. I'm not going to read a book on art history. I don't have the inclination or time, and my appreciation of art doesn't work like that the way it does for you. I have nothing to gain from reading a book on art, and much to lose. You're the one who thinks I shouldn't be saying the things I'm saying, convince me I shouldn't.
WHY am I wrong in approaching the subject in this manner? Because so far the only problem I see is that it ruffles the feathers of people with art degrees. If that really is the only reason then I simply do not care.
>I simply made an appreciation and then explained how I got to it. It was never meant to be convincing, it was just meant to be out there… WHY am I wrong in approaching the subject in this manner?
You’re asking me to justify to you why one shouldn’t flap their mouth about things they don’t know anything about and then stand by their willful ignorance when confronted by domain experts? You want me to convince you that it’s not ok to just spout bullshit and insist that it’s a valid position to hold irrespective of knowledge, methods, accuracy, reasoning, logic, research, justification, experience, etc etc? Lmfao. You’re delusional.
The point here is that nobody owes you a course in art history which would answer all of your why questions when many such courses are available.
You're not entitled to free education from us, particularly - against your will ("convince me"), when there are many resources out there available to you.
We can point out why your opinions are bad (they are grounded in too little knowledge of what you're opining on), we can point out where to get more knowledge.
If you want to learn, you will.
The saddest thing here is not even arrogance, but lack of curiosity.
So you want something out of me, but are not willing to explain why I should do it. Okay, then I'm not compelled to do it. I can simply tell you to piss off. I'm not entitled to receive an education from you and you're not entitled to have me not write stupid things.
>I can simply tell you to piss off. I'm not entitled to receive an education from you and you're not entitled to have me not write stupid things.
The difference is that I'm not asking you to not write stupid things, but you ask me to explain things to you.
>So you want something out of me
That would be projection. You want something out of other people (an explanation), whereas we want you to get something for yourself.
We get absolutely nothing if you learn more about the subject you opine on. You will.
>I can simply tell you to piss off.
You certainly can. You're not in the right forum for that though.
I did write an explanation up the thread - long enough to not fit into the limits of a single comment on HN (a hilarious limitation for 2024, but I digress).
Engineers viewing design as a 'less prestigious' role is laughable. The compensation for these tracks is pretty much equal. I would love to hear you spell out why exactly you perceive design as less prestigious.
I would agree on the junior side of things. There is a higher threshold for the starting line for engineers, but for higher levels, design is by no means seen as a less prestigious role. Not in any sense of the word.
For salaries – see e.g. levels.fyi for quick comparison. Even Google – a company not really known for valuing design that highly: SWE L6 avg. = 520K USD. Product Designer L6 avg. = 515K USD.
I won't speak on engineering vs design. but compensation doesn't necessarily correlate perfectly with prestige. Teaching is the easiest example in the opposite way.
One thing is to say 'I don't get it, this is not for me'. Another is to lie down on the museum's floor and start kicking and screaming in a tantrum about the lack of artistic merit of something like the Black Square without a glimmer of open mind and the tiniest will to at least attempt to understand it before dismissing it.