So there's two possibilities, one is that artistic quality is objective and the other subjective If it's objective, then as we learn more about it and we get better over time - new art is better than old art just as new science is more accurate and new technology works betterhttps://twitter.com/iridienne/status/1290750884607954944 …
-
Show this thread
-
If it's subjective, then, well, it's subjective I can like old stuff, you can like new stuff, neither of us is wrong But it will remain an empirical fact that the newer something is, the more currently living people will like it, because it was addressed to their tastes
1 reply 3 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
Either way, current relevance matters, art gets stale over time, and almost all artistic work is eventually forgotten That's how it's supposed to go ("This too shall pass")
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
I think the second POV is truer than the first, but people who hold the first POV and DON'T think that, if objective standards of quality exist, we get objectively better and better over time are assholes
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
If you believe in "real, objective truth" about anything and yet you don't believe we learn more over time and are therefore better than our ancestors then what's the fucking point Of anything It's not respect to your elders, it's insulting them by saying their work was wasted
2 replies 3 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
The Golden Age narrative - things used to be perfect in the past and then they've steadily decayed since then, every generation can't help but be worse than the previous - is very culturally common, many of us instinctively fall back on it in hard times
4 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
I could loosely follow some argument that certain artistic pursuits are more or less achieved, so that pursuing novelty leads to a worse product. But I can't think of anywhere it applies.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mssilverstein @arthur_affect
Or else you're just getting imitations, which don't have the effect of the original because they're constantly referencing it, or else giving up the things it did right to distinguish itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mssilverstein @arthur_affect
Whatever it would be, would have to be something so narrow to fit the "yeah, OK, this was achieved and now it's done." Marble statuary?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I would say that the reason there is no such thing as "objective" mastery in art in the long run is art only exists to feed the subjective and fickle appetites of human beings
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein
Which means if you actually fully "master" some artistic project and fully satiate that hunger, the natural human response is to then become bored with it and move on to something else Every new generation subverting and deconstructing the project of the last one
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Yeah - and any genre or medium that is actually exhausted of new idea possibilities just dies
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.