An unpolished musing on the objective value of art: http://www.michaelfoord.co.uk/2016/07/objective-value-in-art.html …
-
for what it's worth I think "liking something" counts as an emotional response :-)
It is, but I mean the whole massive genre of art before 1910 that didn't say anything but was just a pretty painting.
-
-
I'm specifically talking about modern art where I'm pretty convinced that in many cases the emperor really has no clothers.
-
He totally doesn't. Like I say: A painting is like a joke, if you have to explain it then it sucks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'd still say art that moves us deeply, is able to change us, is *better* art than art we merely like to look at.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
there are reasons I measure the value of art this way - art is the production of society a culture because people are.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
that's something I just "assumed" for this article - worth discussing in more depth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.