I like art. I don't like this work, but that should be ok. It should be ok to not like stuff.
I've spent a fair bit of time in art galleries. I enjoy it. I don't enjoy the art snobbery though. I don't know why people gaze endlessly into paintings and try to discern the meaning or whatever. It's not that deep.
I don't understand the hype around the Mona Lisa. I don't understand why people stand in line for hours and then crowd around this one — in my opinion — bland painting to snap that shot and check it off their list that they've seen that one piece. The Centre Pompidou is just down the road and it's full of way more interesting stuff!
My father is an artist, and any time his work is featured in a gallery he is asked to describe the meaning, the inspiration, the message, and countless other pretentious questions intended to draw in a totally unnecessary air of sophistication. His response is the same every time.
"I don't know. I see shit and I paint it."
I'm massively into wine. Similarly, I find wine snobbery frustrating. I have enjoyed the world's best wines. From Ukraine, from Georgia, from Moldova, Italy, France… But the people who clutch their pearls when you pair a dry red with your grilled salmon? Fuck those people especially.
What's beautiful about art, and wine, and music, is that there's an entire universe of it. There's something for everybody. And it's definitely ok to not like some of it.
The reaction is always bigger than the original action. The physics of culture.
I sometimes wonder if we're hard wired to overreact to heterodoxy. Like maybe that's how early humans managed to have social groups larger than a dozen. Chaos ensues if everyone's running off in different directions.
> ... more people complaining about wine snobbery than there are actual wine snobs
That may be so, but nevertheless, I dread going to dinner at fine restaurants with some of my friends because I've had to pick up a $1200 tab due to their over the top wine selections. Furthermore, I enjoy wine, but I rarely drink more than one glass.
It’s a bit more complicated. Normally with our friends we split the bill in half 50/50 no matter what we order. These friends though always pick wine much more expensive than we would.
It’s a bit more complicated. Normally with our friends we split the bill in half 50/50 no matter what we order. These friends though always pick wine much more expensive than we would.
Ugh, there isn't anything adversarial about memes - and to say otherwise is to accidentally admit a lot more than you likely intended. They propagate for the same reason that stereotypes do: they're useful.
I don't like the turn this thread took, but weighing in here narrowly with something hopefully interesting...
The memes themselves needn't be "adversaries" for it to be to the benefit of one of them to inspire rage against the other. "X makes people angry at people holding Y" can help X spread because people like talking about things they're mad about, and the presence of Y actually makes that more effective; the memes themselves are, to a degree, symbiotic within the broader society even as they maybe do bad things to the people in that society.
That your adversarial framing, at the very least, is aligned with some pretty humorless technocrats who find themselves so thoroughly savaged by ridiculing laughter that they're openly fantasizing about going nuclear with the censorship.
A dull lunatic... that insult isn't even internally coherent. Better tell those wackos at the European Consortium for Political Research that "technocrat" is forbidden Alex Jones mouth noise.
If "technocrat" means expertise driven, I'll take that, please. Better than taking the input of people like you.
Why are all your comments about Europe though? You sound like you've been radicalized. Get off YouTube and stop watching Alex Jones, I'm saying this for you own mental health.
> I don't understand the hype around the Mona Lisa.
Because the Mona Lisa is not just a piece of art, but a piece of history that had a wide ranging influence on art, and it was painted by one of the greatest artists who ever lived, who was also a polymath and excelled in engineering and science. There are also some unsolved mysteries around it. If all you see when looking at the Mona Lisa is flourishes of paint, then maybe you need to consider wider contexts.
Art is valuable because it engages humanity, emotionally, socially, intellectually, and there's no doubt that the Mona Lisa has created a lot of debate and study. Maybe you don't like it by itself, but you should still appreciate the wider context.
A powerful engagement and influence was left by MySpace, but it's not put up in protective glass for ticketed visitors to take snapshots of. I appreciate the nuance of its impact on the world, but... we've moved on.
> A powerful engagement and influence was left by MySpace, but it's not put up in protective glass for ticketed visitors to take snapshots of
Maybe we should have. I'm sure a MySpace archive would have significant anthropological value a century from now. I don't really find this argument convincing to be honest.
I mean, you're basically arguing that we should tear down Ancient Greek and Roman buildings, tear down the Eiffel tower, and so on, "because we've moved on".
On of the reasons we like art, is that it gives humans a window to transcendence.
Admittingly, not all art forms will have this effect on everyone but a specific painting, or sculpture or a melody might suddenly give you a tiny glimpse of this. Perhaps it was the way the colors melded together, or the symmetry in the picture or an obnoxious pattern that garbed your imagination; this is why people travel thousands of miles across the world to visit galleries, touristic sights and music events.
Ever noticed how your wall looks completely dry and uninteresting until you hang a painting or a beautiful image on it? Try removing music, images, paintings and movies from your existence and see if you can bear it for more than a few seconds.
Without art, life is mundane because art is the outpouring of human imagination.
> The Centre Pompidou is just down the road and it's full of way more interesting stuff!
So much this. Don't go to Paris without visiting the Pompidou. Allocate a day because it's huge. But it's also uncrowded so you can wander peacefully and get up close to some amazing art.
Art is that deep, and moreso in some areas than others. Star Wars and centuries of faith based paintings have rich meaning imbued into the end product. All the star wars clones that dropped the meaningful parts didn't succeed.
There's a whole class of landscape and still life paintings which have mundane subjects that express geometry in deep, layered technique. The clues in how it was constructed and are there if you look for them. The appreciation of which can change a painting you thought was 10% interesting on first glance into 110% interesting with a deeper insight.
I agree though, painting what you see is a great way to suceed now.
man I can't taste with your taste buds, but most red wine don't go well with fish. It's not an acquired taste, you know it the first time you pair a good wine with meat. Or a good champagne with smoked salmon. It's like putting salt on food for the first time of your life, it's another level of deliciousness. Of course you can drink whatever liquid with whatever food and like it. But it's not pure snobbery, it's a real thing.
> It's like putting salt on food for the first time of your life, it's another level of deliciousness.
Baby humans dislike salt. Most young children dislike salt. The "deliciousness" is mostly an acquired taste, though there may be some physiological-need-driven component to it under unusual circumstances.
Isn’t this because children don’t taste bitter the same way adults do? Most of what salt does for us is reduce the perception of bitter, iirc (for taste, obviously it does other things).
That would suggest it is physiological , not acquired.
The guidance to prefer white wine with fish isn't a hard and fast rule, but a general suggestion if you don't know enough to make a more considered choice. Grilled salmon in particular has a richness and smokiness that pairs very well with certain reds.
It's about status. It motivates a good portion of the population. When they gaze into that painting, they appear more intelligent, more discerning, more uniquely human. Not casting judgment on them, because we all do it in different ways.
> The Legendary Study That Embarrassed Wine Experts Across the Globe
> In a sneaky study, Brochet dyed a white wine red and gave it to 54 oenology (wine science) students. The supposedly expert panel overwhelmingly described the beverage like they would a red wine. They were completely fooled.
There’s a reason a wine glass has a stem, after all.
But more seriously, the main reason people don’t hold a glass by the stem is because they are used to receiving too heavy a pour, and it becomes unstable to hold by the stem.
That one is especially funny because (like a lot of stuff) the practical sprawled out into the weird and pretentious.
Hand makes heat, so heat close to liquid will change the temperature a tiny bit, maybe. You can hold it accordingly, but also, probably doesn't matter if you're drinking relatively quickly.
Small picture is that white wines are supposed to pair up better with fish, and chicken while red wines go with red meats.
The big picture is that this is a shibboleth[1]. Humans, or some humans, seems to delight in finding ways to define the in-group and the out-group. Signs marking you as an outsider can be anything. Where i have grown up wearing the wrong kind of shoelaces in your boots meant that you are not a “real” rocker but a wannabe. Listening to the “wrong” bands, or listening to the right bands “wrong” can be a similar signifyer. Or wearing socks with your sandal, or asking for ketchup in a high end italian pizza place, or eating pineappe on your pizza. They all signal that you don’t belong to some group because you don’t behave according to some arbitrary norms the group made up for this very purpose.
1: funnily the word itself acts as one. There is of course the biblical story where soldiers where able to tell undercover enemies apart from the general population based on how they pronounced the word shibolleth. But also the fact that someone knows this story can signify that someone is “cultured”, or at least classically read or whatever. (Or as is the case with me had the pleasure of integrating with the authentication system of the same name.)
They all signal that you don’t belong to some group because you don’t behave according to some arbitrary norms the group made up for this very purpose.
Indeed, and we all do it. vi-vs-emacs or tabs-vs-spaces (or bsd-vs-linux, apple-vs-microsoft) aren't any less arbitrary than the other groups you mentioned.
Typically white wine is paired with fish, which is very lean and delicate of flavor. (Caveat: salmon, swordfish, tuna, etc. are somewhat oddballs due to their unique flavor profiles)
Some would say a dry red wine with grilled salmon is like highlighting with a black sharpie. But, as parent said, if those are flavors you like... it's your tongue you're trying to please, mate!
Same reason I gave people zero pushback at ice in wine at weddings. It's 90+ F (32+ C) outside! Do what makes you most happy.
> What is the stigma about pairing dry red wine with salmon?
Two flavours can coexist, they can complement, or they can conflict. Generally speaking, red wine conflicts with fish dishes (exceptions to every rule of course). It's a whole thing:
Bigger heavy reds that were very popular in the not distant past compete with rather than complementing the flavor of the fish. But, do you and have a big chewy red with you fish if you like that.
Edit: you've unfortunately been posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments repeatedly. That's not ok. Would you please review the rules and stick to them from now on so we don't have to ban you?
>So: why should we--why should anyone--care about your half-arsed opinion?
I don't think you effectively critiqued yakshaving by repeating what he said about the commentating art community. Their opinions are worth no more than his, my, or your half-arsed opinions. You haven't defended them when he's speaking against pretentiousness.
Art is art, and it doesn't need an adhoc recital of catch phrases and in-words performed by those gathered around. In saying "You just don't understand", you gilt no dirt.
There's no need for a bait and switch. Yakshaving didn't criticise the art, he criticised the chatter, which is just a gussied up version of "I like the colour" and "The way it creaks in the breeze gives me the heebie-jeebies".
Its like a party after a hanging, and regardless of whether it is a painting, or an outlaw, there's something uncomfortable and unnatural about people gathering around to nod their heads in satisfaction.
Where does this strawman of art commentating come from? Loud people at parties?
Have you ever read a good book on art theory or art history? By whom? Have you ever, as an artist, sat around with someone in the same practice and wanted to talk about the meat of what it is you're doing? 'I like the colour' is a fine thing to say, but anyone who is even slightly curious will follow it up with I wonder why? or I wonder if there are any colors I don't like or any of a million other questions. Letting it sit at 'I like the colour' is kind of lame.
Or maybe all discussion of art is 'a gussied up version of "I like the colour";' in that case, then all software engineering is making colored lights blink in patterns--see how useless it is to ignore complexity?
There's a lot of "you don't understand" in this response.
Does this imply that all art has some objective meaning, or value, and some people fail to recognize that while others are consistently able to appreciate it?
I'd say that enjoying art is subjective, and if you don't find value in a certain piece (or even in a certain genre) that's not a failing of the observer to "understand" properly.
I also don't find concrete structures in the desert visually appealing, nor do they enrich me in some way. Perhaps in person they would.
Thank you for more eloquently writing the reply I wanted to write.
Even the backlash against art that strays from mere visual sugar isn’t new in our history. This criticism is so stale that it already ran a cycle in the 30s and ended with destroyed art, imprisonments, and the return of neoclassical art under state supervision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition
Does being this rude normally work well for you in society?
> What you've written, though, is a very, very lazy critique of art appreciation.
No it isn't, because I haven't written a critique at all. I shared a fairly simple opinion broadly in response to some people's reactions of some other people's negative reactions to this work.
> You make a real juvenile start just calling it "snobbery,"
The ad hominem here is inappropriate.
> I'm sure Centre Pompidou is objectively "way more interesting" than the Louvre, why does the Louvre even exist? Thanks for clearing that up.
Objectively? How have you read a position of objectivity into my comment? This is a discussion about art, which is inherently subjective.
> What, did you go to Paris once and have a bad time?
I love Paris. I haven't the slightest clue where you got this idea.
> So: why should we--why should anyone--care about your half-arsed opinion? ... and why should I respond?
Good question. Why did you respond?
> therefore people who do understand that thing are, what, somehow insulting you?
No. I have neither said nor implied that. You should try interpreting other people's comments more charitably in future.
> Just shut up. Let people appreciate things and shut up.
These words — and most of your words that precede them — are entirely inappropriate for this forum.
If you would like to attack me personally, I'd be happy to share my personal phone number with you and you can say all of this to my face.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is. Please especially avoid the tedious tit-for-tat flamewar thing.
I haven't written a critique at all. I shared a fairly simple opinion
You shared a negative opinion, and did so in writing. Perhaps you wouldn't call it a critique because you didn't use sound reasoning, but I would call that defense critique snobbery: you still dismissed other people's pastimes by invalidating their experience ("it's not that deep").
I suppose I'm deeply into music snobbery. I enjoy analyzing good pieces of music, and even use high-falootin' words like tritone, dominant, resolution or syncopation. And I enjoy sharing such an analysis with peers, it happens quite often that they see structures or patterns that I haven't noticed yet. Because for me, understanding the structure behind a good piece of art heightens my enjoyment.
I would ask if throwing out unfounded opinions normally works well for you in society, but I suspect it probably does. For the record, I reserve rude comments for the internet.
I don't want to have a phone call with you about your boring, detrimental attitudes towards art and other people's appreciation of it. I go out of my way to inject myself into discussions exactly like this one because, as I said, I repeatedly see engineering-brained people (who have a lot of sway) going out of their way to deride Other People's Good Time, and I want you to stop doing it.
Let people enjoy things, it doesn't hurt you. Leave them alone.
I've spent a fair bit of time in art galleries. I enjoy it. I don't enjoy the art snobbery though. I don't know why people gaze endlessly into paintings and try to discern the meaning or whatever. It's not that deep.
I don't understand the hype around the Mona Lisa. I don't understand why people stand in line for hours and then crowd around this one — in my opinion — bland painting to snap that shot and check it off their list that they've seen that one piece. The Centre Pompidou is just down the road and it's full of way more interesting stuff!
My father is an artist, and any time his work is featured in a gallery he is asked to describe the meaning, the inspiration, the message, and countless other pretentious questions intended to draw in a totally unnecessary air of sophistication. His response is the same every time.
"I don't know. I see shit and I paint it."
I'm massively into wine. Similarly, I find wine snobbery frustrating. I have enjoyed the world's best wines. From Ukraine, from Georgia, from Moldova, Italy, France… But the people who clutch their pearls when you pair a dry red with your grilled salmon? Fuck those people especially.
What's beautiful about art, and wine, and music, is that there's an entire universe of it. There's something for everybody. And it's definitely ok to not like some of it.