Tbh I didn't really see the point of this rant. It's very rambley, and he kind of acknowledges that by saying that it's just a movement like any other with a lot of turds that, with time, get left behind.
I mean hell, he even puts some modernist art in as examples of the postmodern/contemporary art, such as pollock and duchamp.
It was an interesting watch I suppose. But a couple things bothered me. One of them was when he said your art is unengaging if you need a backstory to understand it. I don't understand how that makes it unengaging? Even if you don't understand what some piece of art means without having to read something, that doesn't mean it isn't engaging. I think I've personally seen lots of art that I didn't quite get but still found interesting anyways.
Another thing is when he says that if you made your art "just because" and had no reasoning behind it that it's meaningless. I feel like that's not really true either. People make their own meaning from art no matter why it was made. Just because someone didn't put meaning into something when creating it doesn't mean that it won't be worth something to someone else.
Kinda ranty but I just wanted to add what I thought. :pudge:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
