It's not, though. It's the same opinions that always come up, none of which have any basis in anything but "here's how I feel about this" which gets answered with "but here's how I feel about this so you're wrong" when the very nature of the discussion is "what is art?" I mean, this was two weeks ago: That "I read a book" quip is my way of saying "rather than staring into my navel like usual and shouting for the echo, I've actually dug a little deeper into the discussion and now not only do I no longer have any patience for this discussion, I'm beginning to recognize it's mostly asked and answered by people who have zero interest in reading a book." Why does it piss me off? because it's the ONLY question we ask about art. HUBSKI: Let's argue what is or isn't art for the nth time.
In two weeks, I will be seeing three Shakespeare plays over two days. I want to be totally immersed in the play. I want it to take me unquestioningly into the stage world, and ideally for me also Shakespeare's world and also the shared experience with my fellow play-goers. What I do not want to do is suddenly be asking, "What the fuck?" What's the director thinking? Why did they do that? Isn't there a better way to deliver those lines? If I start asking questions during the play - that's a bad thing. I would like to ask some questions after the play: How many layers of meaning are in those beautiful lines? What happened there that made me cry - how did they do it? Why is the villain the most charismatic character in this play... and questions like that. What I am describing above is transferable to other art experiences like film, but perhaps not visual art.
Excellent points. So let me get this straight. You are saying, let's not ask: "Am I being objective or subjective? Is this bad art or good art?" Let's say what's good and not so good, back up our opinions with thoughtful information about literature or art, and invite a response. Is that it?
I'm saying "let's not take a vital discussion and back it up to meaningless abstractions to the point where it can contain both '50Shades is objectively crap' and 'I suspect that even objectivity is to an extent subjective - but the scientists might disagree.'" "What is art and why?" is broad. "Is contemporary art 'art'?" is broad. Any framing of the discussion that allows someone to strawman up a harlequin romance into making a point that encompasses Picasso and Renoir isn't raising the tenor of the discussion, it's lowering it.
Agreed While I still maintain that the OP has a right to ask his original question, there are much better questions like, "Whose opinion of art, film, whatever, is worth paying attention to?" The NYT Book Review article posted here addresses that. I ignore a lot of #askhubski questions for many reasons: time, do I want to engage?, etc. But probably mostly because it might not be the best question for the situation under discussion. Thanks for that insight. Every question contains several underlying assumptions that turn the question one way or another. I think what you've pointed out is that the "fucking question" you referred to is one of those - and there are better questions. Thanks kb.