While I'm talking about things I don't like

[andrewducker]

I have pretty much enjoyed Home on the Strange since it began, but the latest story line is pissing me off, as it basically consist of "Look - people making art I don't like! What a bunch of idiots! Don't they get that making art I don't like is pointless and stupid???"

Which is an attitude I despise nearly as much as "Look - people at a party talking about stuff I'm not interested in, how dare they have interests I don't care about? I bet they think they're cool, but actually they're not!" - which I bumped into a few weeks back on someone's journal.

If you don't like something, don't do it. If you're not interested in something, don't engage with it. If other people _are_ then that's something they should be _encouraged_ to engage with, rather than belittled for actually having an interest in something, just because it's not what you care about.

Comments

[cybik.livejournal.com]

I agree. Although I don't like going to the Tate Modern (usually, but I want to go to the latest turbine hall things - the slides sound great), I would never suggest that someone not go or think that they were stupid for appreciating the stuff there. I've heard people saying that it is a waste of money - something I disagree with strongly.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

religion, art - you better start a thread about sex and oanother about politics pretty soon if you are going to cover ALL the most unresolvably contentious issues this week :-)

Art is something people do for their OWN sakes, because it fulfils a need in *them*, allows them to express an emotion. It's not *for* anyone else. If others see/feel something resonant in a work then they do, if they dont'; they don't.

Not all instances of communication succeed - nor should anyone expect them to.

[drplokta]

This is, of course, a pretty dangerous argument since your own position starts out "Look -- someone making art I don't like!".

[rosamicula.livejournal.com]

I read it as beginning with a criticism of that position - hence the quotes.

[andrewducker]

I should have been clearer - what I was largely objecting to was the scene where someone in the story attempts to explain their art, and is dismissed with a threat of violence.

I reserve the right to disagree with the message in the art, while not dismissing it as utterly without merit as I don't like it. There are a lot of movies, books, pictures, games, etc, etc. that do nothing for me, and I'm fine with that - but I do object to opinions that I find actively oppressive.

As with the wearing of veils, however, I obviously wouldn't be in favour of stopping people expressing those opinions.

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

Not all criticism need be constructive. And a lot of modern art is shit. I say this as someone who has been to Tate Modern a couple of times and plans to again.

[rosamicula.livejournal.com]

Which is an attitude I despise nearly as much as "Look - people at a party talking about stuff I'm not interested in, how dare they have interests I don't care about? I bet they think they're cool, but actually they're not!" - which I bumped into a few weeks back on someone's journal.

Deliberately excluding someone from a conversation because they don't share your detailed technological knowledge is just plain rude. Doing so in an attempt to demonstrate your membership of a clique - or gique - is both rude and immature.

[andrewducker]

Deliberately excluding someone for _any_ reason is just plain rude.

But wanting to talk about things that may not interest other people, or are at a level they don't follow, is just fine by me. I mean, I don't complain when people talk about football, I just go and find another conversation to join in. If they saw me coming and then deliberately changed the topic to football then yes, that would be terrible behaviour.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

Boy, you're really gonna hate where it's going, then.

[andrewducker]

I suspect so. I _had_ been enjoying it, on a certain childish level (mostly laughing at the characters) up until an artist who attempted to explain why they'd felt moved to create something was threatened with violence for doing so. Which just left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

But we'll see - I've enjoyed a lot of HotS, and I'm not about to stop reading because the occasional thing upsets me. I'll just rant about it :->

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

That's also fine. We've gotten to the point where we're really experimenting with what we do, stepping away from "looks at nerds" to other takes, and with that comes people really not liking particular storylines.

As our audience grows, our audience will also kvetch more. I don't mind.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

Also, I feel you've overlooked two things:

1) Said artist was standing in her way when she was escorting a woozy friend from the building:

2) Said artist conducted his entire spiel staring at her tits.

If it was just the art, Izzy probably wouldn't have gone off on it.

[andrewducker]

Aaaah.

When he said "The pretentiousness is suffocating me." I assumed he was being, well, silly, and making a statement, rather than _actually_ feeling woozy.

And I totally hadn't noticed that the artist was staring at her breasts.

Maybe you need an explanation under your art, so people know what to think about it :->

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

I was recently caught out doing something quite similar in a recent post where, thankfully, one or two folk had the patience to explain the value of what I was criticising...

Whilst making bold statements is a great trigger for comment whoring, I must learn to ask more questions, first.

[roniliquidity.livejournal.com]

Hey, I found this while I was checking our links.

Unfortunately, in retrospect, I think the problem with this storyline is that we didn't sell it hard enough.

I'm not against modern art, but I DO have some problems with the modern art hipster. I don't begrudge people that are honestly trying to do something that I don't quite get, but I'm infuriated by the attitude that anything is art as long as an "artist" dubs it so and who are you to question it. I don't demand all art be to my specifications. I can appreciate the quality and concept of something that's not to my taste. However, there is also a terrible elist tendency in art culture to lock on to something of seriously questionable quality and declare that any dissenters lack the sophistication to appreciate it. It's that emperor's new clothes dynamic that drives me up the wall.

The guy that not only paints things with his penis, puts them on display, and includes a very detailed explanation as to precise how he did it? He actually exists. I went to his show and the very creepy penis painting exhibit was surrounded by a number of other lackadaisical dadaist offerings while the artist stood around looking smug and bored.

That's what we were taking aim at in this story arc, but I don't think it came across clearly, particularly in that I think Ferrett and I had rather different approaches to it. Mr. Penishbrush in the setting of the comic seems like as an an overblown cartoon stereotype which I think lessens the impact of encountering the guy in real life.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. If it had been "You don't like our art, therefore you're an idiot" then I'd have been cheering them on as they charged the stage!

Oh, and the last couple have been good - the Peter Parker panel had me giggling loud enough to attract attention at work...