It's not illegal, but it's still weird, creepy and potentially harmful and no amount of lambasting about "the problematic age gap discourse" will make it not true.
It's not illegal, but it's still weird, creepy and potentially harmful and no amount of lambasting about "the problematic age gap discourse" will make it not true.
Kim is wrong about this on art. Art for its own sake is important and is one of the reasons for the revolution, to free art from the constrains of capitalism and needing to make money.
Art for it’s own sake is pure idealism, anti-materialist, and bourgeoisie self-indulgence.
Art cannot exist for its own sake because all art exists in a historical context. The idea that art is or even can be some pure self-expression, some kind of raw creative exercise, is quite literally the height of idealism.
All art is in fact an act of communication rooted in shared experience, history, and biology. Denying this is engaging in bourgeoisie idealism. It’s a pretense that meaning exists or can exist in the abstract divorced from the material. It’s a pretense that the value of a thing exists or can exist in the thing rather than it’s function for a human or for humanity. This is why art “for its own sake” is idealism, because art cannot be for its own sake and engaging in the myth that it can be for its own sake is anti-material anti-scientific anti-dialectic idealism.
All art is an act of communication and denying the communicative function of a specific work of art is denying that something is being communicated. A denial of responsibility for the communication. Recognizing that all art has a communicative function places a burden upon the artist to be conscious of what they are communicating.
Brb gonna go tell my neice the finger painting she made this weekend is bourgeoise self-indulgence
Edit: I get jokes without writing walls of text :squidward-nervous:
no
:LIB:
lib and proud.
Oh yeah I see. Fair enough.
:spray-bottle:
:pingu-horny:
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah I don’t see it as a demand that socialist realism is the only acceptable art style but it does mean that someone like, say, Anish Kapoor is of no value and his work is all about enshrining the power of major establishments funded by billionaire “philanthropists” over the art world and thereby control over what is allowed to be expressed and how it can be expressed.
The idea that he’s exploring abstract notions of art is total bullshit, he’s expressing the power of the establishment to own an entire mode of communication. It’s a form of power language. The more abstracted art becomes the more it moves into a realm of only existing for an ever-wealthier class.
The idea of art existing for its own sake is the justification but the actual communication is usually class identity, wealth, power, elite status, and the massive institutions that love to promote this kind of art are funded by extremely wealthy high status individuals and these institutions seeks to claim the right to control and own this space even to the point of embracing and then redefining critics who sought to undo its power. Art is the height of liberal idealism and the capitalist art industry corrupts more easily than other capitalist activities.
Look at how pop-art is claimed by the art world. Look at the anthropological movement that looks at the world as an observer. Look at how we are told there is such immense hidden meaning of great import in the especially abstract pieces, difficulty in understanding a work relating to its “value” and how much expensive education (or at least expensive thick and very stylish coffee table books you need to buy) you need to “be educated enough to understand it.”
It’s power language.