this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
21 points (100.0% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2385 readers
134 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml
21
How do I enjoy art? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 week ago by King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So like...idk I'm not sure how to explain this.

I can enjoy art, and I can appreciate and respect art. But like...I don't know how to enjoy things "abstractly" per se?

What i mean is that I like reading and movies and paintings and such. But I can't enjoy "classics" per se. Nor can I enjoy Avant-garde art. But I can respect both. I want to enjoy both too. I've tried reading both Le Miserables and dream of the red chamber but both times ive put them down fairly quickly (although the dream of the red chamber book I was reading was a fairly old translation, so maybe that was it). Ive also tried reading some poems out of Vladimir Mayakovsky's "the backbone flute" but they havent ellicted and reaction from me. And I really, really respect avant-garde work. I would rather someone like Yoko Ono be successful over Blake Shelton, because Blake Shelton makes the most generic crap, while Yoko Ono actually tries to make things different and interesting.

But I kinda would rather listen to Blake Shelton (obviously if I have broader choice I'm picking someone like Woody Gunthrie or Phil Ochs, but if it was between Shelton and Ono, it'd be a tough choice).

So I guess my main question is how do people enjoy art in the "abstract" way (again, I know that's not a good term but idk what else to call it)? Because I see critics and such wax lyrically about this stuff and they seem to really enjoy it so I wanna enjoy art like that too, beyond "oh it's pretty" or "oh its fun."

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If I understand right what you're getting at, I think some of that stuff comes from studying the medium and then having an appreciation for when you notice somebody is doing technically impressive stuff. The other form of it that I'm aware of, when people like read a story and get deep into analysis of its symbolism and stuff, seems like a good half bullshit at least; I say half because while they might be constructing a legitimate metaphor out of it, it's probably not what the artist had in mind and is more likely some form of projection on their part.

Ultimately, people like different things and sometimes for different reasons. And although there are consistent technical elements to a given craft (I'm not going to act like artforms are all random choice), there's also a certain amount of going by feel and a certain amount of "why did this person's work become famous but this person's didn't? dunno."

Then there are those times when we actually have an answer for why something got pushed as it did: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sorry, I'm starting to realize I've phrased things poorly.

It's not necessarily what is big and what isn't. Trust me, I dont mind not enjoying what a lot of people are into while liking my niche.

It's more like, I do really enjoy certain works, but I dont think I enjoy them the "right way" (for lack of a better term). For instance, I really like Neon Genesis Evangelion, but I feel as though a lot of the philosophy gets stuck halfway in my head. Like i pick up on some the literal things, and I think I can feel what the creator is trying to say, but I myself can express it. And I think I fail to enjoy those concepts and more enjoy the cerebral feeling of it and others like it, like Slay the Princess.

I should've also emphasized my lack of ability to enjoy poetry. I've enjoyed something in basically every other medium, but for some reason poetry doesn't click at all for me. I've always failed to find the rhythm with it and while others will gush with happiness about them I've just...haven't had the same experience (especially with Haiku. I've tried, but Haiku I just can't write nor really understand very well. Constraints are good but I think English doesn't work well with the restrictions).

And on the modern art stuff, I understand the CIA supported it and such, but I still do like it. And that same abstractionism is found other places too. Avant-garde art is a thing in china and the Avant-garde movement in Russia/the early Soviet union produced what I think are good works too. One of my favorite is El Lizzitsky's "Beat the whites with the red wedge." I also do like Picasso's work, and he certainly was no cia stooge. Hell, I even like "who's afraid of red yellow and blue." If strictly for the reason that it did inspire fear and anger in people.

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

I'm not gonna lie I feel like a lot of people who say they "get" some piece of art actually don't and are just saying that to fit in. And like I don't think haikus are some sort of genius format, in fact they are very easy to make (even more so in English). The simplicity is part of the beauty because it forces you to talk about simple things and be evocative, but it's not some exercise in genius.

And some people are on a whole other level from you or I, absolutely. Personally I kinda experience art the same way you do. My brain is too analytical to get lost in the experience. And a lot of art is made to be consumed. I was reading the Count of Monte Cristo and it doesn't have any pretense that it's trying to be transformative or revolutionary; back in those days (same with Les Mis), writers were published in newspapers one chapter at a time, so they had an incentive to write long stories and popular stories, i.e. stories that the people would read as they would drive newspaper sales. Monte Cristo is good and I really should get back into it, but I was actually surprised at how easy it was to follow. It doesn't try to win any points for style, it just tells a story. You could absolutely transpose it to another media form, it doesn't "have" to be a novel.

But I don't think the way you experience art is wrong per se or needs fixing. It's an elitist point of view to say "well this went over your head, but not mine!" like some people do (whether they say it flat out or not). I've always had trouble connecting with the deeper themes of a story exactly because for the life of me I can't really connect deeper than what the novel/game/etc. is showing me. One game that kinda broke that away from me was Paranormasight, it's mostly a VN but it's on the shorter side, I binged it over 3 days after having it sitting on my computer for over a year, it was that good. After that I downloaded a bunch of classics (the When they Cry series, Raging Loop, The House at Fata Morgana if you want the recs). My next read is probably going to be Romance of the Three Kingdoms after I (surprise surprise) played the new Dynasty Warriors; the dialogue is basically lifted from the novel.

Also some stuff truly is just slop that gets passed for some sort of genius because it's big in scale. Like Skyrim's story is nothing to write home about. I remember getting to the Forlorn in whatever city they're in, and they're a popular Indigenous resistance movement to the Nords, which they consider to be invaders in their land. Lots of parallels, lots of interesting things to explore. But then the game explores none of that, and you kinda have to make up your own headcannon for what you want the Forlorn to be. It's good that they included this faction but that's about it. There's nothing special about it and it's okay to say so and not fawn over a piece of media just because it's a big name.

I think maybe we need the right piece of art to connect with to start exploring that side of ourselves. Ultimately for me what's interesting is the process of getting there, it makes me think about how the author/s must have gone about it. RoTK has genius writing because of the stakes at play. You follow the best commanders of the time and get a glimpse into their actual stratagems, way of thinking, etc. And of course there's a ton of characters in that book. Everyone in that book is a strong character and a genius in their own way, and they are pitted against each other, each standing on their own, and I'm just here thinking... how did the author even go about writing that? Like damn. Compare the strategy writing to Romancing Saga 2 (a mission I played recently lol the strategy made no sense and it was hailed by the characters as being a genius thing), or the Napoleon movie from not long ago - I remember critics didn't really like that Napoleon was just talking about strategy but you didn't actually see any of it on screen.

But I digress lol.

But as with everything, you must struggle with it if you want to deeply understand it, and you'll understand it in your own way. The story in Paranormasight stayed with me past playing the game and I started thinking about how they integrated video game mechanics into a VN, the themes that the game explored, etc. It led me to a discussion and I realized that good horror is centered around family drama, and beyond the "oooh scary monster" it tells a story of family drama. With that, I deepened my understanding of horror a little bit more, and it was the perfect story to get me thinking about the deeper themes of their story.

With all of that said, I have been exploring my artistic side more recently. I think a lot of it is simply age. With age, I started understanding some art better. As a kid I didn't like poetry at all, and now I might enjoy a verse or so if I come across it. But again there's a lot of slop out there too!

PS: a haiku I wrote a long time ago :)

Snow-capped firs at night
    Grandfather in the cabin.
Inside, crackling heat.
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My point there wasn't that modern art is bad. Just a side note about what contributed to it being pushed as much as it was at the time. Which apparently was the wrong tack anyway, since I guess you are not talking about popularity but something else.

Is it possible you are on the autism spectrum? I mean nothing bad by that, to be clear. It's just a kind of neurodivergence to me. But I ask because if I understand right, some people on the autism spectrum have this thing of taking things very literally. So I wonder because you mention picking up on literal things. The other thing I wonder is, is English your first language? That might contribute to English feeling clunky, if it isn't your native tongue.

As for enjoying poetry, I'm not sure what to say about that because I can write poetry myself and enjoy it to a point, but some of it feels very nonsense to me, like it's hiding behind a lack of meaning with flowery prose. Lemme see if I can do an example:

Leaves crunching send signals into the air,

Of autumn's arrival,

Carried on an eagle's cry,

While blackened hearts live free or die.

^ I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I strung together some stuff that sounds vaguely metaphorical and like it might have a deeper meaning.

Or sometimes poetry can feel up its own ass with acting like it's deeper than it is. But I do think it has a purpose, which is expressing things that can be hard to express otherwise:

Emotions blend together like red and blue,

But don't make purple.

Disparate and disconnected,

Unable to find sequence,

They show the DNA of traumatic suffering.

Here I'm trying to express something about how confusing emotions can be sometimes and how they may be harmed at times by trauma.

I don't know if I'm making myself clear or better understanding your meaning at all, but there's an attempt.

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

is it possible youre on the autism spectrum

Maybe? Idk, I might but I'm unsure if it's that or adhd or just general cptsd issues.

But otherwise I think you're understanding me well, but English is my first language. It's more just specifically Haikus that I find clunky in English, and I've heard they're more natural in Japanese.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Haikus in English have always felt like a gimmick to me more than anything else, FWIW. Now that I'm thinking about how Japanese flows with its syllables, they would probably make way more sense in that language because (for lack of a better way to put it) Japanese draws out each syllable more and languages like English more slur things together. So I imagine in Japanese, it'd make a lot more sense to have a particular syllabic limit and be getting much more out of it.

[–] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Some of what people like critics enjoy comes from just consuming a lot of it. They get more of a sense for what they like and can also start noticing tropes and laziness and bad ideas and work that is too derivative because of this familiarity.

For example, television shows follow various formulas. Part of this is because they're known to create engagement and television is about ad revenue/subscriptions. So of course formulas are followed. Critics don't dislike the existence of formulas in shows, accordingly - but they still use "formulaic" as a dismissive epithet. They notice when a show lacks anything really interesting and is just the money grab or lazy or made purely of old tropes. But if a person had not been exposed to those tropes over and over, they might not notice. They may enjoy the show more than the critic. It might be their favorite - for a while. They aren't wrong to enjoy something like that. But when someone that sees the references and sources borrowed from analyzes it, they appreciate it differently.

An important aspect of this is the extent to which art is unoriginal. Most artists are riffing on what they've learned from others, from other artists they appreciate, from their societies' kitsch, from their political (mis)understanding, from their own lives that are not actually that unique. Often this is in order to make money through familiarity and formulas, but it is also unconscious or because their art culture demands it. This tendency makes art an exercise in derivation, and so to "understand" it you have to get their references. Sometimes they're not obvious and sometimes a reference seems obvious but wasn't intended. That's part of the "game" of art.

Also don't forget that a lot of this is still just capitalism and not as deep as it pretends to be. Many of the references are half understood things presented misleadingly or are homages to actual crap that is built on literally nothing but hype. Or mediocrity that is nothing but hype - not bad, but not appreciated for its inherent aesthetics or meaning. For example, the Mona Lisa was not particularly famous for its quality or meaning, these were properties assigned after it became famous for being stolen. This also applies yo the market value of art, though that is even more tangled, as art can also be a money laundering / financialized asset racket.

Anyways you don't under any circumstances have to "enjoy" art any differently than you already do, but to "appreciate" what some others see all you need to do is consume a lot of it abd learn the history and context.

[–] laucha@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I guess that the first step is to start seeing art as something normal and not as a mystical expression of the human soul that is manifested through ART™ or whatever they’re saying now to define true or false ART™. At least for me art is just a consequence of technique—that’s the etymology from ancient greek, and in my language there are non-artistic™ words that contain art in them—, and this technique can be studied, analyzed, criticized, and of course enjoyed. But is this technique just Fine Technique? Is there an Amateur and a Professional Technique? Art itself, whether it’s a masterpiece or pure garbage, is just the consequence of techniques.

Then here comes two things that I disagree with in your post: the classics™ and proper names. Regarding the classics there’s an obvious eurocentrism in defining not only the correct techniques for making art but also what is beautiful or ugly. How convenient for the west, they decided that western art is the most elevated form of it! This becomes evident when you live in the periphery, where our culture is labeled popular, ancient, and other euphemisms for exotic.

Regarding proper names there’s a mistake in considering a creation as the consequence of an atomized individual and their isolated mind: not only are the creation and distribution affected by the environment, but the conceptualization itself is too, because the person cannot be separated from their context.

It’s interesting how if an artist sucks—meaning: their techniques and the result suck—people recommend they acquire more knowledge and practice. But if an artist creates a masterpiece, this "genius" is crystallized and detached not only from their environment but even from history, like some mythical being who transcends humanity.

Soooo, I guess the first step is to start seeing art as something normal—without the european academia or the yankee marketing. Start doing, even if your technique sucks, can help you to see things differently: suddenly a painting isn’t just colors but lights and shadows because you understand how they work, or the paint feels different depending on whether it’s on paper, wood, or whatever.

But with my perspective of art as a consequence of technique then the local gastronomy and the national gallery exist on the same level. And by studying those techniques I can engage with and understand those creations.

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Mm, I think this is fair

One small thing I want to respond to, it wasn't just european classics. Dream of the Red Chamber is a Chinese classic (one of the classic novels). And now thinking about it I've also read Natsume Soseki's kokoro. Although I think that too I had issues with the more subliminal/metaphorical messaging in that book, even though I enjoyed it quite a lot. What I'm saying is that I wasnt just trying to read the western classics. But western classics should have some merit to them, as for example Xi Jinping has credited Faust as one of the many books he has read and enjoyed in his life. But of course I'll diversify as much as I can (that I can find in languages I can actually read).

You're very correct in what you say about artistic geniuses and what not. This isn't even just the case in art. For example, Nobel prize winner Richard Feynmann (probably misspelling that) was genuinely a good physicist and science communicator. But he had this myth built up around him and his personality, where he made being a physicist look easy and like you should always be the smartest and most confident person in the world, and that you shouldn't care what the world thinks of you. But after he died, they pulled out boxes upon boxes of research and papers and such that he used and studied because being a physicist is genuinely very hard work, which you aren't gifted with overnight.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Exposure is a big part of it. People like the music that is playing when they are having a good time. People like the paintings that they choose to hang in their house (not the other way around).

Read up on choice-induced preference change and Cognitive Dissonance. There have been multiple studies (starting with Brehm in the late 50s) that show that people will increase their preference for a thing after they choose it.

(This is why they make people vote. You can get most people to say that "all politicians are bad" but then they will defend the guy they voted for because they chose him.)

People's brains are wired to be happy most of the time (except if you have depression) so if we are constantly subjected to something we dislike slightly, over time it can become passable or even enjoyable. If you include other forms of enjoyment with the music or books you are trying to like it can help trick your brain into associating those types of art with pleasurable feelings by proxy.

So basically just keep listening to Yoko and reading books you don't like and try to do it when conditions are perfect for their enjoyment.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

For you and everyone else lurking with similar query: learn theory and be dialectical in your approach.

Still visual media? Learn colour theory, compostition, light etc Then tie that in with theory of media you are analysing and the history of where the art is from and what it what trying to depict, including which classes produced it and which classes' perception it is reflecting.

Same for music, literature, films etc. In doing so you will develop your own tastes and also be better educated in analysis. If you learn enough chances you will produce your own as part of that learning process.

Read broadly. You will likely need to read a bit a about philosophy including marxist critiques on Nietzsche especially when it comes to the arts.

As your knowledge grows it will be easier to learn new stuff building on previous things; learning the interconnectedness not just within the arts but with also outside of the arts (history, geopolitics, philosophy, hard sciences etc) will make it so much easier to learn and enjoy.

Also because this is ML forum:

Addendum, a potential starting point - A Marxist Theory of Art by Red Pen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px6jRt99Qno

[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] Roof_Roach@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It can be hard to enjoy contemporary art if you aren’t familiar with the surrounding conversations and history. I’d suggest going to public lectures that are frequently given at art museums. A speaker will present the background succinctly and that may give you a little more to appreciate.

[–] Rextreff@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This might be a sign of depression

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Liking Blake Shelton?

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

I don't like Blake Shelton. Sorry, I worded that poorly

How about this. If some of Yoko Ono's/John Lennon's more...abstract work came on while I was eating dinner somewhere, I wouldn't enjoy it. However I still respect it greatly because they're trying. Maybe they're failing, idk, but I still really do respect art such as that or, say, house of leaves more than I do Blake Shelton's work or the divergent series. In contrast, I would probably not be bothered by Blake shelton's music coming on at a resteraunt/bar, even if I have 0 respect for him because it's still just decent music. I just have no respect because I think he (and other artists like him, ie Pitbull) doesn't actively try to do something new or express themselves in some unique way. More just catching onto a hot trend and talking about the lowest common denominator of guns besr God trucks waman etc.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

I think one thing about "classics" is that they're just classics for their culture. You should look for art that somehow ties to your own history. One of the best experiences I had was reading "Vidas Secas", which is a book that ties very well a lot of common themes for my family and community but also our local dialect that's slowly being erased by the internet.

I can't really recommend you anything, but I can't see why the story of Les Miserables, however well written, might touch a good portion of the world population.

I also really enjoy taking note of the many ways some video games portray their themes besides dialogue and text. Things like camera framing, colour coding, ludonarrative, music all driving the same point forward. It's about both appreciating the emotions that something makes me feel and also the techniques employed to make me feel that. And a great contrast is things like a bad TV series that's supposed to be tense but it ends up just funny.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Make it yourself.