/lit/ - Literature

>>2021916

I think that art lost a lot of meaning once people started thinking that a photo of a toilet or a canvas with a bunch of soup cans were masterpieces. I sort of see it as a distrust of the artist's technique and instead, people look for what underlying messages a work might have:

"In Europe, audiences had a very different take on his [Warhol's "Campbell's Soup Cans] work. Many perceived it as a subversive and Marxist satire on American capitalism.[41] If not subversive, it was at least considered a Marxist critique of pop culture."

No one thought that but stuck-up art critics. This is really the same thing as Bloom telling people that Marxist readings of Shakespeare don't elaborate on anything except Marxism.

Notice how most often before "Pop-Art", a work's focus was based wholly or partly on reality, like the scene of a battle, a person or self-portrait, a landscape, a religious or literary figure, etc. What we get now are pieces that have definite meaning/intention in the author's mind, but not the audience. Ambiguity is fun in art but I don't like it when people go out of the ballpark with subjective interpretations that are only relevant to politics.

>mfw when no one realizes this could be the perp trolling the police