/lit/ - Literature

>>10856830
Some art —especially the conceptual gallery-art Scruton rails against — is created to test how effectively the artist can do something, rather than be taken as "complete" (the way a film, novel, etc. would). Sketches & color studies are often done only to see if we can get "the right kind of square" or "the right shade of brown;" after these preliminaries are finished, an artist can incorporate his findings into a more "complete" piece (in the case of sketches and color studies, this would be a full-scale painting). Likewise, an "ugliness study" might be an artist's attempt to develop a particular intensity or style of ugliness. Once that study has been done, the artist can incorporate its findings into their "complete" works.

A recent development for academic artists has been a trend towards emphasizing these studies over producing the so-called "complete" pieces like paintings. There are tons of systemic reasons for this — galleries pushing for innovation and novelty, art scholars focusing largely on aesthetic theory and influence, and so on — but there's also an argument to be made that the studies are actually more important than the "complete" artworks, because they expand the range of expressible things.

Think of it like the difference between science and engineering — engineers make things for the layperson to use; scientists discover things that engineers may or may not use. Academic artists are starting to operate more like scientists. There's a debate to be had, but Scruton won't engage honestly with it.

Where to start with Zizek if I am pro-capitalist and I want to know if/why I'm wrong?
Should I read more recent books, or it is better to read early works as I get more insight?
Or maybe I should go to goodreads and pick the one with most stars?