/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2417084]

Why is anyone who takes art seriously considered a hipster in contemporary society? Hipster implies negative connotations and I don't understand why that is.

[Anonymous No.2417089]

Because taking art seriously is exactly the same as saying "My tastes > your tastes" and really meaning it. Any adult that does the above will be ridiculed, as they should be.

[Anonymous No.2417093]

because art is stupid and uselesss

[Anonymous No.2417095]

>>2417084
They're only considered hipsters if they talk about it loudly at Starbucks or at parties.

>>2417089
>has the taste of a 12yo

[Anonymous No.2417097]

>>2417089
But taking art seriously has nothing to do with imposing tastes at all... Those who do take it seriously are exactly the ones out of "my taste > your taste" routine. Except maybe a few cunts.

[Anonymous No.2417098]

Resentment of sentient beings

Not that art is more important than comfort or more important things.

[Anonymous No.2417103]

>>2417084
this is just not true
people who show off their knowledge (which is usually not even deep) are hipsters
people who love art love art.

[fuck /adv/ No.2417105]

When one person says things about, say, a Rothko, it's easier for a person who doesn't agree to dismiss it as pretentious than to talk about it.

Which is not to say that either response is necessarily right.

[OP No.2417110]

>>2417089
I don't mean comparing or imposing tastes. But if you even talk about how you enjoyed a novel/painting/poem/etc, you are considered pretentious even if the sentiment is honest.

[Anonymous No.2417120]

[Anonymous No.2417121]

Because pic related. That's what many hipsters consider to be "art"

[Anonymous No.2417125]

OP, I believe it has more to do with taking not art as a whole, but modern art seriously... which is, sometimes, not advisable indeed.

[Anonymous No.2417128]

>Why is anyone who takes art seriously considered a hipster in contemporary society? Hipster implies negative connotations and I don't understand why that is.

because of the pervasive irony of our contemporary culture. taking anything seriously is verboten. this is also combined with an element of anti-intellectualism, and i think an element of class-cultural resentment, and voila.

[Anonymous No.2417129]

>>2417120

>that post

Butthurt hipster detected

[Anonymous No.2417137]

The older you get, even as soon as your early 20s, the less you are going to see the word "hipster" thrown around in a serious fashion. In fact, people will likely respect your appreciation for art as long as you seem to have your shit together.

[OP No.2417142]

>>2417120
the term is meaningless, which is why I don't understand why it used for anyone who takes any interest in art. Granted I am no expert, but I just enjoy going to museums around me. Why is that stigmatized now.

[Anonymous No.2417144]

>>2417142
>the term is meaningless
>has never been surrounded by them and been forced to listen to them
It describes a series of traits and a general appearance whether you want it to or not.

[fuck /adv/ No.2417148]

>>2417121
Well, that's more interesting as a concept than as an actual aesthetic.

I read about one artist who made a series of monochrome paintings with a different type of white paint for each. Individually, it's not much, but together it's kind of an interesting idea.

[fuck /adv/ No.2417160]

>>2417120
>>2417144
The idea of a "hipster" doesn't describe measurable traits, though. It tries to define the mindset of people who adhere to a certain aesthetic out of a desire for status, rather than because any of it actually interests them.

For example, trying to live like a writer, but not enjoying the actual process of writing.

[Anonymous No.2417162]

A lot of it has to do with a public misunderstanding of conceptual art, or really any popular art after ~WWI. There is a stereotype that it's just a bunch of hacks throwing paint around, like pollock, or displaying urinals like duchamp.

And, frankly, it's hard to convince them otherwise sometimes.

[Anonymous No.2417167]

>>2417160
I don't think you can separate a description of the mindset and a description of the traits.

[Anonymous No.2417170]

>>2417144
yeah, it does or did - it's comprehensible as a description of a class of people - but the word has so much baggage & is so widely used to describe people who have fucking nothing to do with the actual class of people in question that it's fair meaningless at this point, and essentially just means "someone who i think thinks he's cooler than me + who cares about stuff" i guess or something, listen you get what i'm saying

[Anonymous No.2417178]

I think the main problem is that, in visual arts at least, the artsy side of it is completely undiscovered by most people, because they are used to seeing pictures everywhere and they think they know what's up.

I mean that, after photography, then newspaper, then television, cinema, advertising, internet... Everything is image and so a few values are mistaken for universal and "good" by most people: figurative over abstract, image over process, knowledge over experience and so on.

To most people, good art is actually a good illustration, some photoshop painting of Gandalf is better than Pollock, it's amazing. The way we deal with pictures now is disconnected, so one side looks like child's stuff and the "experts" will mock them and the other stuff looks like "idiot monkeys who """can't paint""" throwing shit on canvas". The regular guy experiences images much more like in medieval times than from a contemporary point of view. I think that's why impressionism is so fucking popular and Van Gogh sells for hundreds of millions, it's the most modern they can get and if you get past it, it's "just too much".

>>2417148
"Aesthetic" is not a good word to use here, concept can also be aesthetic, in fact, I don't even get what people mean by aesthetic these days. I think it falls for the "dragon photoshop 'realist' painting" thing.

The white painting guy you are talking about might be Robert Ryman.

[fuck /adv/ No.2417187]

>>2417178
By aesthetic, I refer to assessing it in terms of composition/as an image. Line, value, shape, texture, space, etc.

[Anonymous No.2417200]

>>2417187
I don't think that's a very good description of aesthetic. It's like a computer science BS description so some department can get funding for visual analysis or something.

[Anonymous No.2417201]

>>2417187
Yes I understand, but that's too narrow, still. Aesthetic means feeling it. It can be summed up with that: feeling it.

[Anonymous No.2417212]

>>2417201
That's still an instrumental description of an intrinsic property. Aesthetic is something that is recognised.

[fuck /adv/ No.2417220]

>>2417200
>>2417201
Yes, but analyzing composition is a way of breaking down the parts that sum up to create an aesthetic experience- like music theory, or literary analysis.

Monochrome canvases are a very limited form of expression (assuming we're talking about a flat image that uses only one forumla of one color of paint), and I don't think that they stand well as paintings.

However, I think that they're interesting for a different reason. If you take Duchamp's fountain, for instance, it's not really an interesting piece to examine. The interesting part is that he got it recognized as art and the discussion that ensues- So, I guess, it's more like performance art in that sense.

[Anonymous No.2417265]

OP, you might want to expand on what you mean by "someone who takes art seriously", you might avoid some misunderstandings with that.

[Adorno !VGOK6fUxDA No.2417287]

>Takes art

As in a class? I don't understand. Isn't an art course required for everybody?

[Anonymous No.2417319]

From all the hate directed to hipsters I have concluded that hipsters are much more interesting and fun.

[Anonymous No.2417335]

>>2417084
In my opinion art isn't as it was many years ago. From what I understand (from the very small work I've done on Alberti) art was used to picture the beauty of the world\people. Common people in the past weren't dressed and looked as nice as everybody else today. It was ugly and art was what made things beautiful and impressed people.
But today, with all the technology this kind of art in somehow meaningless and people are less impressed by that.
>>2417121
Then modern art came to cover all that and this post covers pretty much everything I have to say about that.
This is probably where the word hipster came as an "insult" for people who are too emotionally involved into some non-sense "deep" stuff that really nobody understand except those "emotionally involved hipster".
I personally do like classic arts even though I'm not an expert in the matter, but I pretty much despise modern art (the one that doesn't make sense) for so many reasons that I won't even bother you with them.

[fuck /adv/ No.2417360]

>>2417335
Art can express many things, not the least of which is a disillusionment with the current state of society/technology and the automation/mechanization of life.

If you don't enjoy modern art, that's fine, but don't pretend it's meaningless

[Anonymous No.2417419]

The perception of someone who "takes art seriously" nowadays is only applied to people who value appearance over genuine knowledge or talent (ie hipsters). Having a strong interest in art doesn't automatically make you a hipster, but if you use it as a posturing device or a way to try to impress people, that makes you look like a hipster. It's the same as with any other artistic medium. If someone begins telling you about the novel they're writing when the conversation is on a completely different subject, this person has the same shitty vanity associated with hipsterdom. If you like art, great, you might not be a hipster, but if you shove it down people's throats, they'll think you are pretentious.

[Anonymous No.2417423]

>>2417360
When I say art as changed because of all the new technology I mean that "art" can now be seen everywhere : video games, television, books cover, etc. Before it was practically only seen with painting, sculpting and architecture. So today to see a painting, it isn't as impressive as it was back centuries ago. This is why art would have lost it's importance.

And ok let's say that modern art is meaningless for me, maybe others will find something meaningful for them.

[Anonymous No.2417801]

>>2417160 For example, trying to live like a writer, but not enjoying the actual process of writing.

Lots of legitimate writers hate the actual process of writing. Why do you think so many imbibe, inhale or inject mind-altering substances before, during and after doing it?