Serious discussion

[Anonymous No.4562541]

Lets assume that author is a hack and wrote some bullshit story. But story, for the thousands of consumers became important, for some, even changed their lives.
Can be this space of interpretation a redeming value for the work of art?
Can work of art be created unconsciously?

[Anonymous No.4562582]

>>4562541

First of all, I dislike to think of readers as consumers, and even as mere readers. They are travelers, people that travel with you through the mind fields.

Second, what makes special a piece of art, is the fact people recognize themselves, for a brief moment, in the deforming mirror "our creations" are. In that regard, a piece of art, is as complex, or "good" as the person that looks to the mirror. And good is between "", because having this in mind, what makes a piece of art, art, can not be a Universal value, except for Masterpieces, which trascend all limitations, due to their purity.

Third, I placed our creations between "", because I think, in order to create masterpieces, the "creator" needs to get freed from his own limitations, to empty himself and let something else speak. If you want to enter other worlds, you need to loose your "shape", to cease being you, for a brief moment, and think of yourself in other persons, and let that image speak.

But I wouldn't know for sure, since I am not a writer nor an artist, I was just using my imagination.

[Anonymous No.4562588]

>>4562582
What pretentious claptrap. Oscillates wildly between hilarious and profoundly pathetic.

[Anonymous No.4562600]

>>4562582
>They are travelers, people that travel with you through the mind fields.

[Anonymous No.4562604]

>>4562588
>>4562600


Meh.
I guess I am a pretentious claptrap.
Write it better, if you dislike it.

[Anonymous No.4562617]

>>4562604

M
I
W

Nice vertical palindrome letters

q:^)

[Anonymous No.4562633]

>>4562541
>Can work of art be created unconsciously?

Yeah, sure. Same way nature can be profound and beautiful, even though no one deliberately arranged it to be so. Someone could accidentally write a good story. The odds are very low, though.

[Anonymous No.4562638]

>>4562633
So there is nothing that differentiates art from nature? Apart from artificiality of course

[Anonymous No.4562650]

>>4562638
Humans are made of nature, and are therefore subject to many of the same principles, like what >>4562633 said

That's how I see it anyway. Sure, people can make good stories on purpose. On topic, if a story changed someone's life then it is good to them regardless

Art if completely subjective, as much as many people (myself included) either view it or would very much like it to be objective. Just remember: there are people out there whose favorite bands are Creed and Nickelback

[Anonymous No.4562653]

>>4562633
>even though no one deliberately arranged it to be so.

I know someone who would disagree.

[Anonymous No.4562674]

>>4562638

It's more that I'm saying accidentally created art would be in the same category as natural beauty. If, say, someone trying to sell their house writes a blurb on a website about it, and that blurb (through no intentional effort on their part) happens to be deeply poetic, it's in the same category of experience as you walking down the street and seeing a man walking with his little kid, and the kid's laughing about something, and the sunlight hits them both just right and for a moment they're incredibly beautiful.

Art is trying to do that kind of thing on purpose. But I suppose catching that kind of thing and showing it to other people counts, too; if a photographer managed to take a picture of the man and the kid, you could call that art. But the "what is art" debate is pretty fundamentally silly; drawing strict dividing lines is unnecessary and irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4562711]

>>4562674
>"what is art" debate is pretty fundamentally silly; drawing strict dividing lines is unnecessary and irrelevant.

Well its kinda important in the case of the performative art.
Whats the point of the performance if people dont understand it or understand it wrongly?
I rarely is estheticaly pleasing experience, so there should be some message, right?

[Anonymous No.4562739]

>>4562541
>Can be this space

what the fuck you asking mate

[Anonymous No.4562751]

>>4562711

Beauty is worthwhile, communication is worthwhile. If the performance isn't aesthetically pleasing and fails to communicate anything, then it was a failure. Why is precisely defining "art" important?

[Anonymous No.4562759]

>>4562541
>Can work of art be created unconsciously?

if someone unconsciously put it in a context of display i.e. a museum then sure but WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT!!

[Anonymous No.4562760]

>They are travelers, people that travel with you through the mind fields.

[Anonymous No.4562762]

by the way OP art doesn't mean "good"

[Anonymous No.4562778]

>>4562762

Good as in quality, not as in morality.

[Anonymous No.4562781]

>>4562778
yeah not all art is good

[Anonymous No.4562794]

>>4562778

That was implicit by negation in op's statement.

>bullshit story
>but for thousands [...] it became important, for some, even changed their lives