/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8871032
So anyway, the point of thinking about art as a conversation is that if you aren't participating in the same conversation everyone else is having—if you're so far out of left field that noone understands
you—you won't be noticed. People won't understand what you're doing as art even.

And as importantly, when you're participating in a conversation, you don't want to just walk in and start talking to a bunch of people about crap that you think is cool and interesting. Why? Well if someone's already said what you walked up and said, you'll look like a dick; or if you show no understanding of what people have been saying, it'll show, and noone will respect you as knowing what you're talking about. This is why they teach art history to art students.

Now once you're really using it, this model can also explain those pieces that your sister thinks her kid could make. Pollock? Mondrian? Josef Albers! Even those sketches that Picasso did of bulls.
> "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."
> (We might consider that Picasso, the massive ego that he was, held conversation mostly with himself.)
Yes! Those works *could* have been done by your child. But when someone says "but you [they] didn't" that means something. You didn't create this thing because you didn't know what we were talking about. You didn't create it because if someone invited you to the table, you wouldn't know what to say because you haven't been listening. You'd likely say something you think is clever, and if they others are polite they'll say,
> Oh yes, X said that in the 80s, you're quite right.
And you know why you're saying that? Because the ideas that X was putting forward have finally reached your dense skull. Remember that scene in Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep schools Hathaway like the dipshit she is? Here:
https://youtu.be/p5WWy_0VLS4
Well that scene is real. That's what happens.