Board index › Topical Discussion › Art, Writing, and Music

Why do people think art is trying to be deep?

Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Dec 2015, 7:40 pm

DevilKisses wrote:
I now feel the same about art. They expect art to have a common and universal meaning like language does. I just want to be able to go to that dreamy and wordless place where meaning doesn't matter as much. I don't want to hear BS about being deep, representing yourself or social justice. I'm fine with people who's art is those things, but I don't want people to assume my art is like that.

I think maybe you misunderstand what is really meant by "depth". Something doesn't have to be didactic or be a direct metaphor for some contrived "message" to be deep. All that's required is that it stirs some kind of emotion in people. I think the best art is simply expository. It doesn't hammer a particular message, nor does it present itself as a deliberate puzzle to be "figured out". It just sort-of is.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

13 Dec 2015, 7:42 pm

Because real art doesn't have to try.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

13 Dec 2015, 7:56 pm

marshall wrote:
DevilKisses wrote:
I now feel the same about art. They expect art to have a common and universal meaning like language does. I just want to be able to go to that dreamy and wordless place where meaning doesn't matter as much. I don't want to hear BS about being deep, representing yourself or social justice. I'm fine with people who's art is those things, but I don't want people to assume my art is like that.

I think maybe you misunderstand what is really meant by "depth". Something doesn't have to be didactic or be a direct metaphor for some contrived "message" to be deep. All that's required is that it stirs some kind of emotion in people. I think the best art is simply expository. It doesn't hammer a particular message, nor does it present itself as a deliberate puzzle to be "figured out". It just sort-of is.

So, it's not just that the art has to be able to evoke "depth" in the person who perceives it - that person must be capable of such depth.

I think that explains much of the pretentiousness around "deep" art. Thank you, Marshall.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

13 Dec 2015, 8:35 pm

cberg wrote:
Because real art doesn't have to try.

Also, if it has to be explained, then it isn't art - it's artifice (e.g., deception or trickery).


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.