...most decadent, perverse, nihilistic, depressed, psychotic people become its chief icons? Does this say anything about society? Is it reflected in the art? Does this kind of art bring society to a higher level? Is it even 'creative'? Or is it in fact TOXIC, inspired by DISEASE? What does it say about all these starry-eyed, drooling experts, that they don't appear to be able or interested in addressing such basic and very important issues?
...being addressed, put in relation with their background, personal lives, and their art. It is simply taken for granted that everybody knows 'geniuses are bizarre'. But these 'geniuses', such as Picasso and almost everybody mentioned so far in this doc weren't bizarre in a nice way; they were NASTY, completely EGOTISTICAL, highlly NARCISSISTIC, typically very perverse sexually etc etc, in other words basically embodying all the major vices. Is there a problem somewhere, when society's...
...having studied art history basically. What one really gets about art is completely and utterly contingent though on what one knows about the human mind and society. If one doesn't understand the the nature of the system, society, there's no way to actually GET the art.
It's rather easy to tip one's hat and get all fired up about artists ONCE THEY'VE MADE IT BIG. I find it rather irritating that the very obvious psychological mutilation of many of these artists isn't somehow...
It's really too bad the presenter is making so many inferences and is constantly analyzing the motivations and intentions of the artists in such a tidy and packaged way...It would have been a lot more enjoyable had he simply presented the known facts of the artists' lives and the technical details about their works. In fact, he isn't critical or discerning at all. Many people think you can just 'learn' about art, familiarize oneself with the verdicts of the critics after...
...most decadent, perverse, nihilistic, depressed, psychotic people become its chief icons? Does this say anything about society? Is it reflected in the art? Does this kind of art bring society to a higher level? Is it even 'creative'? Or is it in fact TOXIC, inspired by DISEASE? What does it say about all these starry-eyed, drooling experts, that they don't appear to be able or interested in addressing such basic and very important issues?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 day ago
...being addressed, put in relation with their background, personal lives, and their art. It is simply taken for granted that everybody knows 'geniuses are bizarre'. But these 'geniuses', such as Picasso and almost everybody mentioned so far in this doc weren't bizarre in a nice way; they were NASTY, completely EGOTISTICAL, highlly NARCISSISTIC, typically very perverse sexually etc etc, in other words basically embodying all the major vices. Is there a problem somewhere, when society's...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 day ago
...having studied art history basically. What one really gets about art is completely and utterly contingent though on what one knows about the human mind and society. If one doesn't understand the the nature of the system, society, there's no way to actually GET the art.
It's rather easy to tip one's hat and get all fired up about artists ONCE THEY'VE MADE IT BIG. I find it rather irritating that the very obvious psychological mutilation of many of these artists isn't somehow...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 day ago
It's really too bad the presenter is making so many inferences and is constantly analyzing the motivations and intentions of the artists in such a tidy and packaged way...It would have been a lot more enjoyable had he simply presented the known facts of the artists' lives and the technical details about their works. In fact, he isn't critical or discerning at all. Many people think you can just 'learn' about art, familiarize oneself with the verdicts of the critics after...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 day ago
6.29 i do see a fuckin face
chaoticlef 2 months ago