Regarding your first paragraph, after reading the Wikipedia page (English and French, since the EN one is quite short).
Seems like it’s mostly as a reaction of moralism and sentimentalism.
While I agree that art is art in itself, it still has to be experienced by someone else to exist.
and appeal to the artistic sense of eye or ear.
To me it seems to imply that art must be experienced for it to be, even if just by its creator.
Art is purely human, made by humans and experienced by humans. The concept wouldn’t exist without us. That’s also why AI gen is not art most of the time.
On the other hand, I disagree that art can be “pure” without any moral or political stance. Everything we do and express, we do through the lenses of our mind, which inherently lives in a world surrounded by morals and politics.
Also the Wikipedia article suggests that this view is completely eurocentric and does not represent other cultures around the world. So I would take it with a grain of salt.
That’s fair enough - the hill I’m trying to die on is the idea that nobody should be allowed to tell artists what they can or can’t do, whether it’s for politics, ideology, morals, or money. Let art simply be, and let us talk about whether and how it succeeds. Enough art has been prescribed or prohibited for long enough.
Yes that I totally agree with you. Nobody should force artists to do stuff. However we are still in a capitalist system, so most probably they will have to adapt to sell to an audience.
Regarding your first paragraph, after reading the Wikipedia page (English and French, since the EN one is quite short).
Seems like it’s mostly as a reaction of moralism and sentimentalism.
While I agree that art is art in itself, it still has to be experienced by someone else to exist.
To me it seems to imply that art must be experienced for it to be, even if just by its creator.
Art is purely human, made by humans and experienced by humans. The concept wouldn’t exist without us. That’s also why AI gen is not art most of the time.
On the other hand, I disagree that art can be “pure” without any moral or political stance. Everything we do and express, we do through the lenses of our mind, which inherently lives in a world surrounded by morals and politics.
Also the Wikipedia article suggests that this view is completely eurocentric and does not represent other cultures around the world. So I would take it with a grain of salt.
That’s fair enough - the hill I’m trying to die on is the idea that nobody should be allowed to tell artists what they can or can’t do, whether it’s for politics, ideology, morals, or money. Let art simply be, and let us talk about whether and how it succeeds. Enough art has been prescribed or prohibited for long enough.
Yes that I totally agree with you. Nobody should force artists to do stuff. However we are still in a capitalist system, so most probably they will have to adapt to sell to an audience.
That’s just it. We can acknowledge the commercial impulse, without condoning it or placing it above the art.