Comments on: An Argument Against Shader

By: Wayne

Wayne — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:48:21 +0000

In particular, the fact that there’s a reasonable market for indie games means that its unlikely that self-referential games that are only of interest to a subset of viewers are going to push out others. The problem with art is that its progressively become a thing only for the hardcore.
A contrast is movies; there are forces that would try to do the same kind of thing there (you can see it in the disconnect that often goes on between the movies the majority of people watch as compared to what gets Oscars anymore; that didn’t used to be the case), but the fact there’s a mass market for movies make it unlikely it’d ever get to fruition (if anything, the risk is of progressive balkanization between mass market popcorn movies and Serious Art; but I think the direct-to-video market makes it unlikely that’ll ever really finish happening, either, especially as markets for buy-to-download expand).

By: Zach

Zach — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:41:10 +0000

In reply to ColinNorthway. haha probably me neither! thats why i lean on sarah and doug all the time

By: ColinNorthway

ColinNorthway — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:42:40 +0000

In reply to Zach. Thanks for posting Zach! I definitely don't know enough about art history to talk about this as knowledgeably as I'd like.

By: Zach

Zach — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:46:51 +0000

this is a really great post! Art is actually pretty damaged because there is no popular market for it, and it’s something that comes up in conversations with other artists a lot I find.

Anyway,
I feel pretty awful posting up a tiny little nitpick (and wouldn’t be posting this at all had you not asked specifically on twitter), but the only thing I’d point out is that Duchamp and Pollock aren’t necessarily so lump-together-able in this context. Although they’re both less accessible than Repin, their difficulty comes from differing reasons.

Duchamp’s work is very conceptual, in that it’s about a thing, and the artwork itself is just a catalyst to explore a concept. In this case, his work is about Art itself, both the institution and the raw sublime nature of beauty. Not all conceptual art is about ‘Art’, it can be about anything (for example, “Google Will Eat Itself” – http://www.gwei.org, is about the internet and commerce) but all conceptual art somewhat requires familiarity with the topic it is addressing.

Pollock’s work on the other hand is abstract. Its appeal comes largely from its aesthetics (similar to Repin’s work). While having some understanding of the process Pollock used certainly could enhance enjoyment of the work, ultimately, (at least i find) his work is very emotional, raw, and aesthetically pleasurable.

So for Pollock, while you may need appreciation for something other than the real, I’d qualify his art more as “niche” than “high-level”. Duchamp’s work on the other hand is a conversation, and it’s a conversation that will go over your head if you don’t know anything about art.

I mean, we all liked trapper-keepers, and those were about as abstract as Pollock, just targeted differently.