this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
29 points (91.4% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
951 readers
56 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand how every picture is supposed to be "art". Art is subjective. To me only a Slammer or similar is art.
It's a cultural thing for white people. Hell, I'd say that it's one of the only things that's truly white culture. When the word "art" gets used on something, it's basically the same as anointing it. Any and every drawing, sculpture, text, video, and song is "art" by default. And some take it further to define everything made by a person as "art" too. Even though it's vague as hell, it's a deadly serious topic.
I'm not saying that other cultures don't have similar ideas, but that it's weird the way that white people universally agree that protecting "art", whatever that is, is of the utmost importance.
It always bewildered me about english language that every creation is called "art". In Polish art is "sztuka" which word have quite many meanings, but the most relevant is "a field of artistic activity distinguished by the aesthetic values it represents", of which common understanding is that it have to actually represent some aesthetic values. This of course cause unending discussions about what is art and the subjectivity of it to the point of the adage "art is in the eye of beholder" became universally accepted.
I like to bring up the example of Hawaiian Hula dance for that kind of reason. It's a case where a kind of "art" is inseparable from culture, heritage, passing down stories. Which is a lot different than simply doing what you feel like as art, as a form of "self expression." Not that I'm judging "self expression" point of view as bad, but just adding to the notion that what is considered art and the associated importance of it, is not always the same across cultures.