I feel like a lot of people miss the meaning of this one.
A gunshot wound that creates a splatter of red liquid is very, very different in meaning from a splatter of ketchup. The comic is criticizing the type of person who criticizes art only based on the superficial similarity rather than the actual context and meaning represented by the artist’s choices.
Not every artistic choice has intrinsic meaning, and plenty of artists and art critics go too far in focusing on the “how” than the “what” in art, but I still think the “how” matters a lot.
If you remove the art from the context, would it still mean the same to you? There are tons of unknown artists whose portraits are in circulation and their buyers would have no idea what they went through when painting them. At that point the artwork would have to stand on its own and resonate with the buyer for it to be meaningful for them.
This is why I usually enjoy the book more if I know some context about a writer, even if my conclusions about how it influenced a book are entirely wrong. I think it’s better to know context for visual art, too, but indeed context is not a part of the artwork itself (although I believe not everyone thinks this way, and I don’t know if I agree with them or not in the end)
Yeah, always found that interesting, how a talent can play out in two ways:
- You get feedback from the outside that your talent is exceptional and you show it to everyone.
- Or you don’t get that feedback, you kind of just assume that everyone is as good as you are, and that your talent is not worth showing. By not showing it, you continue to not get feedback on it and may not realize for quite some time.
The hard part is scamming someone into exchanging money for it.
My butt hole can say the same thing.
Are … you ok?
Surprised you didn’t link this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcwfEMdV-aM
