this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
-21 points (23.1% liked)

Asklemmy

45278 readers
1293 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What art is formulaic? What art is just the old stuff rehashed? What art is shallow or simplistic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yet here we are talking about it.

[โ€“] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

you brought up a time you were bamboozled, that's on you.

[โ€“] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I brought up a story about a red square, of which you are, 15 years later, still trying to convince someone that it's not art. Something that is still being debated on 15 years later is pretty interesting, especially for it being just a red square. The more we talk about it, the more it legitimizes it.

[โ€“] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The more we talk about it, the more it legitimizes it.

no it doesn't. i didn't say it's not art i said it was dumb. You were fooled into this false profundity.

Is it false? Even if it is dumb, here we are 15 years later talking about it. Still, after hours we're still going back and forth about it.