The Meaning of Art

10/10 mate.

>The value of food depends on the values of the food critic.
If you interpret 'food critic' to mean the one who's eating it this makes perfect sense
>Most food is born as imitation, not innovation.
You could call agriculture imitating nature. And actual cooking is largely imitation too.
>The critic, not the cook, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
This sentence works just like how Scruffy wrote it.
>The cook is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
If you're taking food as art rather than nourishment this still holds true.
>The critic is the real cook.
Again it goes back to whether you consider cooks artists or providers. I rate your analogy five burgers out of a possible six but three of the burgers have sub-par buns which is compensated for by gourmet-brand cheese and oh excuse me all of this talk about food just caused me to ejaculate. You'll have to forgive me. I'm American so this happens quite often.

"Art" isn't in a good place at the moment

I don't know if this book had anything to say or it was merely a giant bluff, but i know that it doesn't prove anything. Heidegger provides no proof whatsoever for what he claims. Even if he is saying something, he doesn't prove it. So it becomes a little pointless to try to figure out what he said.

To me Heidegger's convoluted and unscientific style seems to have more in common with psychiatrists than philosophers. I shudder at his grotesquely naive analyses of existence, fear, anxiety, the uncanny, conscience and death.

If you pick up this book at a library or at a second-hand bookshop, you will notice that only the first few pages have annotations and bear signs of having actually being turned. Virtually nobody had ever read this book to the end. But it is routinely listed as a milestone of philosophy. I personally think it represents a milestone of everything that gives philosophers a bad reputation: unscientific, incomprehensible, incompetent, and, ultimately, just plain silly.

Be suspicious of any philosopher who hailed this as a great book. Heidegger stated that Sartre had misunderstood most of his ideas, and that's the biggest compliment ever paid to Sartre.
Then again any summary, written in ordinary language, of this book constitutes a misunderstanding of his "ideas", because those "ideas" depend entirely on being written in a convoluted and unscientific language.

uh

THE FACT THAT
shoegaze sucks actually

>The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
Correct
>Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
Correct
>The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
Correct
>The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
Correct, except for the merely part
>The critic is the real artist.
Wrong

groce

This is kind of meaningless honestly. Are you talking about all art or just art after criticism became a thing in the 18th century? Or are you calling theorist/artists like Vasari and Le Brun 'critics'? What about the role of patrons in this model? Art criticism developed in the public showings at the Salon, i.e. after the paintings were finished then put on display. Patrons commissioned work before they were put on display (obviously) and were shown modelli for approval before work commenced.

I think that the definition of 'critic' can reasonably be extended to anybody who thinks seriously about art.

Wouldn't that include the artists themselves? It is tautological to say that the artist is the real artist, not the artist.

Do many artists really think beyond their own work?

Well there must be a reason for stylistic innovation, even with pupils in artist's workshops, that can't be accounted for by increased perfection of imitating nature or the master. Then there's the advent of serious collecting which isn't necessarily done for the sake of tracking innovation, as well as modernism which is basically defined by its innovation (to a fault), and the material value of art.

It would be better if the argument was actually qualified with evidence or at least definitions of what terms like 'imitation' and 'innovation' mean in this context, since they're not really serious art-historical terms.

>not coming to your own conclusions about an art piece through your own intuitive experiential knowledge that spontaneously arises
>relying on language to explain the experiential

Wew lads.

>The value of music depends on the values of the music critic
>Most music is born as imitation, not innovation.
>The critic, not the musician, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
>The musician is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
>The critic is the real musician.

Well. A piece of art only becomes art in the meeting with people. "The critic" could merely become, well, the "user" of the piece, then I can accept the first four points (to a degree with the fourth), but the fifth is bullshit.

>not coming to your own conclusions about an art piece through your own intuitive experiential knowledge that spontaneously arises
Isn't that what he's endorsing?

I like the fifth idea the most. Art is just sound and pictures and words and whatever else until somebody looks for value in it. This view is shared by many artists. Sorry for the shitty meme example, but Quentin Tarantino (he's not that bad, Jackie Brown is unironically great) said 'if a million people see one of my movies, I hope they see a million different movies.'