this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
147 points (89.7% liked)

US Authoritarianism

797 readers
340 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: [email protected]

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 month ago (2 children)

God I hate artists that talk like that

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She was cueing the audience in that there is more going on, so dummie's like me can know to look for more. I still needed a kind commenter to explain it to me.

I guess she wanted a larger audience to be able to experience her work, than you would have preferred.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I believe the deeper meaning is that even while weed is legalized in several states in the US, there are still many people in those same states serving sentences over the drug when it was criminalized. Those sentences were absurdly harsh, and disproportionately targeted black people.

So when the girl in the painting sees the dispensary, which is supposed to be a symbol of progress towards legalization, she instead sees her dad—still in prison, trapped from behind the glass in one of those restricted visitation rooms where you can only talk to one another over inline telephones.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm gonna be completely honest here I thought that was the pharmacist on the phone with a customer and he and the girl were waving hi to each other.

I may be a little dense and naive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I thought it was a violating the Geneva convention joke about using a red cross improperly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The orange suit didn't give it away?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sure, but with the context of drugs and the window and the phone... I dunno. I thought it was obvious. Especially with there being a counter all along the window.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I already admitted I'm dense what more you want 😭

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Haha! You said you "may be". I wanted to remove any doubt. J/k 😄

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I thought that too, and then noticed he's wearing orange and started to figure it out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Hey thanks, I get it now and you're totally right :)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Artists that talk like they're showing off their latest work that they're proud of? I don't understand.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It’s killing the frog. Instead of letting the audience experience the work and the emotional journey therein. The artist is introducing the piece with with the very blatant context of ‘this painting looks pretty but is actually really deep, can you find what I mean?’

It’s not bad, per se, but it cheapens the experience and comes off as pretentious.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

on social though it's so easy to scroll by. It's different in an art gallery.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Thank you.

I'm not giving deeper meaning glances to a random pic in my feed. I have a few minutes here and there to scroll and I'm not devoting this-might-be-thought-provoking levels of time to random nonsense.

Hell the second highest rated top-level comment on this post is someone asking for help seeing the story.

People who are so high on their own farts that they get irritated that other, less intelligent or less attention capable people are getting a hint and that they should have to (gasp!) see that is ridiculous. That's where the real pretention is.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree. It shows lack of faith in your work and your audience. It also takes away the audiences' sense of "getting it" when they look and notice, which makes your audience feel smart and in conversation with you.

Reminds me of those little panels beside paintings in a gallery that sometimes tell you way too much about what the artist was thinking. The work itself is supposed to be communicating, if you need supplemental material then you may have failed somewhat in the original work.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Those little panels are there to prevent from offending the well-educated and the ignorant both from the abominable curse of critical thinking and inconclusive analysis, but I suspect you know or intuit that.

There have always been two art audiences: Those partaking and intaking the artist's works, and those doing the same out of the social spectacle they engender.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's try not to gatekeep art. It just makes you look like a snob.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You utterly missed my point, as that is not what I did.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

At the same time I think a lot of people would just say "oh that's nice" without looking for the subtext. I get what you're saying, but this probably helps more people become engaged with the art.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)