[npgatech]

I see this in Art all the time.

Ever read a description or a brochure for an art show? An artists' biography?

It is full of infuriating bullshit.

It was so refreshing to read Francis Bacon's newly released Catalog Raisonne. All descriptions and biographical information is factual without any discussion of some pseudo-profound meaning. Same goes for good art critics such as David Sylvester[1]. He was one of the very few art critics that tried go past the pseudo-intellectual bullshit and truly understand Art and the Artist behind it.

I have read dozens if not hundreds of art catalogs, brochures and biographies. As an objective person, it is so difficult to get past the bullshit to actually understand and approach art.

I went to Georgia Tech and took the Renassaince Art course. About 98% was bullshit to the point I thought that it was some kind of a joke. I couldn't believe it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFMH_D6xLk

[briga]

I think a lot of the current state of art criticism has to do with philosopher's like Barthes advocating the proverbial "death of the author". After that idea was discovered by liberal arts academia a floodgate of bullshit was released and humanities departments everywhere basically lot whatever credibility they had. After all, if every interpretation of an piece of art is correct, why bother spending any time coming up with what the artist actually meant to say? Much easier to just fill your interpretations with psuedo-intellectual artistic buzzwords and call it a day.

[fermienrico]

This is too amusing. Speaking about interpretations, I love watching Sotheby's TV [1] for some A-grade highly polished expensive marketing bullshit. It is enjoyable bullshit that makes ya wish you were rich.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/SothebysTV

[malandrew]

Sounds like modern day journalism.

"After all, if every opinion of what happened is valid and correct (because muh feels), why bother spending any time investigating what actually happened and reporting just the facts?"