@OutlawsPoetic@matthew_labosco Poetic outlaws is on point. Sure try and optimize a bit but this culture of ‘do you fucking ice bath bro’ is nauseating. A bunch if rogan clone jerk off bro dudes
Happy Easter Everyone!
Was just thinking this morning…
Imagine you’re sitting on a bench in a beautiful field surrounded by beautiful forest; like a scene from Bambi in Spring, animals and sunlight scattered everywhere in pastoral glory.
Okay, now imagine there is a large Jackson Pollack painting sat on an easel in front of you; bright colors splashed chaotically in every direction like skid marks on a New York pavement.
What does it look like in this setting? Does it look like art? Is it beautiful? Is it even interesting? Or does it look like something that should be removed? Does it look more like trash when compared to the majesty of its surroundings?
It just makes me wonder. It’s one thing to pretend we like Jackson Pollock while standing in a cement building in New York City, but once you take his painting outside, the object itself seems absurd, offensive even. What business do we have calling that ‘great art,’ when there is so much natural beauty around us?
I don’t think this applies to all modern art.
I heard that Brian Eno has a method of watching a river while listening to a mix. If the music doesn’t flow with the river, he knows he has to change something.
Maybe a good metric for painting should be—if we place it in a field surrounded by natural beauty, does it look nice there? Or would we rather just throw it in a bin?
I’m not saying painting has to be beautiful per se. I imagine any paining by Goya or Francis Bacon looking very elegant in a field somewhere.
But what is the point of making anything at all if it would be nicer to just stare at a tree?