Lots of programmers get bored of writing simple line-of-business code and find ways to make it more interesting for themselves. It doesn't generally lead to a program that's better for the end user though.
Modernism is ubiquitous. Likely your furniture, computers, cars, and home architecture are heavily modernist unless you explicitly seek out classical stuff.
Modernism is obsessed with truth and optimization, evolving toward an apex. Computing technology as a whole is modernist. Apple hardware design is a glaring example of a modernist pursuit (especially under Ive).
And the most modernist form of art now is AI generated art. Pure form and aesthetic, but no real meaning or intent, like a face in a mirror, something shaped like human meaning but utterly devoid of it, manufactured like so much else of our reality.
Which, ironically, makes it legitimately art. It's art because it's anti-art.
You misunderstood what they said. "Modernism is obsessed with truth and optimization" does not equal "modernism is truth." They were also talking about it conceptually, not as "their" preferred art.
Mondrian rules! In my youth I tiled the bathroom in my house in a Mondrian pattern. Mostly white, lowering the cost since white tiles were much cheaper than red yellow and blue.
Yes and no. On one hand, my social class and upbringing almost command that I should find beauty in Van Gogh and Picasso's works. I defer to the masters on matters I do not understand, but it's not where my personal taste and love really lie.
I actually love experimental and avant garde works but one problem is it feels like a lot of it is a bit of a dead end. Like 4’33” was an interesting idea once but there’s kind of nowhere you can take that. Once you get past the first presentation it’s not interesting to do a slight variation. Or, you know, Jackson Pollack, neat, but not like I need to see 10 more guys flinging paint at a canvas.
Picasso was a communist and his art was representational. His form of 'modernism' has nothing to do with the kind of actual nonsense that the CIA wanted to push.
The contra to this nonsense was state-controlled and heavily censored - as much as I like Polish school of poster, or overall "tidyness" of communal spaces in post-communist areas, it was (to say it mildly) stifling creativity.
Picasso painted Man in a Beret when he was 14 years old. His art became "nonsense" because realism was boring for him.
Lots of programmers get bored of writing simple line-of-business code and find ways to make it more interesting for themselves. It doesn't generally lead to a program that's better for the end user though.
Modernism is ubiquitous. Likely your furniture, computers, cars, and home architecture are heavily modernist unless you explicitly seek out classical stuff.
Modernism is obsessed with truth and optimization, evolving toward an apex. Computing technology as a whole is modernist. Apple hardware design is a glaring example of a modernist pursuit (especially under Ive).
And the most modernist form of art now is AI generated art. Pure form and aesthetic, but no real meaning or intent, like a face in a mirror, something shaped like human meaning but utterly devoid of it, manufactured like so much else of our reality.
Which, ironically, makes it legitimately art. It's art because it's anti-art.
That's cool. The Dadaists and some Surrealists were doing stuff like that intentionally, trying to make art devoid of an artist, or of intent.
Also the beat poets, who were trying to write intent-free stream of consciousness texts, kind of like a token-prediction engine. :)
Oh boy, any one that thinks their particular art style is "truth" has an ego problem.
You misunderstood what they said. "Modernism is obsessed with truth and optimization" does not equal "modernism is truth." They were also talking about it conceptually, not as "their" preferred art.
2 replies →
You think Van Gogh and Picasso are nonsense?
Or even Mondrian
Mondrian rules! In my youth I tiled the bathroom in my house in a Mondrian pattern. Mostly white, lowering the cost since white tiles were much cheaper than red yellow and blue.
Yes and no. On one hand, my social class and upbringing almost command that I should find beauty in Van Gogh and Picasso's works. I defer to the masters on matters I do not understand, but it's not where my personal taste and love really lie.
I actually love experimental and avant garde works but one problem is it feels like a lot of it is a bit of a dead end. Like 4’33” was an interesting idea once but there’s kind of nowhere you can take that. Once you get past the first presentation it’s not interesting to do a slight variation. Or, you know, Jackson Pollack, neat, but not like I need to see 10 more guys flinging paint at a canvas.
Have you seen Picassos or (especially) Van Goghs in person?
9 replies →
Absolutely, without exception.
Picasso was a communist and his art was representational. His form of 'modernism' has nothing to do with the kind of actual nonsense that the CIA wanted to push.
I certainly do
The contra to this nonsense was state-controlled and heavily censored - as much as I like Polish school of poster, or overall "tidyness" of communal spaces in post-communist areas, it was (to say it mildly) stifling creativity.