Thoughts on art.A Non-manifesto haha!

 I see no point in aesthetics as a subject of philosophy, not anymore.In the past it merely functioned as a defence of cultural norms.It's pretty irrelevant now.Questions like 'what is art', 'what is good or bad art' seem useless except as individual preferences and tastes.I see no reason to devote academic departments to these questions or go hugely in depth about it unless the history of art interests you
or you want to express what you see as interesting.

I don't see the point in arguments over art or interpretations.It's so diverse and open it's a bit like arguing over whether WKD is better than Pino Grigio.It depends on tastes mostly and to some extent on your purposes.Same thing with art.

Sometimes you might want music to dance that's kinda light without much thought involved so you go to that.Othertimes you might want poetic music laden with lots of metaphor and symbolism so you go for that.Seems kinda pointless to argue "oh my poetic music is better than your mindless stuff".It depends on what the audience is looking for and what the artist wants to do.There's different purposes and different audiences and you can't squeeze any into an either/or box.To do that is to define art.And art is notoriously difficult to define.

In defining art you exclude forms of expression or negate them in much the same way that people who say you can't speak X way or that scots is not a language nullify the expressions and experiences of those people.Art can have an unlimited amount of purposes-that is assuming it has purpose at all.Even there I slipped into nearly defining art.

Art is whatever you want it to be.That's scary for classical types who want to say X is art.But no, art is whatever the individual,the audience,the culture,the history and so much more say it is and all could potentially disagree.These days this fact does not worry me.It's liberating.

I should also say something about criticism of art.As explained above, it's pointless.If you don't like gritty stories trying to approximate life then don't read them ,find what you like.In the act of criticism you're trying to impose a definition of art onto someone else.The most I tend to say is that it doesn't appeal to me,doesn't interest me or I don't understand it's purpose.That is fair enough and not a hugely judgemental position(though still judging of course) I don't see the need to go around telling artists not to spell this way or to do this this way.You're trying to tell them how to create and I disagree with that approach.For me personally if I'm writing a poem a certain way I did it for a specific purpose normally and so if you want me to change it you're altering my purpose and meaning for it's creation.You frustrate my intention.

Going hugely in depth with interpretation(especially in textual analysis) can be pointless too.At times it's boring and high fluting.Sometimes art shouldn't be so rigourously dissected.You can read TOO much into things.I'd be a bit puzzled if someone read my poem and started psychoanalysing it and pulling out all this bullshit.Is there meanings in it? yes.There's meanings,intentions,purposes,values, a whole background of norms values etc which it comes from and you can look at it in dialogue with other art and the circumstances it arose.All of that can be interesting.Sometimes.Just like analysing a song can be fun at times and consider meanings,metaphors etc....I guess I object to a certain kind of interpretation beyond a laymans approach where it's treated as if it's a science or a discipline which I neither think it is nor should be.