"This is why art is remarkable the less realistic it becomes, with its attempts to capture something only a human perception can apprehend. If done correctly, it would appear utterly threatening to an extraterrestrial."
This is why I'm stockpiling the work of obscure cubists to deploy as an anti-xeno cognitohazard. It's called prepping, folks!
I think it's interesting. I never heard of tying trauma to futurist violence as a grounding and vehicle to actually move forward. I had to look it up, ig Frantz Fanon, Bataille and D/G say something similar.
Only thing I would say regarding this:
"I’ve heard defenses of this thing called art that justify its value by how it impacts you emotionally; that it needs no explanation other than some feeling that remains with you after you beheld it. I find this reductive, as the search for meaning is essential to understanding creative work of any kind."
It's not reductionist, but subversive. Reductionism is enlightenment rationalism. Subversion is quite literally interpreting the not-i in terms of aesthetics through our emotions and making it ours (romanticism). In any case, you do need your own episteme still.
"This is why art is remarkable the less realistic it becomes, with its attempts to capture something only a human perception can apprehend. If done correctly, it would appear utterly threatening to an extraterrestrial."
This is why I'm stockpiling the work of obscure cubists to deploy as an anti-xeno cognitohazard. It's called prepping, folks!
I think it's interesting. I never heard of tying trauma to futurist violence as a grounding and vehicle to actually move forward. I had to look it up, ig Frantz Fanon, Bataille and D/G say something similar.
Only thing I would say regarding this:
"I’ve heard defenses of this thing called art that justify its value by how it impacts you emotionally; that it needs no explanation other than some feeling that remains with you after you beheld it. I find this reductive, as the search for meaning is essential to understanding creative work of any kind."
It's not reductionist, but subversive. Reductionism is enlightenment rationalism. Subversion is quite literally interpreting the not-i in terms of aesthetics through our emotions and making it ours (romanticism). In any case, you do need your own episteme still.