The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art." - Hallo friend USA IN NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article HOT, Article NEWS, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art."
link : The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art."

The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art."

I'm reading "The Nude Selfie Is Now High Art/It has become an act of resilience in isolation, a way to seduce without touch" by the novelist Diana Spechler in the NYT.

Though the debate about art versus pornography has never been settled, a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art. 

Yes, but is it high art, as the headline asserts. This issue strikes me as nonsense. I don't even accept that nudes are pornography...

... nor do I accept that something is either pornography or art and can't be both. And I don't accept that something becomes more artistic because it's "an act of resilience in isolation." Routine masturbation could be called "an act of resilience in isolation."

Some of us finally have time to make art, and this is the art we are making: carefully posed, cast in shadows, expertly filtered. These aren’t garish below-the-belt shots under fluorescent lighting, a half-used roll of toilet paper in the background....

Wait. I think the edgy, gritty quality is more artistic. I think using a lot of bullshit — "carefully posed, cast in shadows, expertly filtered" — is banal and sentimental and less likely to qualify as art. It sounds as though Spechler is talking about people who are making a special effort to look pretty and using computer tools to flatter themselves. That's low art, at best. The headline promised high art.

I'm skipping over a lot of material, including talk of great painters (Goya, Van Gogh), because ultimately Spechler's own words undercut the argument. The naked selfies of the lockdown don't deserve (or need) elevation to the status of "high art." She says:

Though it might require a bit of squinting to see pandemic-era nude selfie-snapping on a par with Basquiat, geniuses hold no monopoly on the instinct to self-preserve. Or on the yearning to be witnessed. Sending a nude selfie is a request to be witnessed — not objectively, but through rose-tinted (or smooth-filtered) lenses....

That's just saying everyone has feelings and does some things that express those feelings. When is the evidence of an expression of feeling art? Is the product of routine masturbation — done as an act of resilience in isolation — an artwork?

Plenty of people are lonely, frustrated, and burdened with extra time. That's actually not the most profound feeling in the world. And "Look at me!!" is even less profound. It's not saying anything interesting or original. It's an expression. Fine.

Thus articles The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art."

that is all articles The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article The NYT revives the old "Is it art?" debate for Plague Times: "a case can be made that quarantine nude selfies are art." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-nyt-revives-old-is-it-art-debate.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: