She was cueing the audience in that there is more going on, so dummie’s like me can know to look for more. I still needed a kind commenter to explain it to me.
I guess she wanted a larger audience to be able to experience her work, than you would have preferred.
I believe the deeper meaning is that even while weed is legalized in several states in the US, there are still many people in those same states serving sentences over the drug when it was criminalized. Those sentences were absurdly harsh, and disproportionately targeted black people.
So when the girl in the painting sees the dispensary, which is supposed to be a symbol of progress towards legalization, she instead sees her dad—still in prison, trapped from behind the glass in one of those restricted visitation rooms where you can only talk to one another over inline telephones.
Sure, but with the context of drugs and the window and the phone… I dunno. I thought it was obvious. Especially with there being a counter all along the window.
It’s killing the frog. Instead of letting the audience experience the work and the emotional journey therein. The artist is introducing the piece with with the very blatant context of ‘this painting looks pretty but is actually really deep, can you find what I mean?’
It’s not bad, per se, but it cheapens the experience and comes off as pretentious.
I’m not giving deeper meaning glances to a random pic in my feed. I have a few minutes here and there to scroll and I’m not devoting this-might-be-thought-provoking levels of time to random nonsense.
Hell the second highest rated top-level comment on this post is someone asking for help seeing the story.
People who are so high on their own farts that they get irritated that other, less intelligent or less attention capable people are getting a hint and that they should have to (gasp!) see that is ridiculous. That’s where the real pretention is.
I agree. It shows lack of faith in your work and your audience. It also takes away the audiences’ sense of “getting it” when they look and notice, which makes your audience feel smart and in conversation with you.
Reminds me of those little panels beside paintings in a gallery that sometimes tell you way too much about what the artist was thinking. The work itself is supposed to be communicating, if you need supplemental material then you may have failed somewhat in the original work.
Those little panels are there to prevent from offending the well-educated and the ignorant both from the abominable curse of critical thinking and inconclusive analysis, but I suspect you know or intuit that.
There have always been two art audiences: Those partaking and intaking the artist’s works, and those doing the same out of the social spectacle they engender.
At the same time I think a lot of people would just say “oh that’s nice” without looking for the subtext. I get what you’re saying, but this probably helps more people become engaged with the art.
God I hate artists that talk like that
She was cueing the audience in that there is more going on, so dummie’s like me can know to look for more. I still needed a kind commenter to explain it to me.
I guess she wanted a larger audience to be able to experience her work, than you would have preferred.
I believe the deeper meaning is that even while weed is legalized in several states in the US, there are still many people in those same states serving sentences over the drug when it was criminalized. Those sentences were absurdly harsh, and disproportionately targeted black people.
So when the girl in the painting sees the dispensary, which is supposed to be a symbol of progress towards legalization, she instead sees her dad—still in prison, trapped from behind the glass in one of those restricted visitation rooms where you can only talk to one another over inline telephones.
I’m gonna be completely honest here I thought that was the pharmacist on the phone with a customer and he and the girl were waving hi to each other.
I may be a little dense and naive.
Same
I thought it was a violating the Geneva convention joke about using a red cross improperly.
The orange suit didn’t give it away?
People wear orange
Sure, but with the context of drugs and the window and the phone… I dunno. I thought it was obvious. Especially with there being a counter all along the window.
I already admitted I’m dense what more you want 😭
Haha! You said you “may be”. I wanted to remove any doubt. J/k 😄
I thought that too, and then noticed he’s wearing orange and started to figure it out.
Hey thanks, I get it now and you’re totally right :)
Artists that talk like they’re showing off their latest work that they’re proud of? I don’t understand.
It’s killing the frog. Instead of letting the audience experience the work and the emotional journey therein. The artist is introducing the piece with with the very blatant context of ‘this painting looks pretty but is actually really deep, can you find what I mean?’
It’s not bad, per se, but it cheapens the experience and comes off as pretentious.
on social though it’s so easy to scroll by. It’s different in an art gallery.
Thank you.
I’m not giving deeper meaning glances to a random pic in my feed. I have a few minutes here and there to scroll and I’m not devoting this-might-be-thought-provoking levels of time to random nonsense.
Hell the second highest rated top-level comment on this post is someone asking for help seeing the story.
People who are so high on their own farts that they get irritated that other, less intelligent or less attention capable people are getting a hint and that they should have to (gasp!) see that is ridiculous. That’s where the real pretention is.
I agree. It shows lack of faith in your work and your audience. It also takes away the audiences’ sense of “getting it” when they look and notice, which makes your audience feel smart and in conversation with you.
Reminds me of those little panels beside paintings in a gallery that sometimes tell you way too much about what the artist was thinking. The work itself is supposed to be communicating, if you need supplemental material then you may have failed somewhat in the original work.
Those little panels are there to prevent from offending the well-educated and the ignorant both from the abominable curse of critical thinking and inconclusive analysis, but I suspect you know or intuit that.
There have always been two art audiences: Those partaking and intaking the artist’s works, and those doing the same out of the social spectacle they engender.
Let’s try not to gatekeep art. It just makes you look like a snob.
You utterly missed my point, as that is not what I did.
At the same time I think a lot of people would just say “oh that’s nice” without looking for the subtext. I get what you’re saying, but this probably helps more people become engaged with the art.
Hate is easy.