I am begging you to rethink if you find yourself saying any version of "Art should confront/disturb/disrupt/be realistic or plausible/buy me a pony/fill in the blank."
Every artist has their own artistic project. Why do you think YOU get to tell them what it should be?
"I like art that confronts and disturbs me." Lovely! I wish you all the joy in finding that art. "Art that I think isn't sufficiently confrontational and disturbing isn't real or good art." Yeah, fuck off.
Personally, sometimes I like art that rips into my heart with its claws, and sometimes I like art that's a fluffy duvet and a cup of tea. Both serve a purpose. I also like art that's "I never expected that!" because the artist is doing their thing, true to their personal project(s).
Consider not saying "art SHOULD" but "art CAN" and see all the different, new things that result. You might not like all of them. Probably won't. But that's ok, that's life. And art.
Please learn to accept that not all art is made according to your prejudices.
Thank you for listening.
Art should draw a creative idea from the mind of the creator, typically with the intent of planting that idea in the mind of the recipient.
To my mind, that’s kinda what makes it art, so I’m pretty comfy with it as an “art should” statement. But, yeah, restricting the kind of idea is anti-art.
(I’ve held this notion for decades, long before AI “art” came along. But it’s a great argument against AI content, which contains no creative ideas, but only mimics the output of actual art.)
