Concepts and Problems in the Visual Arts, Lecture H1: The idea of art history

[@MCharlesPainting]

I think it's two-fold: (1) It's in the dealers' interest to not be too positive or negative, but to let the art and public speak, only controlling the market when they can (for the purposes of selling high). (2) Visual/classical art is largely dead, and a lot of it is now run by modern types themselves, so it's only natural that they would want to end judgement. They make terrible art and want to be praised for it, and pat each other on the back. If I'm right, and looking at other trends in the other artistic domains, it ought to be the case that these fields will fall soon, too. In fact, I think there is some evidence for this already. I mean, you claim that people are either extremely positive or negative with opera, drama, fiction, and otherwise, but I'm not so sure. Regardless, these are all falling. It's likely the future of art as such is in films, video games, comics, online creations, A.I., and otherwise. In all these areas, since about 2017, there has been a shift towards a non-judgement. The only times you see profound judgement is when it's propaganda and enforced one way or the other (either by the state or the controlling population/mob). Otherwise, there is a great movement with Gen-Z which is more in the direction of depression and 'thrownness', so they don't really judge anything in any direction: everything is just 'is'. On top of this, there is a feeling that to be positive or negative is immoral and harmful in some regard. On the cinema and video game front and such: you often see only positive reviews here, to let everybody be happy about whatever they want, and to keep the companies happy. For example, if Nintendo pays you for a review or gives you powers (early access), you are pretty much required to give the game a 10/10 rating, even if it's bad or has major issues, or you personally hate it. Your merely the mouthpiece for the company. If you say it's bad, they will never hire you again. As a result, I think all of art is going in the direction of non-judgement, with pockets of extreme judgement as a crowd, as opposed to individuals. It used to be, back in the 1980s or so, that individuals were actually paid to have individual options, and/or this was the way to gain attention (maybe even profits). Some reviews were negative, some were positive. This was famously the case with video games between 1975 and 2005 -- certainly 1975 and 1995. Within the industry itself, there has been a shift towards 'nothingness', let's call it. Many experts have come out talking about this: coders and game designers today cry in the corner if you shout at them, for example, or ask them to do more than 15 minutes of work. This is the new Gen-Z framework, and has impacted all of these areas since the 2000s. It seemingly extends slightly into the last generation, too (so, those born around 1990). I know the same is true for novel reviews and novelists, as well. Comics have also become completely run by Gen-Z and are examples of small cults or childish groupings (more in line with the underground 'zine' world and other niche areas of expression and modernist community-building). I don't think it's useful to have no judgement in the age of the Internet, though we might say that the postmodernist or likewise framework is also flawed. There are a few problems going on, including simply a far larger population than before in many of these areas, coupled with the childishness and inability to accept hurt feelings or form their own personal thoughts. The Internet itself cannot be the problem, given that it existed back in 2003 and there was no shortage of the more classical judgement. But, it evidently has not helped, in line with the way Gen-Z has moved. I have to assume that this is a form of postmodernism which suggests that 'judgement' itself is a lie or wrong. That's why we see it exist in the 1980s or 1990s, before the Internet and Gen-Z. It just spoke to them most -- or shaped them, whichever is correct. Difficult to know. We need to study this a lot deeper over the next 10 or 20 years, is my guess. I also have to assume that, to the degree opera is still 'classical' in this way, it's because it's not filled with Gen-Z and there is no real benefit to it being non-judgement-based. As I said, this likely isn't the issue for the future compared to the globalisation forms of video games, novels, comic books, and films. If we only look at these things since 2017 or so, we notice that there is a trend towards non-judgement or complete judgement (for critics, they love everything Disney does; the average person hates it). This is why so many review sites show terrible conflicts, and many companies are banning negative reviews. As for poetry, I see this as also having no sense of judgement. As we speak, my nation (England) is throwing away all the great poets of the past and replacing them with random African and Ukrainian poets (not straw-manning or so forth -- this is literally what they did). And, assuming my judgement is anything to consider (maybe this is why they want to remove the notion), it's not because the latter are better than Owens or Shelley. I've read them: they mostly consist of sloppy, unpolished stream-of-consciousness rants about childhood, daily life, and political, topical issues. A lot of weather in there, too, and other generalities. Most of the great poetry of the past had little of that, if any. This is to be taught in all the schools by 2025, and fully replace most English poetry. This, not even dealing with the matter of if it's correct to remove poets of one's own nation. (I understand that not all stream-of-consciousness writing is polished, but you'll notice the very best of the last 100 years has come from true geniuses of this world. Even then, half of them did polish it -- they just polished it so well that you cannot tell.) Now, it's worth noting that certain areas of modernity and the digital realm literally do benefit from negative coverage, so this is seen as a positive to many. For example, disliking a KZbin video is 'good' in certain ways, as it helps with viewership and traffic. Anything that is based around news or the spreading of information, more so, online, is a victim here or can be. Since we know bad news travels like three times faster than good -- likely in line with the fact humans feel negative emotions 2.5-3.0 more than positive, and we simply care about negative issues more as they are far more important and interesting, innately. This can backfire, of course. If everybody hates Disney, this is likely bad for Disney. This is why they try to control and ban and corrupt. But, let's go back 40 years to a more normative time. Disney had no problem with people debating their output or even disagreeing with it: this created interest and more traffic, and profits, as a general rule. Also, negative feedback had an even less negative impact compared to social media. If I say something really bad about Disney on Twitter, this can become a far worse situation than it ought to be. This is the true power, the negative power, of social media compared to classical media or just friends at a café. Its reach is unstoppable, and its failure to properly frame context and emotionality. But, the Internet is so fast that being non-judgemental is unwise as it all becomes a sea of nothingness. On top of this, to pretend that X is Y or equal is not only unwise but immoral. To lose your own sense of self, to never have a judgement on anything, is immoral. I also think it's impossible and is bound to boil over sooner or later, and make the critic 'snap', mentally and otherwise. I think this might explain many people today and how crazy they have become, and how violent in one direction or the other. Sure, I hate Lenin and Leninism, but I'll have tea with a Leninist and even let him scream outside my house. This is his freedom, and I'm here to defend it to my death; that is what it means to believe in freedom and rights and the soul of man. This does not mean, however, I have no opinion, or merely a weak one. The 'old' critics had a better understanding of this very delicate complexity. Not that it's even that complex, you just have to be a noble human being with control over your emotions, and have a belief system within yourself. This is where we might have found the rub, as it were. Critics today are either mouthpieces of their overlords or have the emotional control of a child, and are ants without a hill; lost and without a moral structure. The critics, of their own free will, having no judgement at all, fall into two camps. First, they are more Jungian in nature, and believe that it's up to the viewer/reader to make up his own mind, so they don't want to throw anything onto them. Second, they are cowards or lack the ability to think and feel. As you can imagine, sadly, the latter camp is filled, where the former is almost empty. Your own datasets prove as much: very few are interested in the deeper meanings of art or playing the role of 'conduit' and true thinker. We've seen very few examples of that over the last 60 years. The best you can hope for, if they view art wholly within a Marxian and postmodernist framework of 'culture' and 'politics' and 'history'. Evidently, this is almost always getting further away from art and truth and the deeper meanings, not closer. Most critics, pro and otherwise, don't have anything to say, and don't know what they're talking about, and are fearful. They don't want the mob to attack them for saying something wrong, or losing their fans. You see this in all areas of life, and the arts are no different (at least, for the last 7 years or so).