>>3245132You are making good points. It is challanging and confusing how self-referential art can be these days. It can be completely annoying and offputting, but it can also be fun. Art that looks back at its own history to become something new (l'art pour 'l'art) is quite a fun concept. The same goes for all other areas. Computers have a virtual "desktop", mobile phones have some analogue sounding "bell ring tones" and when you take a picture, there is a shutter sound, although that whole deal is completely absurd. We are a nostalgic society, but some people believe that that nostalgia is a burdon and blocks new developements. Artists like David Bowie have always embraced new developements to the fullest. You can like or dislike Björk for her quirkiness, but she's also pushing boundaries with her VR implementation and the 360° video stuff.
It's just sad how quite a lot of folks on /ic/ have this preconceived notion of contemporary art: it being "too intellectual", boring, too scientific, entirely concept-based, self-referential, rid of any classical skills, not living up to the masterpieces that we admire (realism, craftsmanship).
Some exhibitions left such a lasting impression on me that I can still tell you where a particular painting was hanging that I loved, or at least I could easily find it again if I went to the place once again. Art exhibitions aren't supposed to be a threat to you on some level, for fear of embarrassing yourself, not getting it, or whatever. I've found myself walking out of an exhibition with anger numerous times, because I hated what I saw. There is a lot of stuff going wrong in art today, but also a lo tof stuff that is mind-blowing and enjoyable.
Whichever way you want to put it, it is still a weakness to have such a predetermined view on contemporary art, just because you've seen a bunch of artworks that you happened to not relate to or hate.
