#art000

[mysticdragon3md3]

Never feel bad for appreciating and enriching your life with art.

[mysticdragon3md3]

The Met Gala 2026 reminding me how bad I am at art history.

[mysticdragon3md3]

"Can't have fun if you examine the art"...???? Oh no... I've heard this before.

This is what the "it's not that deep" gamer bros say when people analyze videogames beyond recounting lore.

And even further back, with people who get upset at the scientific explanations for beautiful nature or analysis of art in general. They say the explanations "ruined" it, instead of considering that maybe further understanding expands some people's enjoyment and awe of the thing---as well as the ability to make better art, thru understanding why=how it's effective.

.

Pic source:

https://youtu.be/9734qH3A1iE?si=blMGothO6y7GZPjH

[mysticdragon3md3]

Rewatching Daryl Talks Games' video essay on Expedition 33. At the point where he equates how [SPOILER CHARACTER] doesn't bother explaining to [ANOTHER SPOILER CHARACTER] why he's killing him, Daryl Talks Games says, "In the same way you wouldn't explain to a mistaken line in a drawing why you were erasing it".

And I immediately remembered how my blockprinting professor encouraged us to give our blocks names and talk to them, so that we would have more care while carving. And honestly, even before she told me that, I was already doing it. It's easier to stay conscious and careful of every carve, when you pretend your block feels it. Is this just a carver/sculptor thing??????????????

I know when we draw, we can hate our drawings, but that's only because it's a reflection of our lapse in skill that day. But I dunno...Sometimes I apologize to my drawings for not doing them justice, to live up to the image in my head. Sometimes I feel so bad for it, I go back and fix things digitally. (I'm a traditional artist.)

At the same time, one of the biggest lessons I learned in drawing class, was the ability to erase everything and not be afraid to start again. That really helped a lot of my drawings. Instead of spending 3 hours trying to work on top of bad foundations, it was better to start again, properly. The results were always better. In that way, I learned to become unafraid to erase entire drawings, even if I had spent 2 hours or so on it so far, even though that used to be impossible for my sentimentality.

So is having more sentimentality for your artwork more of a sculptor/carver thing? I mean, kintsugi exists. I've broken and messed up ceramics, and my professors told me how to repair it with epoxy, rather than just throwing it away. On the other hand, they still taught that story about how the ceramics class that produces more work, less worried about mistakes, progresses in their skill levels, more than the ceramics class that was so worried about perfectionism, they produced less pieces. Artwork still precious enough to save individual pieces, but not so precious, to not leave mistakes behind, and try again and again, with more pieces. It's a different type of value system, when the thing considered precious is the skill being developed, vs the artwork produced. But once the artwork is produced, it still has its own value, worth saving, even from its flaws.

Maybe it's just harder to let go of 3 dimensional things? Especially now, where 2D art can be replicated so much, digitally. I don't mourn posters that I've lost to rain damage in storage. And I no longer feel as bad for missing chances to buy artbooks that I could have bought before. Because I'm certain the exact same images will be searchable on the internet. I'll find it there. It's the image that matters; not having a physical paper, artbook, or poster scroll of it.

But I wonder if I only think that, because of years of having run out of wall space for posters and shelf space for too many artbooks. I'd buy more prints at artist alley if I had more wall space. Turning 2D art into a physical object to hang on my walls or put into a portfolio-album to create a custom "artbook", is nice, but not as important to me as saving money, when my budgets are low. When I became able to see the same artwork online, while saving space and money, I remember it quickly conditioning me to not prioritize buying 2D artwork as much as I used to. Because the incorporeal image is what mattered; not a physical print of it.

So I guess that means 2D art is still treated as precious, but in a way that makes 3 dimensionality optional.

I remember the story of this painter who churned out so much work, that he'd just throw away the paintings that he wasn't completely happy with. Someone found some of his paintings in his trash and asked if they could take them, because they were beautiful. And he said they were just trash, so he let them. I can't remember if this was the same story, but those may have been the only paintings of his that survived...or maybe I'm thinking of another artist.

I guess worth is based on perspective, as much as it is on intent. Maybe both artisans/craftsmen and painters more focused on developing skill, than producing a "perfect" artwork, will have less sentimentality for their individual art pieces. But that worth can change once a piece is finished to an artisan or found by an audience. Maybe? They say that videogames are an inherently incomplete artwork, that is only completed when a player interacts with it. I guess, once again, sentimentality, worth, preciousness, and attachment to an individual artwork is constantly changing, both within the same artist, and to the audience.

It would make more sense for worth to be always shifting, among different people and at different times, since perspectives are also diverse and constantly in flux. Anyway, it would be sad if an entire genre of artists couldn't have sentimentality towards their own work, just because their art was 2D, instead of 3D. If that were true, I guess that means that it will have failed as an artwork to them, unable to fulfill the basic definition of art: to elicit emotion. But even in those cases, it's still always possible for the right audience to find it, and fulfill and artwork's mission of generating emotion/experience. Even if it conveys something completely different from authorial intent, the audience can make it "complete" and give it worth. They can have the sentimentality for the artwork, even if an author/artist can't.

Maybe that's why it's a shame when art is destroyed or lost. It can always mean something to somebody. It can become precious. It can be worthy of sentimental attachment.

What was I rambling about? "Is an artist having more sentimental attachment to their artwork more common for carvers/sculptors than painters?" I don't know if I'm actually wondering if this premise is real, or if I'm just exploring an interesting idea. I guess the only way to answer that question is to ask all the carvers/sculptors and painters. But I'm not going to do that. I'm just rambling.

It would be easier to believe that there are some carvers who talk to their blocks, and some who do not. Some painters who talk to their paintings, and some who do not. Some illustrators who apologize to the paper and graphite or ink, for a mistaken line, and some who erase it without giving it explanations.

Just like while [SPOILER CHARACTER] has no sympathy for the fictional characters, Verso does. Verso has as much attachment and care for their worth as they do for each other. But at the same time, when something is more important, Verso is able to put aside the fictional world, for his more realistic priorities. And maybe that's the healthier way to interact with art. Care for it, recognize the worth of the experiences it gives you, and acknowledge that the emotions while interacting with it are real, but also, when there's something more important, to put that fiction aside.

Maybe that's what I've been rambling about: Choosing at different times to give different amounts of care for a thing, when appropriate, as priorities constantly change.