Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, integration journey said:

So Leo do you think all classic art is bullshit? Maybe I didn’t understand something. What kind of art do you like then and find meaningful? 

It is bullshit in the sense of being overrated.

There are some nice classical pieces. Van Gogh's Starry Night is lovely, but it is not $100 million dollars lovely.

People have blown these artists like Van Gogh way out of proportion. Was he a decent artist? Sure. Was he some art God? No. That part is the bullshit. There are many artists alive today who are better than Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso, and so on. But none of them will ever be revered as art gods because they don't have the group-think behind them.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Usually the top fine artists that are highly valued were done so for being pioneers of a 'movement' prior to the style becoming mainstream.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Usually the top fine artists that are highly valued were done so for being pioneers of a 'movement' prior to the style becoming mainstream.

Yes, but why does that happen? It's a marketing effect. In order to become famous and build a hype movement requires that you do something outrageous and controversial. That's why fine art has this toxic obsession with being avant-garde. This is actually a sneaky form of survival. You have to be avant-garde to make it big in the fine art world. Otherwise there's no hype behind your work.

Fine art is a social contagion. It's the old school social media. You gotta go viral to be a somebody.

In order to create a really popular video game or movie, you also have to pioneer some new style. Something that makes people stop and look. It doesn't have to be good per se, it just has to make people stop and look.

Connor McGregor mastered this self-promotion self-hype cycle in the UFC. That's why he became the most famous and highest paid UFC fighter. Is Connor McGregor the best fighter? No! He's totally over-hyped. But he created a social contagion around himself. He created that fantasy and enough people believe it that it starts to look real.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, but why does that happen? It's a marketing effect. In order to become famous and build a hype movement requires that you do something outrageous and controversial. That's why fine art has this toxic obsession with being avant-garde. This is actually a sneaky form of survival. You have to be avant-garde to make it big in the fine art world. Otherwise there's no hype behind your work.

Fine art is a social contagion. It's the old school social media. You gotta go viral to be a somebody.

Indeed - I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your premise. It is the trend-following effect that comes after that I would consider the group think/hype.

Similar to following a style trend originating from a couture fashion runway. 

Avante garde tends to mean, within the art world, new or experimental ideas in art. What breaks the precedent. Pioneering. It is hard to generate something new without it being slapped with 'avante garde'. 

The finer distinction would be differentiating the artist, their craft & skill from the movement itself. The hype and elevation to legendary status some of the bigger names receive. Removed from the simple craft itself.

There are many artists of greater skill within movements that were simply never recognised as much as some of the famous names.

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Additionally some artist were performing a completely different role; Andy Warhol for instance. His work was a calling to all the art and creativity that lies within design and marketing. 

He painted things like the Campbell soup can to highlight 'This is art. Work & creativity went into this' precisely as a revolt against the fine arts movement. Because they would not recognise an expert typeface songwriter, or the designer behind the Campbell soup can, as an artist. He fundamentally disagreed with their narrow view of 'art'. This was in part a personal vandetta, as he faced this discrimination in his early career.

Much of his work was a statement highlighting the creativity and art behind everyday items.

Many people covet art, and artists, without even recognising what they did. Why they did it. And how. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

If you think about it, Andy Warhol was giving the finger to the fine arts crew. The critics and moment. The hype. By using their own medium against them; creating performative art and shoving it in their faces.

He recognised the farse and hype 🙃

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

If you think about it, Andy Warhol was giving the finger to the fine arts crew. The critics and moment. The hype. By using their own medium against them; creating performative art and shoving it in their faces.

He recognised the farse and hype 🙃

Interesting point, but he still ended up a pawn in that whole game, riding it to fame and wealth.

Becoming famous for telling the establishment to fuck themselves is still the same sort of game.

Warhol's "art" still ended up highly overrated and overvalued.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Dazgwny]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Was he some art God? No. That part is the bullshit

Indeed complete bullshit. Nobody gave a damn about Van Gogh during his lifetime. The general public, other artists, they thought his work was crap. It was a master marketing scheme by his sister-in-law when he was dead after she inherited his paintings. Ever since then the values have sky rocketed. And the public conform to it. The reality is that Van Gogh was a pretty rubbish artist now seen as a total master of art. Nonsense. And conformity

[JosephKnecht]

Hey guys. In the latest blog post, Leo brags about being humble:  https://www.actualized.org/insights/jehovahs-witnesses-self-deception 

Quote

The paradox of my work is that on the surface it seems arrogant, but actually I am more epistemically humble than any scientist. That's why my work is better than science. Not because I am arrogant but because I am humble. I was humble enough to understand that science can be as much a self-deception as Jehovah's Witnesses.

How do we know if someone is humble? When he doesn't brag. 

Especially not about being humble. 

Just my humble opinion.