Ask Lemmy

26654 readers

1180 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

AsudoxDev

How do you separate art from its industrial ~~and commercial~~ origins? (lemm.ee)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a similar vein to the question of separating art from the artist, I think it's also worth discussing how one approaches appreciating art despite its often industrial ~~and commercial~~ origins.

Edited for clarity: commercial is sort of redundant, and may have given an impression of there being issue taken with any sort of money made from art, which wasn't the intent. Focus was intended more on industrial, i.e. bigger business, art output.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Context is an important tool when determining authorial intent, but one can investigate a piece under the frame of the death of the author too should they want to understand more what they personally gain from a work or what someone else entirely gets out of it.

Just don't do that if you already tried authorial intent and decided you didn't like the answer that got you, because now you're either gonna be seeing that bad answer you didn't like in everything or refuse to acknowledge anything that might contribute to it, both of which are severe blocks to reading it for the intent of what you take from it.

Plus it makes you come off like some weirdo who tells the author they're wrong when they confirm a ship as canon or not, yes even through the plot development of the media in question.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Context is an important tool when determining authorial intent, but one can investigate a piece under the frame of the death of the author too should they want to understand more what they personally gain from a work or what someone else entirely gets out of it.

Am I understanding correctly that you're suggesting an extension of death of the author to death of the industry to discern what one draws from art?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Not OP but I think that's a natural extension, yes.