Explanation kills art, that’s one theory.
Who killed the silly side of art? Gravity is a recipe for disaster.
Idealistic silliness, good as well as absurd. Pictures that doesn’t try to tell me things.
Marcel Duchamp is dead as a dodo, great art has tendency to daydream, works on paper usually are quite thin by nature. Life is however getting tougher for shallow art. Let the critics criticize.
Who killed the silly side of art?
The most successful art to me involves humor, by increasing plasticity it is possible to increase >artistic capacity.
Goblin spells that really work with proof: it’s the builders who count.
Silly art is the end of postmodernist plastic arts, which never seen anything this bizarre in its lifetimes, where up is down and down is up.
Fine art is an adaptive system that emerges and grows in a manner analogous to biological organization. Weird artists laugh to tears at the absurdity of the thing.
Whether an artist enters the pantheon of heroes of the avant-garde, depends largely on whether he was scandalous. Resemblance is certainly not the be all and end all of representation.
Technology-based art is a whole other can of worms. Communication is the process of developing a shared understanding, now we don't know what to think.
If you invite a few objects into your house, it’s the same as inviting a few people over.
Drawing on approaches from computational beauty, computer programs with a sense of beauty increasingly are able to search for patterns, and enable new hypotheses to emerge with a little silliness, looking for pushmi-pullyu evidence.
Theory is key. Nothing in science lasts: The end effect ended.