![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gbI feel like ass right now, due to second-hand embarrassment--a nonsensical personality flaw of mine is that I feel like shit when I see others I agree with dissed or mocked... oddly, being directly mocked myself rarely has the same effect. Weird!
In an attempt to distract myself (partially successful), here's something that occurred to me 10 minutes ago:
What makes something 'art', 'genius', or simply 'good'? Some people are considered geniuses because of their innate talent, ignoring that this talent often bore fruit only after years of prolonged, intense practice.
The real value of studying theory in something--in art, for instance (I was terrible at university-entry-level Art but one of only two people in the class who genuinely enjoyed art history etc)--is not to understand why something is, but how.
It should not be used to catagorise art or media by practitioners of that media
The real value lies in using theory to understand the working processes and thought patterns of a field's prior masters--many of whom are now dead, and lived in a time before Youtube tutorials were in vogue.
In essence, theory = reverse engineering.
I feel like most theory--the 'why' stuff--is a bit of a distraction. It's useful and illuminating but if you want to do things yourself, it feels like knowing creators' social contexts and motivations is only a distraction? Whether you are creating things for the appeal of the masses or a smaller target audience or just For Yourself, the important thing is to know about what you are and what the current-day social situation is?
But examining previous works (notable and otherwise) more with a perspective of 'how does this thing the creator put in achieve THIS result?' leads to coming up with theory that is practically applicable, even if you subvert it. Or to put it another way, wondering 'Why did the creator do this' but 'Why do I like it?'.
The good thing about this is that you get to play/read/watch a lot of things you like ⊙‿⊙
In an attempt to distract myself (partially successful), here's something that occurred to me 10 minutes ago:
What makes something 'art', 'genius', or simply 'good'? Some people are considered geniuses because of their innate talent, ignoring that this talent often bore fruit only after years of prolonged, intense practice.
The real value of studying theory in something--in art, for instance (I was terrible at university-entry-level Art but one of only two people in the class who genuinely enjoyed art history etc)--is not to understand why something is, but how.
It should not be used to catagorise art or media by practitioners of that media
The real value lies in using theory to understand the working processes and thought patterns of a field's prior masters--many of whom are now dead, and lived in a time before Youtube tutorials were in vogue.
In essence, theory = reverse engineering.
I feel like most theory--the 'why' stuff--is a bit of a distraction. It's useful and illuminating but if you want to do things yourself, it feels like knowing creators' social contexts and motivations is only a distraction? Whether you are creating things for the appeal of the masses or a smaller target audience or just For Yourself, the important thing is to know about what you are and what the current-day social situation is?
But examining previous works (notable and otherwise) more with a perspective of 'how does this thing the creator put in achieve THIS result?' leads to coming up with theory that is practically applicable, even if you subvert it. Or to put it another way, wondering 'Why did the creator do this' but 'Why do I like it?'.
The good thing about this is that you get to play/read/watch a lot of things you like ⊙‿⊙
