食物アレルギーが全くなくて良かったなぁと思うね🐙

海の近くに住んでみたかったねぇ……

なお仕事で塩害でボロボロになった設備を沢山見せられ（

レンジはなぁ、チンって言うからなぁ……言わないなぁ最近のやつは……

🆕 #DOGE

Santiment: социальное настроение толпы к Dogecoin остается на довольно пессимистичном уровне

ゴールデンレトリバーとしばらく戯れても大丈夫な程度だが。

犬というより、むしろハウスダストアレルギーの方が出てきてんのかなぁって気がする。

実家見てると、おそらく我々に犬の性質は合わないんだろな、て思う

まず散歩やだがるだろうし

Not bad for a not so SM person. Love you #nostr. Onwards #damus ✌🏼

レンジはﾁﾝなのにオーブンはﾌﾞﾝなの不思議

景色が良い場所で、犬と猫を飼って穏やかに暮らしたかったはずなのになぜこんな生活してるんだろう…になってる

やるか、汁づくりを……動きたくなさすぎてまだ布団いる……

あ、オーブンでﾌﾞﾝすればよかったかも

Where a lot of conceptual art fails is in its reliance on the artist’s statement to explain its purpose.

If you need to read the artist’s statement to understand why a piece exists, the focus shifts from the art itself to the statement. In that case, is the art the painting or sculpture, or is it the text that makes up the statement? If the text is more important, shouldn’t the artist’s statement be the piece up for auction rather than the artwork?

Good conceptual art should be self-explanatory. Take Marcel Duchamp’s urinal, for instance. He presented it as art, and you either agreed or disagreed. If you disagreed, you had to articulate why a urinal didn’t belong in an art gallery, which forced you to engage with the concept: the provocation about what defines art and why.

If we call Michelangelo’s David art, why not a urinal? The concept stands on its own—you don’t need to read Duchamp’s statement to understand the point. In fact, I’ve never read his statement and don’t care if it exists. The piece itself is the statement.

Now consider a different example: let’s say someone cuts out a patch of concrete with used gum stuck to it, frames it, and sells it in a gallery. What’s the concept? Why does this thing exist?

It’s not about whether it should exist—used gum on sidewalks exists everywhere. Asking whether it’s art is a tired and boring question. Anything made or altered by humans can be considered art in some way. That’s not a deep or navel-gazing statement; it’s just a fact.

But if you frame used gum on concrete and put it in a gallery, the meaning should be clear without a lengthy explanation. If I need to read a long artist’s statement to understand it, the piece fails. The longer the statement, the bigger the failure. That’s why good conceptual art is so hard to create.

I’d argue it’s harder to make a successful conceptual piece than a figurative one. Anyone can do a study of fruit, a nude, or a landscape. Factories in China mass-produce figurative art, and I’m not against that. If it brings people joy, great.

Bob Ross showed every week how easy it was to make a landscape painting, and he got people excited not just about art, but about making art. I still watch Bob Ross—he inspires me. He was one of the first people who made me think, “I can do this.” Big respect to him. But was what he did difficult? No.

Creating a novel concept, however, is hard. Coming up with something new, something that hasn’t been conceived before, is incredibly difficult. Even as I’m saying this, I’m sure someone else has had these exact thoughts.

So, respect to conceptual artists—it’s a rare thing to find truly great conceptual art.

A new NostrDice round has started! Zap the note with your chosen multiplier.

Here is the SHA256 commitment which makes the game fair: 9edb8815d26140e440e135e9917c22cf518ef95887950cdf6d45d9678c9d1e2f

Revealing nonce: 957cab2078ed736b4063ef7f389987f7e3676caad954f0e9979eb08b61e8ae8d. Matching commitment: nostr:note1p3zn4aqytp68g88z8lxevfer3l7pkxejsnfnw4zjzd3wtnauyq2q6z2ehp