Re: the inner tweet. There's a weird, or perhaps entirely explicable, tic for schlock art to rely upon some quirk of medium, and a quirk of medium that has little bearing on the final result, to justify itself. Once you notice it it's everywhere.

It's been on my mind ever since seeing that post a couple days ago. "You don't understand. It's sheathed in the finest granite! The texture is actually made of words from his speeches! The artist mixes a drop of his blood into each painting!" Etc.

Like, fundamentally. If I mixed a little dust of the earth from each location I did a painting into my watercolors--maybe that's kinda cool, I guess, but if I make that a top-line item, it invites certain questions about my confidence in the work qua the work

@kendrictonn It’s akin to a comedian having to explain his joke, to do so is to admit to failure.

@orthodoxmason @kendrictonn My unpopular view is that one of the requirements for something to be art is that it must successfully convey the intended meaning of the artist to the majority of its intended audience

@orthonormalist @goblinodds @orthodoxmason @kendrictonn Hmm. I think a good narrative should work on the subconscious level.

@RandomSprint @orthonormalist @goblinodds @orthodoxmason @kendrictonn That too! I think it should work on as many layers as possible simultaneously. Intentionally putting a "break" in there to reduce audience size is IMO a failure. x.com/MunicipleOrrer…