this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
219 points (97.8% liked)

Comic Strips

22346 readers
1251 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I feel like a lot of people miss the meaning of this one.

A gunshot wound that creates a splatter of red liquid is very, very different in meaning from a splatter of ketchup. The comic is criticizing the type of person who criticizes art only based on the superficial similarity rather than the actual context and meaning represented by the artist's choices.

Not every artistic choice has intrinsic meaning, and plenty of artists and art critics go too far in focusing on the "how" than the "what" in art, but I still think the "how" matters a lot.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If you remove the art from the context, would it still mean the same to you? There are tons of unknown artists whose portraits are in circulation and their buyers would have no idea what they went through when painting them. At that point the artwork would have to stand on its own and resonate with the buyer for it to be meaningful for them.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago

This is why I usually enjoy the book more if I know some context about a writer, even if my conclusions about how it influenced a book are entirely wrong. I think it's better to know context for visual art, too, but indeed context is not a part of the artwork itself (although I believe not everyone thinks this way, and I don't know if I agree with them or not in the end)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)