It's a quite famous painting called The Lovers by Magritte, and it's usually interpreted either as meaning that you can never truly know even the people you love, or just some other kind of frustration over being unable to connect.
I would say putting it in this context makes for an interesting reinterpretation.
Well-known paintings are sometimes used as metaphors and shorthand. I think it's fun.
I'd say that you get a strong emotional or visceral reaction out of it (it's grotesque, you don't like it, etc.) may speak to its power. It was perhaps drawn out of an emotion you are simply recognizing.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly - not just in this thread but in others:
We ban accounts that post like this. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
It's not a really a bait, dang. Unless going against the chorus is considered bait. Couple of one liners from today is hardly evidence of malicious flamebait.
But I shall read the sacrad guidelines again, it's been a while.
If you have a substantive contrarian point to make, and you make it thoughtfully, that can be a good HN comment. But just throwing flamboyant pejoratives on top of an internet cliché is not that.
The first two of the other comments I liked to were just personal cheap shots—obviously not ok on HN.
I might have wrong about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50158417 though; it sounded like personal snark when I read it originally ("Do you even LLM at that point?") but perhaps you didn't mean that bit personally. The rest of that comment was fine.
I have a different take. Rudeness is like beauty or art: you can't meaningfully describe it or quantify it (don't overthink this part). So, we should consider the possibility that what seems rude to you is an art in itself and you should congratulate me for making you feel that/something (even though it wasn't rude: it's paradoxical, hence true art)
Are you saying art is anything that makes you feel?
You're confusing a really basic human subject with nonsensical ramblings that that aren't worth entertaining. I think most people would find this dismissive and possibly indicative that you're confused about something beyond your depth.
Can you maybe elaborate about how your communications are on the artistic spectrum?
That rather proves the point of the person you replied to.
You're authentically an asshole. The abrasive, dickish attitude you take does indeed contribute something even if just to spur conversations about authenticity.
Had you instead prompted an LLM to "have hot takes about art that provoke a negative reaction and then antagonize anyone who replies", it would be lacking that sincerity you bring to the table.
I'm very unpretentious about art. I enjoy paintings, but there's no way to know all of them. XKCD 1053 applies. I also can't paint anything, and I generally feel silly about status symbols that people didn't make themselves.
Also, I didn't say the artwork's goal is to "hate it". I was more pointing out that artists sometimes also process and show negative motions or moments. It doesn't have to be pretty.
In my opinion it's actually you who is putting art on some kind of pedastal. To me it's just a nice additional mode of communication that makes the spectrum richer. A well-known painting is an emoji deluxe.
A popular circulating belief among modern fascists (as well as historical ones) is that any art that makes you feel uncomfortable is "degenerate" or immoral.
It's a quite famous painting called The Lovers by Magritte, and it's usually interpreted either as meaning that you can never truly know even the people you love, or just some other kind of frustration over being unable to connect.
I would say putting it in this context makes for an interesting reinterpretation.
Well-known paintings are sometimes used as metaphors and shorthand. I think it's fun.
I'd say that you get a strong emotional or visceral reaction out of it (it's grotesque, you don't like it, etc.) may speak to its power. It was perhaps drawn out of an emotion you are simply recognizing.
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly - not just in this thread but in others:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50170768
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50169919
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50158417 (<-- edit: this was a mistake on my part - see below)
We ban accounts that post like this. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
It's not a really a bait, dang. Unless going against the chorus is considered bait. Couple of one liners from today is hardly evidence of malicious flamebait.
But I shall read the sacrad guidelines again, it's been a while.
If you have a substantive contrarian point to make, and you make it thoughtfully, that can be a good HN comment. But just throwing flamboyant pejoratives on top of an internet cliché is not that.
The first two of the other comments I liked to were just personal cheap shots—obviously not ok on HN.
I might have wrong about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50158417 though; it sounded like personal snark when I read it originally ("Do you even LLM at that point?") but perhaps you didn't mean that bit personally. The rest of that comment was fine.
It's okay to not like things. No need to be rude about it.
I have a different take. Rudeness is like beauty or art: you can't meaningfully describe it or quantify it (don't overthink this part). So, we should consider the possibility that what seems rude to you is an art in itself and you should congratulate me for making you feel that/something (even though it wasn't rude: it's paradoxical, hence true art)
Are you saying art is anything that makes you feel?
You're confusing a really basic human subject with nonsensical ramblings that that aren't worth entertaining. I think most people would find this dismissive and possibly indicative that you're confused about something beyond your depth.
Can you maybe elaborate about how your communications are on the artistic spectrum?
That rather proves the point of the person you replied to.
You're authentically an asshole. The abrasive, dickish attitude you take does indeed contribute something even if just to spur conversations about authenticity.
Had you instead prompted an LLM to "have hot takes about art that provoke a negative reaction and then antagonize anyone who replies", it would be lacking that sincerity you bring to the table.
Your style of communication is quite abrasive. It feels out of place here.
Please could you try again but without the edgy vibe?
I'm very unpretentious about art. I enjoy paintings, but there's no way to know all of them. XKCD 1053 applies. I also can't paint anything, and I generally feel silly about status symbols that people didn't make themselves.
Also, I didn't say the artwork's goal is to "hate it". I was more pointing out that artists sometimes also process and show negative motions or moments. It doesn't have to be pretty.
In my opinion it's actually you who is putting art on some kind of pedastal. To me it's just a nice additional mode of communication that makes the spectrum richer. A well-known painting is an emoji deluxe.
Have you considered the possibility that other people have an inner life that is as deep as your own
Honestly asking, are you serious? If yes, can you elaborate on it?
[flagged]
"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." It's reliably a marker of bad comments and worse threads.
A popular circulating belief among modern fascists (as well as historical ones) is that any art that makes you feel uncomfortable is "degenerate" or immoral.
[dead]