A theory I came up with is that postmodernist art functions as a make-work program for postmodernist critics. If the naive purpose of art is to communicate with your audience, then good art is art that communicates its ideas well. But if you're a self-serving critic you don't want good art, because good art speaks for itself. You want bad, incoherent art that requires a priestly caste of postmodernist critics to stand between the art and the audience as interpreter.
The book The Painted Word advances the same theory.
how is that practical? or even aesthetically pleasing?
A theory I came up with is that postmodernist art functions as a make-work program for postmodernist critics. If the naive purpose of art is to communicate with your audience, then good art is art that communicates its ideas well. But if you're a self-serving critic you don't want good art, because good art speaks for itself. You want bad, incoherent art that requires a priestly caste of postmodernist critics to stand between the art and the audience as interpreter.
The book The Painted Word advances the same theory.
Nailed it.