or was it in my head

watched a documentary about the history of art a couple days ago where a guy transitioned seamlessly from talking about 18th century realism to the beginnings of surrealism, impressionism and eventually abstract expressionism without once mentioning the invention of photography. it was utterly bizarre. it was like watching Friends when 9/11 happened and it just didnt happen on the show

i understand when youre doing a "history of art" documentary you have limited time to address little details and minor movements like idk, the Vienna Seccession or the ashcan school or whatever. but photography? and he literally did just start talking about impressionism like "gee who knows why artists suddenly lost a lot of interest in capturing literal or at least representative depictions of what they could see with their eyeballs. who knows why it suddenly wasnt very profitable to pursue mostly portraiture anymore. everyone just suddenly decided to start painting more blobs and then eventually cubes. perhaps it was simply time" can you imagine being 10 years old watching something like this lol why would you write your show this way.

"we just dont know why horses became the least popular mode of personal transportation in the united states during the early 20th century. nor why the american government devoted most of its infrastructure foot print to paved roads, a decision which lives with us to this day, where there is nary a horse to be seen in most metropolitan regions of north america"

this is actually a really good example of what i keep talking about wrt "art' being both unintentionally and intentionally framed as non-material by capitalism. it's why they mostly dont let working artists teach art school or make art history documentaries, the punters get scared when you tell them artists did something a certain way because they had to make rent. and going by the statistics i keep seeing about how the wealthy are apparently 99% of the working artist class at this point, it would make sense that there are class reasons to maintain this narrative

the fact that there still isn’t a racehorse named “Whip/Nae-Nae” (or any permutation of it) is an actual crime

me putting the little tag back on the bread bag

My woke take, as someone who has worked in both a public library and a school library, is that we desperately need both more books that are at a higher reading level but a less mature subject matter, and more books that are at a lower reading level but a more mature subject matter, because 8 year olds who are advanced readers are still 8 year olds and don't want to read about graphic violence and torture, and teens and adults who have learning difficulties or who are just later readers for whatever reason are still teens and adults and don't want to read about Billy the Bunny going to school or whatever the hell.