I love studio art major Grantaire a lot, don’t get me wrong, but consider art history major Grantaire for a minute:
Grantaire getting really invested in studying the influence of Classic and Hellenistic Greek art on different movements and studying the prevalence of themes from Greek mythology as subjects in art.
Grantaire arguing with professors about how overrated some artists are and underrated others are.
Grantaire long-windedly discussing the influence of the Italian Renaissance on the development of art with an exasperated, fellow art history major Floréal.
Grantaire and Floréal arguing about the lack of study and museum prevalence of non-Western art, female artists, and POC artists. (Floréal is naturally disgusted and wants change. Grantaire claims that the Western study of art is too Eurocentric and patriarchal to ever change and they should just take it as it is.)
Seriously, please talk about art history major Grantaire with me.
The funniest part? The pedestal that people put ATLA on nowadays makes me… It doesn’t make me like it less, but my emotional attachment has become less fierce. I reblog less ATLA–not intentionally, but enough that I’ve noticed it. Cause the fandom is making me care about it less instead of more. No… just making it mean less, if that makes sense?
And there are a number of factors contributing to it. People’s rudeness is one factor. Airbrushing the flaws out of ALTA while honing in on LoK’s with an atomic microscope is another. But it’s a general attitude I cannot peg that gets me.
I don’t know, one of the arguments I cannot accept from people–no matter how founded their reasoning is–is that ATLA is “better” than LOK. To me that’s like saying that Romanticism is better than Impressionism, because the Romance era did a “better job” of portraying emotion than impressionism’s distortions of reality. Or that the Italian Renaissance displays artists that were “better” than non-Western artists like Hokusai. That drama is the better direction than comedy. That Miyazaki is better than Fantastic Mister Fox. Or vice versa.
They’re all great–they just have different purposes and fulfillments. Yeah, the emotion and drama in Romanticism is beautifully executed… But so was the color and energies of Impressionism. Nowadays we find mastery in both, but the sad thing we see now is how new movements in the artistic world were spurned in their inceptions. And why? Cause one had ideas about busting out of reality and the other was like… capturing light. But aren’t both beautiful, because of their differences? Don’t they both accomplish amazing things?
The use of “better” is just such a major pet peeve for me. I’m aware it’s probably ridiculous, but it drives me nuts. Michelangelo is NOT “better” than Picasso or Van Gogh or the cave paintings of Lascaux. Harry Potter is not “better” than Lord of the Rings. The Dark Knight is not “better” than The Avengers. And “Avatar: The Last Airbender” is not “better” than “The Legend of Korra.” They’re just…
And people are different! So can you LIKE one better than the other? Duh! And since people are different, can people like the same comparison in opposite ways from you? Yes, also duh. Hence why I personally like LoK more than ATLA, regardless of the fact that it’s an unpopular opinion.
I just don’t understand what’s so hard about seeing that two things are great, but one suits your tastes more. Things can be good even if you don’t like them. Is that really a mind-blowing idea?