I continue to be obsessed...
Michael Pierry
DM: In Germany they're funding these performances [i.e. the Yellow
Shark, along with orchestral performances of FZ's and several other 20th
century composers' work] with lots of money, and you've mentioned other
regional groups or territories coming up with similar festivals. Why
does it work there and not here? Or will it start failing?
Which leads FZ to reply with an extremely articulate argument for
government funding of the arts. It's so good that after reading it,
you'd probably have to be evil to disagree with him. This has to be one
of the best interviews ever conducted of/by anyone. I'm quoting here,
it's somewhat long but I think it's interesting enough to quote in its
entirety (plus I'm breaking it up into paragraphs for easier reading):
FZ: It's difficult there, because the German economy has the major
burden of bringing the East into the 20th Century, and that's eating up
a lot of the cash that might be spent on culture, but they still
maintain cultural events. The thing is, in the United States there is an
anti-cultural bias. You can't even use that word. There are two words
you don't use in connection with the U.S. government: You don't use the
"C" word, which is "culture," and you don't use the "I" word, which is
"intellectual."
When [Czech president/playwright] Vaclav Havel gave a speech to the
congress, be did something really unbelievable. He got the entire
Congress to cheer for intellectuals by using this spurious jujitsu
method, claiming the Founding Fathers were intellectuals, thereby
forcing the American legislators to go "Yeah!" for intellectuals. But
that word has never been used effectively in conjunction with any form
of U.S. government before.
Just as it's very easy for candidates to say things like, "We will solve
the deficit by slashing waste, fraud, and abuse," it's also easy to take
aim at the National Endowment for the Arts or any other kind of cultural
funding and give the public the impression that the world would be a
better place if you never spent any more money keeping artists alive
because who needs that? It's interesting that that kind of logic is so
successful to the American electorate. They are willing to buy into this
theory that any support for artistic activity is somehow unhealthy, when
in fact if you look at the economic numbers there are ways to show that
investment in things of an artistic nature creates jobs for other people
that had nothing to do with art.
The best example would be if you have a decaying inner-city area like
SoHo in New York. Before the artists moved into SoHo, it was just
warehouses - it was a run down area. So a few artists moved in, and they
did some painting and then they opened a gallery, then they opened a
coffee shop, and the next thing you know the whole thing was gentrified
and you've got apartments in the area that are going for $3,000 to
$5,000 a month. That same type of scenario has repeated itself in other
cities in the United States, but nobody ever looks at that. The result
of just a few dollars spent to make life easier for artists eventually
turns out to make profits for people who are not connected with art.
These arguments against the National Endowment for the Arts really piss
me off. On the one hand, I hate the idea that government should be
involved in any way with the arts, because it means that somebody with a
government title who knows nothing about art has to pass out money. But
on the other hand, the bulk of the cash of the NEA yearly budget - which
is a mere 175 million dollars, a pittance compared to other government
projects - the bulk of it does not go for financing things like the
Mapplethorpe exhibition. Mapplethorpe [a photographer whose exhibition
included male nudes] got $45,000. The bulk of the money goes to support
regional ballet companies, regional orchestras, or things where there's
some community involvement. That's the reason why it was set up, and
that's the way the bulk of the money is spent.
And if you throw that away, then what have you got? Do you really want
to see a country like the United States converted into nothing more than
a nation of drones, getting up, going to their miserable little jobs,
producing odd products that nobody wants to buy and then coming home and
watching television? Is that - I mean, there has to be more to life than
just going to work and then wallowing in the garbage that you created
while you were at work.
--
"You realize, of course, that everything I say is horseshit." -- Kurt
Vonnegut, Jr.
Drew
> me off. On the one hand, I hate the idea that government should be
> involved in any way with the arts, because it means that somebody with a
> government title who knows nothing about art has to pass out money. But
> on the other hand, the bulk of the cash of the NEA yearly budget - which
> is a mere 175 million dollars, a pittance compared to other government
> projects
i feel the same way. It's too bad some of our rich folk don't set up grant
programs for artists. like Gates, and Turner. No easy answer to this
question about funding. Maybe grants are set up? i don't know?
I also have this opinion if the are is great, why doen't it sell? You think
it would.
Michael Pierry
Drew wrote:
>
> I also have this opinion if the are is great, why doen't it sell? You think
> it would.
Marketing.
Furbelly
>> These arguments against the National Endowment for the Arts really piss
>> me off. On the one hand, I hate the idea that government should be
>> involved in any way with the arts, because it means that somebody with a
>> government title who knows nothing about art has to pass out money. But
>> on the other hand, the bulk of the cash of the NEA yearly budget - which
>> is a mere 175 million dollars, a pittance compared to other government
>> projects
>
>i feel the same way. It's too bad some of our rich folk don't set up grant
>programs for artists. like Gates, and Turner. No easy answer to this
>question about funding. Maybe grants are set up? i don't know?
>it would.
>
>
As you know, great art doesn't equal financial/commercial success. Or do
you consider the Backstreet Boys great art? :)
D.
--
"...I think the bone Ben is biting is real." - BossK Dec.18/99
RRAALLFF
>
>The best example would be if you have a decaying inner-city area like
>SoHo in New York. Before the artists moved into SoHo, it was just
>warehouses - it was a run down area. So a few artists moved in, and they
>did some painting and then they opened a gallery, then they opened a
>coffee shop, and the next thing you know the whole thing was gentrified
>and you've got apartments in the area that are going for $3,000 to
>$5,000 a month.
(then the artists, no longer able to afford it, get kicked out)
Michael Gula
(Do the rents go back down then?)
--
To reply remove MORESPAM
Michael Fell
On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:13:40 GMT, Michael Pierry <still...@home.com>
wrote:
>The best example would be if you have a decaying inner-city area like
>SoHo in New York. Before the artists moved into SoHo, it was just
>warehouses - it was a run down area. So a few artists moved in, and they
>did some painting and then they opened a gallery, then they opened a
>coffee shop, and the next thing you know the whole thing was gentrified
>and you've got apartments in the area that are going for $3,000 to
>$5,000 a month. That same type of scenario has repeated itself in other
>cities in the United States, but nobody ever looks at that. The result
>of just a few dollars spent to make life easier for artists eventually
>turns out to make profits for people who are not connected with art.
>
>These arguments against the National Endowment for the Arts really piss
>me off. On the one hand, I hate the idea that government should be
>involved in any way with the arts, because it means that somebody with a
>government title who knows nothing about art has to pass out money. But
>on the other hand, the bulk of the cash of the NEA yearly budget - which
>is a mere 175 million dollars, a pittance compared to other government
Robert Garvey
graphic images will be created solely to sell automobiles,
sportswear, and carbonated beverages, and music will be
newly trendy soundtracks to those consumer enticements,
except when the older stuff with lots of commercial potential
can be licensed and the listeners' warm, nostalgic feelings
subliminally associated with the pop ditty then effectively
re-directed to buying said products.
In article <38814c4d$0$90...@news.execpc.com>, Michael Fell
<m...@execpc.com> wrote:
> So....What is your point?
>
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:13:40 GMT, Michael Pierry <still...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...with this Don Menn/Matt Groening/FZ interview . . .
> >
> >
> >FZ: ... The thing is, in the United States there is an
> >anti-cultural bias. You can't even use that word. There are two words
> >you don't use in connection with the U.S. government: You don't use the
> >"C" word, which is "culture," and you don't use the "I" word, which is
> >"intellectual."
> >
> >... it's also easy to take
> >aim at the National Endowment for the Arts or any other kind of cultural
> >funding and give the public the impression that the world would be a
> >better place if you never spent any more money keeping artists alive
> >because who needs that?
--
Robert
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not
possible. Frank Zappa
Kristian Kier
wrote:
>FZ: It's difficult there, because the German economy has the major
>burden of bringing the East into the 20th Century, and that's eating up
>a lot of the cash that might be spent on culture, but they still
>maintain cultural events. The thing is, in the United States there is an
>anti-cultural bias. You can't even use that word. There are two words
>you don't use in connection with the U.S. government: You don't use the
>"C" word, which is "culture," and you don't use the "I" word, which is
>"intellectual."
Ummm... I think it愀 more the west german society that has to pay for
it.
The extra investment the economy takes in the eastern part of our
republic are mostly compensated by tax reduces and sponsoring by our
government. I still am forced to pay a regular fee of around $90 for
east germany every month.....
-Kristian
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
>
> In article <85q4gp$vek$2...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Drew" <Len...@peace.com> wrote:
> >> me off. On the one hand, I hate the idea that government should be
> >> involved in any way with the arts, because it means that somebody with a
> >> government title who knows nothing about art has to pass out money. But
> >> on the other hand, the bulk of the cash of the NEA yearly budget - which
> >> is a mere 175 million dollars, a pittance compared to other government
> >> projects
> >
> >programs for artists. like Gates, and Turner. No easy answer to this
> >question about funding. Maybe grants are set up? i don't know?
> >I also have this opinion if the are is great, why doen't it sell? You think
> >it would.
> >
> >
>
> As you know, great art doesn't equal financial/commercial success. Or do
> you consider the Backstreet Boys great art? :)
I started painting stuff I really liked, for fun. Nobody wanted it. I
really tried to sell it, but this town in wich I live, was too small.So
I painted stuff *other* people liked. That sold like hotcakes. Some 1000
of them for $100 each. I can paint very fast. Then I got sick of it.
Then I bought a house and a store for those bucks.
Now I frame other peoples art, because I got tired of beeing a
prostitute. This store makes me "free" to continue to paint stuff nobody
want, make webpages for free, and never get paid. At least I am no
longer a whore.
That it's great art, doesen't matter. There is no money in it. You can
sell it with the right marketing strategy, though. But even this, the
ZFT doesen't seems to handle. So with their great art and total lack of
marketing strategy, it doesen't surprise me it doesen't sell. The man
himself is dead. I think Zappa was an artist in so incredibly many ways.
Many can create advanced products not for the regular monkey. But sell
it? Zappa made that too. But the times have changed and the man is dead.
But the great art never die. It just smells funny. Did I get that right?
I am sorry for my over-use of the word "art". I know it means "crap"
over there, but in my mind it's still the word I use on stuff I really
liked. This too, is a word with no meaning for the masses. The word was
killed by a bunch of illiterates. An intellectual orangutan I am. As
stupid as an Einstein and as intelligent as a hamster. I am sorry if
this makes as much sense as a bicycle concerto. Stuff that showed us
that the young Zappa had the right ideas about selling his stuff. He
knew a lot about that, from selling Encyclopaedias at peoples doors. He
too, was a prostitute back then. We are all whores, more or less. Some
might find a way to live a perfectly happy life and be no whore no more.
Who are one of them. Are you. You are? Me? He he he.
You surely must understand that this is not so extremely serious,
dontcha honeycup?
Geir Corneliussen
_______________FLFFZL_____________
http://home.sol.no/~corn/zappa.htm
Michael Pierry
Michael Fell wrote:
>
> So....What is your point?
>
Support your local artist.
David Wilcher
Rev.Geir Corneliussen <corn...@online.no> wrote in message
news:38811D...@online.no...
@peace.com> wrote:
> I started painting stuff I really liked, for fun. Nobody wanted it. I
> really tried to sell it, but this town in wich I live, was too small.So
Why don't you put some samples on the Web, Geir? I like your
brothers stuff, and would like to see your paintings too. Of course,
I have no money to buy anything - but some of these rich guys
around here might want to drop some cash on you.
Seriously, I would like to see your stuff!
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
I am working very hard on just that nowadays. I already have bought a
webstore and also a new domain. The visitors from the Zappapages will be
sendt over to this new place later, they are so many they can not be
waisted. I will keep the linkssector, and continue to spend time on
making the Zappasector interesting. My visitors are stabile and growing,
from 3 years online.
From the good old FLF you can find easy find my new gallerys. Full of
completely idiotic art. None of those will be Zappa-related, but as I
mentioned, the vistors from there are my very basic clients. And maybe
interested in this kinda stuff.
I will there give them the chance to buy my art. I will have an inhouse
printer that can make it possibly to select just about any digital
image, from all the 100's I have on HD. Those will be printed with
lightproof ink in a large-format and signed individually one by one, put
in a paperroll and skipped over. Easy for me, freedom and fun for you.
My art, others art, I got many contacts around here. Original paintworks
will be aviable, but they will of course cost quite a bunch, so I see a
very little market for that online.
All this takes time, will be done within few months now. This newsgroup
is just a drop in the ocean of possibly customers. I am not going to be
rich, but I hope to pay down the devices, machinery, my new server and
the webstore. All this is a part of my own company, commercial and
therefor I must change server. But my Zappapage will remain the same.
A few pages will be deleted due to you know excactly what I mean. I got
tons of goodies. Even my own custom made 3d shooter for free download.
I am sure it will be fun to visit, and make all the work behind those
old webpages worth it. When it comes to those _Other_ weirdos with their
endless load of stupid charachters, they interest me as much as a piece
of birdpoop nowadays.
So this will be a super way to have a hobby. I am really tired of
framing pictures nowadays, but that's of course what pay for all this
new stuff.
--
Konrad
called entertainment? I suspect the Zappa money was mostly due to Gail's
savvy with investments during the stock market boom and Zappa's ability to
pour money back into his music and write off expenses cleverly because of
good accountants, and having 4 kids who didn't go to college. (And luck:
he owned his catalog because of a legal screw-up at WB.)
I think this ping-ponging between 'if it's good it'll sell' market
attitude and the 'great art can't sell so it needs to be supported' is a
false argument. It's much more complicated than that in modern societies.
1) Artists who identify with their art have to get over it. This
will never happen. People make work because it comes from their heart.
So letting the market rule will stifle and even destroy some artists. If
you say 'tough shit' to that, i'll argue with you.
2) You can't just support 'great art.' The nature of art is that
nobody can agree on what's great. So you have to support shit and piss art
too, pun intended (that's what got the NEA in trouble in the USA).
3) Funders and owners of art who identify with it have to get over
it. This will also never happen. People buy and fund work because it
makes them look good. So putting it all on the government's nickle is
just going to get you bland, conservative art. Funding has to be from a
variety of sources.
4) The only way out of this is to understand that just because
commercial arts sell and entertain, doesn't mean that's beneath Art.
And to understand that just because it's Art doesn't mean you can turn
your nose up at it in a kind of reverse snobbery and say 'let them eat
cake' to the artists.
5) Shakespeare -- his art was great because there was something
there for everyone, peanut gallery to box seats. That's an example of
the possibility both selling and making something for the ages.
6) Mozart, on the other hand, is an example of someone who just
couldn't/didn't make the right friends and died young and poor, and now
people pay hard earned money for performances of his music.
I too have opted for the Geir method of splitting my life, and it
is also not "the solution" as far as i'm concerned, although it's probably
the best most people who have passion for their work will be able to do
in the USA.
Sorry for the lecture. I was just this afternoon discussing this
with a young cartoon artist down on Haight Street, and it's fresh in my
mind.
konrad
Robert Garvey <robertgSP...@dnai.com> wrote:
: Maybe the point is that if left to corporate funding,
: graphic images will be created solely to sell automobiles,
: sportswear, and carbonated beverages, and music will be
: newly trendy soundtracks to those consumer enticements,
: except when the older stuff with lots of commercial potential
: can be licensed and the listeners' warm, nostalgic feelings
: subliminally associated with the pop ditty then effectively
: re-directed to buying said products.
: Without deviation from the norm, progress is not
: possible. Frank Zappa
--
^Z
Michael Pierry
Konrad wrote:
>
>
> 1) Artists who identify with their art have to get over it. This
> will never happen.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Clarify, please.
>
> 3) Funders and owners of art who identify with it have to get over
> it. This will also never happen.
Ditto here. I don't get what you're driving at with this "identify" thing.
David Blumenstein
> Look at Zappa. You think he made money even with his art that he
> called entertainment? I suspect the Zappa money was mostly due to Gail's
> savvy with investments during the stock market boom and Zappa's ability to
> pour money back into his music and write off expenses cleverly because of
> good accountants, and having 4 kids who didn't go to college. (And luck:
> he owned his catalog because of a legal screw-up at WB.)
>
> I think this ping-ponging between 'if it's good it'll sell' market
> attitude and the 'great art can't sell so it needs to be supported' is a
> false argument. It's much more complicated than that in modern societies.
>
> 1) Artists who identify with their art have to get over it. This
> will never happen. People make work because it comes from their heart.
> So letting the market rule will stifle and even destroy some artists. If
> you say 'tough shit' to that, i'll argue with you.
>
> 2) You can't just support 'great art.' The nature of art is that
> nobody can agree on what's great. So you have to support shit and piss art
> too, pun intended (that's what got the NEA in trouble in the USA).
>
> 3) Funders and owners of art who identify with it have to get over
> it. This will also never happen. People buy and fund work because it
> makes them look good. So putting it all on the government's nickle is
> just going to get you bland, conservative art. Funding has to be from a
> variety of sources.
>
> 4) The only way out of this is to understand that just because
> commercial arts sell and entertain, doesn't mean that's beneath Art.
> And to understand that just because it's Art doesn't mean you can turn
> your nose up at it in a kind of reverse snobbery and say 'let them eat
> cake' to the artists.
>
> 5) Shakespeare -- his art was great because there was something
> there for everyone, peanut gallery to box seats. That's an example of
> the possibility both selling and making something for the ages.
>
> 6) Mozart, on the other hand, is an example of someone who just
> couldn't/didn't make the right friends and died young and poor, and now
> people pay hard earned money for performances of his music.
>
> I too have opted for the Geir method of splitting my life, and it
> is also not "the solution" as far as i'm concerned, although it's probably
> the best most people who have passion for their work will be able to do
> in the USA.
>
> Sorry for the lecture. I was just this afternoon discussing this
> with a young cartoon artist down on Haight Street, and it's fresh in my
> mind.
I'm a cartoonist doing a degree in Fine Art (Painting). On one hand, it's a
kick, because my work is like no one else's in the studio (not better, of
course, just strangely monochromatic compared to all the abstract colour, etc),
on the other hand, I get in a lot of not-quite-an-arguments with my one-eyed
(figuratively) lecturer. I spent three semesters producing work that didn't
appeal to I or my lecturer, because I tried to "sit on the fence", as it were,
and please everybody.
That does not work.
I finished off my second year ('99) doing work which I quite enjoyed, but my
lecturer has very little respect for. However, we came to some sort of
agreement wherein I will listen to his advice and attempt to implement it in a
way that works for me, and he will continue to give me borderline passing
grades. :-)
Luckily, I do well in my other classes (I even got good grades for my obnoxious
essays, despite my tendency to begin them with Zappa quotes).
And at night, I work on stuff I REALLY enjoy -- my cartoons and animation...
Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
--
David Blumenstein
The aforementioned animation - http://www.nakedfella.cjb.net/
Christopher Ekman
Michael Pierry, quoting Frank, wrote:
> These arguments against the National Endowment for the Arts really piss
> me off. On the one hand, I hate the idea that government should be
> involved in any way with the arts, because it means that somebody with a
> government title who knows nothing about art has to pass out money. But
> on the other hand, the bulk of the cash of the NEA yearly budget - which
> is a mere 175 million dollars, a pittance compared to other government
> projects - the bulk of it does not go for financing things like the
> Mapplethorpe exhibition. Mapplethorpe [a photographer whose exhibition
> included male nudes] got $45,000. The bulk of the money goes to support
> regional ballet companies, regional orchestras, or things where there's
> some community involvement. That's the reason why it was set up, and
> that's the way the bulk of the money is spent.
I think this is the part of Zappa's argument that's most important. The
cultural conservatives always point to the "controversial" art that the NEA
has funded, and they're right to say that most of it is pretty silly.
Government shouldn't, and can't, try to be on the cutting edge of art. But
that really isn't what the NEA is about.
Supporting community arts is more and more important in the age of
CBS/Viacom, ABC/Disney, and AOL/Time Warner. The problem with these media
giants is that they demand the same sky-high one-size-fits-all level of
profit from all their branches, including those which traditionally had
never been geared towards "gettin' the buck rollin' in," like book
publishing and classical music.
The NPR radio show The Connection recently did a show on the AOL/Time Warner
merger. A composer called in to comment that the only classical music radio
station in Philadelphia- where there are a LOT of classical concert-goers-
recently switched their format to light rock. Not because the station
wasn't profitable, but because it wasn't profitable ENOUGH.
In this kind of mercenary atmosphere, we need the public broadcasting and
the NEA.
Chris Ekman
cek...@pomona.edu
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
>
> Look at Zappa. You think he made money even with his art that he
> called entertainment?
Zappa was far more proud over "Bogus Pomp" than "Crew Slut". The way I
see it, and the way I use the word art, the work and complexity behind
"Bogus Pomp" makes it "art", while Creslut is just a funny song,
entertainment.
Since the word art was rendered useless a long time ago, Zappa called
everything "entertainment". Just like I call my quick $100 landscapes
"Kitsch", and my $1000 "art". I have only sold ten $1000 paintworks, but
a thousand $100. The reason to why it's called "art", is that those
people with the knowledge and experience, call it just that. I sold them
to collectors. I put my heart into them, and spendt a week on them.
Since this town is too small, I can't sell them to commonman. I sell
Kitsch to them to make a living.
I still see a clear difference between art and entertainment. Zappa
didn't, probably becuase the word is totally useless in the US, while it
still makes sense over here. You have to name them things, you know.
Because I see a huge difference.
John Brower
still...@home.com wrote(excerpt from FZ interview):
> These arguments against the National Endowment for the Arts really
piss
> me off. On the one hand, I hate the idea that government should be
> involved in any way with the arts, because it means that somebody
with a
> government title who knows nothing about art has to pass out money.
But
> on the other hand, the bulk of the cash of the NEA yearly budget -
which
> is a mere 175 million dollars, a pittance compared to other government
> projects - the bulk of it does not go for financing things like the
> Mapplethorpe exhibition. Mapplethorpe [a photographer whose exhibition
> included male nudes] got $45,000. The bulk of the money goes to
support
> regional ballet companies, regional orchestras, or things where
there's
> some community involvement. That's the reason why it was set up, and
> that's the way the bulk of the money is spent.
>
> to see a country like the United States converted into nothing more
than
> a nation of drones, getting up, going to their miserable little jobs,
> producing odd products that nobody wants to buy and then coming home
and
> watching television? Is that - I mean, there has to be more to life
than
> just going to work and then wallowing in the garbage that you created
> while you were at work.
There's a similar discussion over at rec.music.classical.contemporary.
John B.
~----------------------------------------------------------------------~
"You'll never make it. Give up now. Quit squirming. You idiot.
Who cares? Surrender. It won't work. Aha! Told you so."
-- Matt Groening, LIFE IN HELL (1982)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Konrad
: Konrad wrote:
:>
:>
:> 1) Artists who identify with their art have to get over it. This
:> will never happen.
: I don't understand what you mean by this. Clarify, please.
:>
:> 3) Funders and owners of art who identify with it have to get over
:> it. This will also never happen.
: Ditto here. I don't get what you're driving at with this "identify" thing.
I just mean that if someone makes (or sponsers or buys)
something, they 'identify with it' in the sense that if you criticize it,
they take it personally.
konrad
--
^Z
Konrad
: I'm a cartoonist doing a degree in Fine Art (Painting). On one hand, it's a
: kick, because my work is like no one else's in the studio (not better, of
: course, just strangely monochromatic compared to all the abstract colour, etc),
: on the other hand, I get in a lot of not-quite-an-arguments with my one-eyed
: (figuratively) lecturer. I spent three semesters producing work that didn't
: appeal to I or my lecturer, because I tried to "sit on the fence", as it were,
: and please everybody.
: That does not work.
Exactly.
: I finished off my second year ('99) doing work which I quite enjoyed, but my
: lecturer has very little respect for. However, we came to some sort of
: agreement wherein I will listen to his advice and attempt to implement it in a
: way that works for me, and he will continue to give me borderline passing
: grades. :-)
Sounds like a good deal.
: Luckily, I do well in my other classes (I even got good grades for my obnoxious
: essays, despite my tendency to begin them with Zappa quotes).
: And at night, I work on stuff I REALLY enjoy -- my cartoons and animation...
: Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
Sounds pretty sensible for the time being to me. I think the
situation will change greatly once you get out of school and have to find
work, entertain yourself, eat, have relationships, have your work
rejected, etc. etc. Good luck with that transition.
This guy i was talking to yesterday was just trying to sell
his work on the street (and the police kept busting him for not having a
permit), and had a job until recently managing a store. We were talking
about this problem of 'going commercial' and i was trying to say that you
can set you sights higher than that kind of split. It just takes a long
time, and very few people are that good or that patient to do it.
I know one guy who's a film/video editor and an 'avant garde'
filmmaker. He has worked long enough in the documentary world that he is
accorded great respect as a 'film doctor' who can come in as consulting
editor when the people making the show can't figure out how to 'save the
patient.' At this point i've seen three or four films by him where he
has been able to incorporate his own ideas, even his own footage into
other people's narrative and documentary films. Not only that, this
recent blockbuster American Beauty has a shot in it that was directly
inspired by a simlar shot in his recent (personal) film, although that
inpiration is uncredited -- and very nearly a rip-off.
So what am i saying? The only way to succeed is to do your own
thing so well and for so long that people notice it, and some poeple
who're willing to pay you will start to see the value of what you do,
either on commerical terms (they can make money off you) or esthetic terms
(they can get pleasure from it). It helps to have a foot in the
door, of course, by just selling your skills (as a cartoonist, say).
But i don't think this is the whole story. There is need for
public funding of the arts whether it's kindergarten ballet companies,
Shakespeare festivals, or 'research' artists doing their personal thing.
konrad
--
^Z
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
> So what am i saying? The only way to succeed is to do your own
> thing so well and for so long that people notice it, and some poeple
> who're willing to pay you will start to see the value of what you do,
> either on commerical terms (they can make money off you) or esthetic terms
> (they can get pleasure from it). It helps to have a foot in the
> door, of course, by just selling your skills (as a cartoonist, say).
You are pretty much right. If you are good enough and work hard enough,
the chances are higher that you will get a name and sold your stuff. If
I really really wanted to be an artist all the way, I wouldn't sit here
in this soft and comfy chair, waisting time on the computer. I would
have gone the hard way, and really messed around like a pig in order to
get my stuff out. But I don't really have the guts, the health or the
possibility anymore. I have had a lot of exhibitions locally I got no
pay for, so just don't care anymore. People can't afford it. So I prefer
the soft way. I am a very hedonistic person. I like to sit here.
> But i don't think this is the whole story. There is need for
> public funding of the arts whether it's kindergarten ballet companies,
> Shakespeare festivals, or 'research' artists doing their personal thing.
I am one of those cynics that are against that. I view "art" as a
product. It must be marketed and sold as any other product. Because no
politican can decide what's art and what's crap. That's the nazi-way of
thinking. If it is good, some will notice that, and buy it. It's about
finding the right people, the right market. And there will never be an
answer to what "art" really _is_, since it's strictly personal and a
subjective experience, with no guidelines whatsoever.
When I go "Wow" on an exhibition, it's art. When I go "heh", it's not.
Same with music, anything. Then we got the "artist" that think he really
is something. I care less for him. Just like anyone who wish can care
less for me. And I care even less for them.
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
<davi...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
> Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
Not me, but I'm pretty convinced that being able to talk the right line of
bullshit to the right people (including knowing what not to say) along
with a willingness to give well-placed blowjobs (only some of which may be
metaphorical) is the surest route to success in the art world. Bonus
points are awarded for proper use of the word "bourgeois," and if you can
both spell and pronounce it correctly with a dick in your mouth, you're
probably on your way. ;)
--
"The music becomes more and more abstract sounding
like a syncopated barnyard button factory."
- David Lynch, "Ronnie Rocket"
shplink
my undergrad days... Carry on, lad, and good luck with the blowjobs...
******shplink
--
David Blumenstein <davi...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote
> Here's what I've learned from my course, Bachelor of Fine Art, so far:
>
> 1. Comics are not art. <but see no. 16>
> 2. Drawing is not painting.
> 3. Bigger is better.
> 4. If you draw naked chicks in your math book, you're a scumbag. If you
draw
> them on a canvas, you're a tortured genius.
> 5. Anger can be productive.
> 6. The lecturers are not impartial, no matter what they tell you.
> 7. Don't wear your good shirt in the studio.
> 8. You don't necessarily have to do what they say, as long as they think
you
> are.
> 9. Paint, dammit! <see no. 2>
> 10. Studio, pub, home. Repeat.
> 11. Anything can be a palette, including half a Coke can.
> 12. Anything can be paint, including the remains of your lunch.
> 13. If you're stuck, try the opposite. <see no. 8>
> 14. It can be a "track-pants course" if you will it.
> 15. Everybody must get stoned.
> 16. Put a matte board behind it, and it's art.
> 17. If it's on a wall, the lecturers will give it a serious look.
> 18. Roger is a jerk. <this point is currently subject to faculty approval>
> 19. Don't admit to liking Dali.
> 20. Say "post-modernistic" and "juxtaposition" a lot.
> 21. Know about obscure artists.
> 22. Get an art space with a wall. <see no. 17>
> 23. Have skills in some other area.
> 24. Your life is not considered "research".
> 25. It helps to have been to Europe.
> 26. If you do go to Europe, visit galleries.
> 27. If it doesn't work out for you, try some other course. Any other
course.
> 28. If the Head of Fine Art tells you about his troubles with his pieces
in
> the National Gallery, just smile and nod like you know what it's all
about.
> 29. Don't turn up to classes drunk unless it's theory.
> 30. There's a difference between "portrait" and "offensive caricature".
> 31. One man's trash is another man's "installation piece".
> 32. At a gallery opening, the ones wearing ponchos are either art critics
or
> freaks off the street. (both?)
> 33. The lecturers say they have senses of humour, but usually they don't.
<see
> no. 1>
> 34. Whoever decides to pioneer product placement in artwork is going to
make a
> fucking mint.
> 35. Get a Stanley knife.
> 36. Art is not design. Design people dress expensive and carry mobiles.
> 37. Art is about suffering, so get in on a share house as soon as
possible.
>
> No blowjobs yet...
>
> --
> David Blumenstein
>
Adrian Clark
> And at night, I work on stuff I REALLY enjoy -- my cartoons and animation...
>
> Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
Well, in a similar sort of way... I play guitar for a living - mostly
working for a magazine (which involves transcribing solos, writing
lessons and equipment reviews, and then recording gear demos and
tuitional pieces on the mag's CD) but also as a freelance transcriber.
Now, I love playing guitar, and I love transcribing, but to make money,
I have to make certain compromises. If I'm recording a piece of music to
demo a piece of gear, I'm under no illusion about creating some sort of
"masterpiece", especially as I'll usually write the damn thing in less
than two hours. And I'll make the bass and drum parts simple, too, so
that when I fax it to our programmer, it'll fit on two sheets and won't
give him too many Cubase nightmares.
Same with transcribing. Personally, I know that transcribing and
studying a piece of Shawn Lane (or FZ or whoever) improvisation will be
more beneficial and enjoyable for me, but I've got to pay the rent, so
I'll happily do whatever the magazine asks of me.
However, once I'm alone in my ugly little room, I can freak out and be
as self-indulgent as I like.
Adrian
--
------------ For email replies: acl...@zappa.u-net.com ------------
--------- BUY LEGENDS! http://www.zappa.u-net.com/legends/ ---------
Rolf Maurer
wrote:
> Look at Zappa. You think he made money even with his art that he
>called entertainment? I suspect the Zappa money was mostly due to Gail's
>savvy with investments during the stock market boom and Zappa's ability to
>pour money back into his music and write off expenses cleverly because of
>good accountants, and having 4 kids who didn't go to college. (And luck:
>he owned his catalog because of a legal screw-up at WB.)
I don't think it was luck. Zappa, or somebody close to him, seems
always to have understood the importance, financial and otherwise, of
keeping control of his recordings. It was and is normal in the record
business that the label owns the tapes, and can do whatever it wants
with them. Zappa wasn't normal.
>: Without deviation from the norm, progress is not
>: possible. Frank Zappa
Indeed.
Rolf
David Blumenstein
> I know one guy who's a film/video editor and an 'avant garde'
> filmmaker. He has worked long enough in the documentary world that he is
> accorded great respect as a 'film doctor' who can come in as consulting
> editor when the people making the show can't figure out how to 'save the
> patient.' At this point i've seen three or four films by him where he
> has been able to incorporate his own ideas, even his own footage into
> other people's narrative and documentary films. Not only that, this
> recent blockbuster American Beauty has a shot in it that was directly
> inspired by a simlar shot in his recent (personal) film, although that
> inpiration is uncredited -- and very nearly a rip-off.
Which shot is that?
Konrad
: Which shot is that?
The shot everyone mentions: the bag blowing in the wind.
--
^Z
Konrad
: On 17 Jan 2000 04:32:45 GMT, Konrad <konr...@netcom2.netcom.com>
: wrote:
:>good accountants, and having 4 kids who didn't go to college. (And luck:
:>he owned his catalog because of a legal screw-up at WB.)
: I don't think it was luck. Zappa, or somebody close to him, seems
: always to have understood the importance, financial and otherwise, of
: keeping control of his recordings.
Yes that's true but i think that that wisdom was only able to be
applied because of a Warner Brothers screw-up that gave Zappa leverage in
a lawsuit, which is how he got the ownership, right?
konrad
--
^Z
Konrad
: In article <3882DA84...@labyrinth.net.au>, David Blumenstein
: <davi...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
:> Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
: Not me, but I'm pretty convinced that being able to talk the right line of
: bullshit to the right people (including knowing what not to say) along
: with a willingness to give well-placed blowjobs (only some of which may be
: metaphorical) is the surest route to success in the art world.
How have you been so convinced? Have you tried it?
konrad
--
^Z
David Blumenstein
> In article <3882DA84...@labyrinth.net.au>, David Blumenstein
> <davi...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
>
> Not me, but I'm pretty convinced that being able to talk the right line of
> bullshit to the right people (including knowing what not to say) along
> with a willingness to give well-placed blowjobs (only some of which may be
> metaphorical) is the surest route to success in the art world. Bonus
> points are awarded for proper use of the word "bourgeois," and if you can
> both spell and pronounce it correctly with a dick in your mouth, you're
> probably on your way. ;)
Here's what I've learned from my course, Bachelor of Fine Art, so far:
Konrad
: Konrad wrote:
[agreement snipped: that's no fun :)]
:> But i don't think this is the whole story. There is need for
:> public funding of the arts whether it's kindergarten ballet companies,
:> Shakespeare festivals, or 'research' artists doing their personal thing.
: I am one of those cynics that are against that. I view "art" as a
: product. It must be marketed and sold as any other product. Because no
: politican can decide what's art and what's crap. That's the nazi-way of
: thinking. If it is good, some will notice that, and buy it. It's about
: finding the right people, the right market. And there will never be an
: answer to what "art" really _is_, since it's strictly personal and a
: subjective experience, with no guidelines whatsoever.
No one will notice a tiny voice when Coke and Disney BMW and Deutche
Telecom or whomever is S H O U T I N G over every available media outlet
about what you should buy "to make your life complete." I think that you
are so totally wrong, Geir. Art is in fact the opposite of commerce.
The problem that masks that is that we can't decide what art is supposed
to be. Zappa finessed it archly by labelling his work 'entertainment.'
I think there are guidelines, but they're under constant revision.
That's why i was arguing that public funding should come from many
sources, not just 'the gubment.' And it does, in the US there are many
foundations and institutions that fund artists. Anyway, if you look at
teh structure of the US National foundations for arts and humanities, it's
not supposed to be politicians that decide who gets the money: that's why
there was a debate in the first place. It a process known as 'peer
review' and it's artists and curators in the field that decide who gets the
money. The whole debate should be about getting the politicians off the
backs of these committees.
But we live in the USA where one of our federated states can even
decide that 'evolution is just a theory' and must be taught with equal
weight as biblical creationism to impressionable young students. Why
does that sound like 'ketchup is a vegetable' to me?
konrad
--
^Z
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
> : I am one of those cynics that are against that. I view "art" as a
> : product. It must be marketed and sold as any other product. Because no
> : politican can decide what's art and what's crap. That's the nazi-way of
> : thinking. If it is good, some will notice that, and buy it. It's about
> : finding the right people, the right market. And there will never be an
> : answer to what "art" really _is_, since it's strictly personal and a
> : subjective experience, with no guidelines whatsoever.
>
> No one will notice a tiny voice when Coke and Disney BMW and Deutche
> Telecom or whomever is S H O U T I N G over every available media outlet
> about what you should buy "to make your life complete." I think that you
> are so totally wrong, Geir. Art is in fact the opposite of commerce.
No, it's just a word for something that makes me go "wow".
And it must be sold. And it can only be sold, if you do the right thing.
I have sold art for local artists for 10 years along with my own stuff.
It's not an easy, commercial product, but it must still be marketed.
Since few artists can manage that, they die poor and the greedy
collectors will suck their corpses when they are dead. I think it's
better to try sell it before they die.
So one reason to why it doesen't smell commercial, could be that the
artist ain't dead yet :)
> The problem that masks that is that we can't decide what art is supposed
> to be.
I have no problem with that. Since it's subjective, and not static, it's
up to you and every individual to make up their mind. This is very hard
for the common man to understand. They want other to tell them things.
> Zappa finessed it archly by labelling his work 'entertainment.'
That's right. A VERY practical soulution.
> I think there are guidelines, but they're under constant revision.
The artist must kill the guidelines. That's his job, to create something
new, and make people obvious about it, the qualities. And that's where
the marketing comes in. Nobody will buy it if they can see it,
experience it, and go "wow".
Furbelly
<konr...@netcom9.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
> But we live in the USA where one of our federated states can even
>decide that 'evolution is just a theory'
<snap>
> konrad
>
>
Evolution IS a theory. One that I find more palatable than creationism,
but a theory nonetheless.
D.
--
"...I think the bone Ben is biting is real." - BossK Dec.18/99
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
> the marketing comes in. Nobody will buy it if they can see it,
I noticed this lame typo, it should of courser be "can't".
(But I am sure you figured that out...)
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
>
> Sam and/or Karen Rouse <ro...@teleport.com> wrote:
> : In article <3882DA84...@labyrinth.net.au>, David Blumenstein
> : <davi...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
>
> :> Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
>
> : Not me, but I'm pretty convinced that being able to talk the right line of
> : bullshit to the right people (including knowing what not to say) along
> : with a willingness to give well-placed blowjobs (only some of which may be
> : metaphorical) is the surest route to success in the art world.
>
It's pretty much right. You MUST get to know the right people to get an
exhibition. The high-society snobs are the one with the money. It has
always been that way. It's not so bad, it's just the way it is. Just in
the case with Zappa's "fine" art. The YS concerts would never been made
possibly if not sponsored by the industry-giants in Germany, the bosses
in Siemens etc...and that's really high up. In smaller towns, some
"upper-class" people are the one to get into contact with. They know the
other snobs, and they are the very best customers, they got the bucks.
The right people. The higher up, the better. But politicans should
really stay out of the "art" business, IMO.
Ron Spiegelhalter
> Rev.Geir Corneliussen wrote:
>
> > the marketing comes in. Nobody will buy it if they can see it,
>
> I noticed this lame typo, it should of courser be "can't".
And it should of course be "course." :-)
ron
Konrad
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
It's so cold up here nowadays, my fingers are freezing to ice! Indoor!
Konrad
: Evolution IS a theory. One that I find more palatable than creationism,
: but a theory nonetheless.
Creationism is not a theory it's a myth.
konrad
--
^Z
Rolf Maurer
wrote:
Good question. I'm not clear myself what the Warner Bros. lawsuit(s)
was (were) about, whether ownership of the masters was an issue.
Wasn't it WB's position that Zappa was under contract to them, while
Zappa argued that because WB had violated the terms of their contract
he was free to release his music however he wanted?
And I don't know if the Herb Cohen lawsuit(s) was (were) connected to
the original WB/Zappa fight. Zappa was never very forthcoming about
any of this (for obvious reasons), and may have blown a certain amount
of smoke. All this would make an interesting article. Maybe it already
does.
Rolf
Konrad
: Good question. I'm not clear myself what the Warner Bros. lawsuit(s)
: was (were) about, whether ownership of the masters was an issue.
: Wasn't it WB's position that Zappa was under contract to them, while
: Zappa argued that because WB had violated the terms of their contract
: he was free to release his music however he wanted?
I thought -- and i can't remember why at this moment -- that getting
the masters was part of the settlement, not part of the issue. IOW,
Zappa's lawyers said, "Give us the masters and this much money and we will
drop the suit."
konrad
--
^Z
Furbelly
A theory is a proposed explanation. In this case, both evolution and
creationism are trying to explain our origins. I would call creationism both a
myth and a theory. I don't subscribe to it, at least not in it's literal
sense.
D.
Konrad
: A theory is a proposed explanation. In this case, both evolution and
: creationism are trying to explain our origins. I would call creationism both a
: myth and a theory. I don't subscribe to it, at least not in it's literal
: sense.
A theory is a lot more than that. A theory has evidence and a
set of reasonable methods to figure out if new evidence supports it or
not. A theory has a complex relationship to this evidence. A myth doesn't
have these things.
I'm not even saying evolution is right. I'm just saying it
shouldn't be put on par with creationism.
konrad
: D.
--
^Z
dukeoprunz
<konr...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote:
> A theory is a lot more than that. A theory has evidence and a
> set of reasonable methods to figure out if new evidence supports
> it or
> not. A theory has a complex relationship to this evidence. A
> myth doesn't
> have these things.
> I'm not even saying evolution is right. I'm just saying it
> shouldn't be put on par with creationism.
Why does a theory a priori require evidence or a way to test it? These
are the elements of a _useful_ theory, but who says a theory has to be
useful...??
the duke.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Christopher Ekman
dukeoprunz <dukeoprun...@ibm.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:1bd14d26...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com...
> In article <862rhu$qi7$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Konrad
> <konr...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > A theory is a lot more than that. A theory has evidence and a
> > set of reasonable methods to figure out if new evidence supports
> > it or
> > not. A theory has a complex relationship to this evidence. A
> > myth doesn't
> > have these things.
> > I'm not even saying evolution is right. I'm just saying it
> > shouldn't be put on par with creationism.
>
> Why does a theory a priori require evidence or a way to test it? These
> are the elements of a _useful_ theory, but who says a theory has to be
> useful...??
Simply because that's the definition of a theory, as a scientific term of
art. Far as I know- I'm no scientist, mind, but I've learned this from the
evolution/creationism debate- there are two big criteria;
It has to be falsifiable. Otherwise "Cartesian demons from the planet
Zirkon ripped a hole in the cheap comic-book fabric of the space/time
continuum, stole my algebra homework, and then deluded us all in such a way
that we could not tell whether we had been deluded" becomes a theory. Or
"The invisible all-powerful guy in the sky said "Shazam!", and shit just
HAPPENED."
And, it's got to conform to empirically gathered evidence. This is why
"Inca Roads is secretly about homosexuals" is not a theory. Sorry, Migs.
Creationists don't understand the very specific meaning of this word.
That's why they display their ignorance most when they deride evolution as
"JUST a theory." I wonder what they'd say if informed that GRAVITY is also
"just a theory."
(Probably they'd say "gravity" is just the great invisible hand of God,
pressing down from Hebbin to keep his chosen people safely tethered to
Earth. Then they could explain the Rapture simply as God removing his hands
and letting the good fly upwards, while the wicked remained weighted down by
sin. I'd better not mention it- this could yet end up in middle-school
physics textbooks.)
Chris Ekman
cek...@pomona.edu
Christopher Ekman
Sam and/or Karen Rouse <ro...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:rouse-17010...@i48-10-18.pdx.du.teleport.com...
> In article <3882DA84...@labyrinth.net.au>, David Blumenstein
> <davi...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
>
> Not me, but I'm pretty convinced that being able to talk the right line of
> bullshit to the right people (including knowing what not to say) along
> with a willingness to give well-placed blowjobs (only some of which may be
> points are awarded for proper use of the word "bourgeois," and if you can
> both spell and pronounce it correctly with a dick in your mouth, you're
> probably on your way. ;)
I've tried that, and while I can spell pretty well under duress, my diction
is so impaired that the word comes out "buuvhwuh." Not too impressive.
However, that's child's play compared to, say, "gesamtkunstwerk."
Chris "just another cartoonist" Ekman
cek...@pomona.edu
Rev.Geir Corneliussen
>
> Sounds like sour grapes to me.
It have never bothered me a bit. Thanks to those sponsors, things gets
done. And the ordinary guys like me can buy the music from these events,
without even thinking about who paid for it in the first place. It's a
good way to spend the money for the rich guys. And it makes things
happen. It's an old european tradition, from back when the King paid
Bach. If he didn't, there would never have been any Bach or expensive
Church-organs for him to play on. All those big and expensive
Operahouses, orchestras would never exsisted. We have this discussion in
Norway right now. Who is going to pay for building a new Opera, they
ask. I don't want my taxmoney put into that since I don't think it's
worth it. But if they find enough private sponsors, they can build it.
It's a free market. Tax should be spendt on taking care of peoples
primary needs, not their decadent hobbys. The rich guys can pay for that
themselves. And sometimes they do. Good for me, good for you. The sour
grape you will never need to bite in any case, that's their problem ;)
Konrad
: Sam and/or Karen Rouse <ro...@teleport.com> wrote in message
: news:rouse-17010...@i48-10-18.pdx.du.teleport.com...
:> In article <3882DA84...@labyrinth.net.au>, David Blumenstein
:> <davi...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
:>
:> > Has anyone here resolved a similar situation in a more sensible manner?
:>
:> [blah blah blah] blowjobs
:> [blah blah blah] "bourgeois,"
: I've tried that, and while I can spell pretty well under duress, my diction
: is so impaired that the word comes out "buuvhwuh." Not too impressive.
I'm confused: is that supposed to be one or the other?
: However, that's child's play compared to, say, "gesamtkunstwerk."
LOL
konrad
--
^Z
Konrad
: And, it's got to conform to empirically gathered evidence. This is why
: "Inca Roads is secretly about homosexuals" is not a theory. Sorry, Migs.
: Creationists don't understand the very specific meaning of this word.
: That's why they display their ignorance most when they deride evolution as
: "JUST a theory." I wonder what they'd say if informed that GRAVITY is also
: "just a theory."
ROTFL
: (Probably they'd say "gravity" is just the great invisible hand of God,
: pressing down from Hebbin to keep his chosen people safely tethered to
: Earth. Then they could explain the Rapture simply as God removing his hands
: and letting the good fly upwards, while the wicked remained weighted down by
: sin. I'd better not mention it- this could yet end up in middle-school
: physics textbooks.)
Only in Kansas. And you'd be the reference!
konrad
--
^Z
Ralph Wayvone
R
--
To reply by email, remove "-nospam" from the address.
Mike Lerch
<working...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The NPR radio show The Connection recently did a show on the AOL/Time Warner
>merger. A composer called in to comment that the only classical music radio
>station in Philadelphia- where there are a LOT of classical concert-goers-
>recently switched their format to light rock. Not because the station
>wasn't profitable, but because it wasn't profitable ENOUGH.
Fucking hell. That makes me want to about vomit.
Lerch
Darkhop
> Evolution IS a theory. One that I find more palatable than creationism,
> but a theory nonetheless.
Evolution is as close to fact as things (which for technical reasons have
to maintain the 'theory' tag) can possibly get. All it says is that species
have changed over time, and there's overwhelming evidence for that.
The *mechanism* for that change is what remains in dispute.
/JSH
dukeoprunz
Ekman" <working...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> dukeoprunz <dukeoprun...@ibm.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > Why does a theory a priori require evidence or a way to test it?
> These
> > are the elements of a _useful_ theory, but who says a theory has
> to be
> > useful...??
> Simply because that's the definition of a theory, as a scientific
> term of
> art. Far as I know- I'm no scientist, mind, but I've learned this
> from the
> evolution/creationism debate- there are two big criteria;
> It has to be falsifiable. Otherwise "Cartesian demons from the
> planet
> Zirkon ripped a hole in the cheap comic-book fabric of the
> space/time
> continuum, stole my algebra homework, and then deluded us all in
> such a way
> that we could not tell whether we had been deluded" becomes a
> theory. Or
> "The invisible all-powerful guy in the sky said "Shazam!", and
> shit just
> HAPPENED."
Not to carry on this pointless debate on any further (because I
fundamentally agree with you),,, but to carry this pointless debate on
further, my Webster's has a lot of definitions for theory, one of which
is "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"
(which is pretty much your def'n), but a couple more of which are
"abstract thought:SPECULATION", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of
argument or investigation", and "an unproven assumption:CONJECTURE",
all of which are pretty silent as to the existence of any body of facts.
> And, it's got to conform to empirically gathered evidence. This
> is why
> "Inca Roads is secretly about homosexuals" is not a theory.
> Sorry, Migs.
Inca Roads _isn't_ about homosexuals??!????
> Creationists don't understand the very specific meaning of this
> word.
> That's why they display their ignorance most when they deride
> evolution as
> "JUST a theory." I wonder what they'd say if informed that
> GRAVITY is also
> "just a theory."
Here's my theory. This theory goes as follows and begins now. All
brontosauruses are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle,
and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and
belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
Román
> In article <862bd7$ejp$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Konrad <konr...@netcom19.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Furbelly <Ha...@mynavel.ca> wrote:
> >
> >: Evolution IS a theory. One that I find more palatable than creationism,
> >: but a theory nonetheless.
> >
> > Creationism is not a theory it's a myth.
> >
> >
> > konrad
> >
> >
>
> A theory is a proposed explanation. In this case, both evolution and
> creationism are trying to explain our origins. I would call creationism both a
> myth and a theory. I don't subscribe to it, at least not in it's literal
> sense.
>
> D.
Evolution is a real possibility contrasted by actual facts
Creationism is literature
Michael Gula
> Evolution is a real possibility contrasted by actual facts
> Creationism is literature
GOD planted those bones in the ground to fool you!
--
To reply remove MORESPAM
Martin Gregorie
Somebody who got snipped previously wrote:
>> A theory is a proposed explanation. In this case, both evolution and
>> creationism are trying to explain our origins. I would call creationism both a
>> myth and a theory. I don't subscribe to it, at least not in it's literal
>> sense.
>>
Creationism is NOT a theory. Scientific theories have two properties:
- they make predictions
- they can be falsified and the results of this can be tested too
Creationism meets neither of these criteria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie |Logica UK Ltd
gregorie |+44 (0171) 637 9111
@ |
logica |
. |All opinions expressed are solely those
com |of the author and not of Logica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie
>Simply because that's the definition of a theory, as a scientific term of
>art. Far as I know- I'm no scientist, mind, but I've learned this from the
>evolution/creationism debate- there are two big criteria;
>
>It has to be falsifiable. Otherwise "Cartesian demons from the planet
>Zirkon ripped a hole in the cheap comic-book fabric of the space/time
>continuum, stole my algebra homework, and then deluded us all in such a way
>that we could not tell whether we had been deluded" becomes a theory. Or
>"The invisible all-powerful guy in the sky said "Shazam!", and shit just
>HAPPENED."
>
>And, it's got to conform to empirically gathered evidence. This is why
>"Inca Roads is secretly about homosexuals" is not a theory. Sorry, Migs.
>
You missed a third essential. It's got to make testable predictions.
0vercooked
<working...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>dukeoprunz <dukeoprun...@ibm.net.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1bd14d26...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com...
>> In article <862rhu$qi7$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Konrad
>> <konr...@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A theory is a lot more than that. A theory has evidence and a
>> > set of reasonable methods to figure out if new evidence supports
>> > it or
>> > not. A theory has a complex relationship to this evidence. A
>> > myth doesn't
>> > have these things.
>> > I'm not even saying evolution is right. I'm just saying it
>> > shouldn't be put on par with creationism.
>>
>> Why does a theory a priori require evidence or a way to test it? These
>> are the elements of a _useful_ theory, but who says a theory has to be
>> useful...??
>
>Simply because that's the definition of a theory, as a scientific term of
>art. Far as I know- I'm no scientist, mind, but I've learned this from the
>evolution/creationism debate- there are two big criteria;
>
>It has to be falsifiable. Otherwise "Cartesian demons from the planet
>Zirkon ripped a hole in the cheap comic-book fabric of the space/time
>continuum, stole my algebra homework, and then deluded us all in such a way
>that we could not tell whether we had been deluded" becomes a theory. Or
>"The invisible all-powerful guy in the sky said "Shazam!", and shit just
>HAPPENED."
>
>And, it's got to conform to empirically gathered evidence. This is why
>"Inca Roads is secretly about homosexuals" is not a theory. Sorry, Migs.
>
>Creationists don't understand the very specific meaning of this word.
>That's why they display their ignorance most when they deride evolution as
>"JUST a theory." I wonder what they'd say if informed that GRAVITY is also
>"just a theory."
>
>(Probably they'd say "gravity" is just the great invisible hand of God,
>pressing down from Hebbin to keep his chosen people safely tethered to
>Earth. Then they could explain the Rapture simply as God removing his hands
>and letting the good fly upwards, while the wicked remained weighted down by
>sin. I'd better not mention it- this could yet end up in middle-school
>physics textbooks.)
Too late. It already is.
0vercooked
Yes, my friend, Geir, There is no art without commerce, thank you.
There is no art without money (or some equivalent) and idle time.
Rich people have an abundance of both.
Hence, we have music.
Don't like it? Well, then maybe you don't like your nose either.