(I) Those photos
Christin Keck
reason Agent won't allow it; it keeps telling me that "line 8 is too
long." (?) This is patently absurd. I even checked in the headers and
it still isn't, but it still won't let me reply.
So forget it.
What I had to say wasn't all that important anyway. ;-)
--
======================================================
CK, or as they say in Spain, "Yes, What?"
Visit my Universe: www.seekaye.com
Or visit my Alternate Universe in Geocities: SoHo/Square/4033
Mary Messall
> I tried several times to reply to Mary Messal's message, but for some
> reason Agent won't allow it; it keeps telling me that "line 8 is too
> long." (?) This is patently absurd. I even checked in the headers and
> it still isn't, but it still won't let me reply.
That's the references line. When threads get really long, that tends to
happen. If you can manually change your headers, the work-around is to
delete some of the message-id's from the middle of the references line.
If you can't, the work around is to start a new thread, as you did.
> So forget it.
> What I had to say wasn't all that important anyway. ;-)
Hey, I was looking forward to reading that response.
You can email instead, if you like. But I'm going to take this
opportunity to change something in the original post. I said something
to the effect of "it's good art if most people who see it react the way
the artist wanted them to." I want to amend that, because I think it can
still be good art if only a very few of the people who see it react the
way the artist intended, but their reaction is very strong. I was sure
you were going to call me out on that one, so this is a pre-emptive
maneuver.
-Mary
--
http://www.bombadilmag.com
The green, green webzine.
New and improved, even.
Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
news:3AC23FED...@ups.edu...
<snip>
> You can email instead, if you like. But I'm going to take this
> opportunity to change something in the original post. I said
> something to the effect of "it's good art if most people who
> see it react the way the artist wanted them to." I want to
> amend that, because I think it can still be good art if only
> a very few of the people who see it react the way the artist
> intended, but their reaction is very strong. I was sure you
> were going to call me out on that one, so this is a pre-emptive
> maneuver.
I fail to understand the point. Why should people have to react the
way the artist wanted them to? To me, that wouldn't necessarily
mean a good artist, but a good psychologist.
Amazing how much this sort of discussion gets me to first react from
the gut and then think ...hold on...
I was about to say, something that provokes people to react, to
think, or even to disapprove would be good art. But that would rate
several musical performers, whom I refuse to call artists, to be
artists. Because what they are doing has my strong disapproval.
That is, it has my disapproval because of what I perceive as a lack
of originality in what they are doing. Isn't it wonderful? I've
just discovered I think I'm wrong when I agree with your statement,
and I think I'm wrong when I disagree with your statement.
TTFN,
Reinier.
Christin Keck
wrote:
Aha! I thought the reference line was the problem, but when I deleted
it, it still wouldn't let me post. However, I was deleting the entire
thing...so maybe that was the reason. Thanks for the tip.
Okay, here's what I had to say.
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:05:53 GMT, Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu>
> wrote:
>I suppose what I don't understand is the difference between "saying" and
>"wishing to be have it understood". It's true that I'm quite happy
>writing things which I don't immediately show to anyone, and have some
>that I will probably never share. But when I am writing, I am
>nevertheless imagining a reader at all times. If I'm trying to say
>anything at all, I'm trying to make it possible for someone else to
>understand me.
Actually, if you do art for your own pleasure, then you probably /do/
understand the difference! I can understand imagining a reader (or a
viewer) I also do that. BUT---my viewer is an "ideal" viewer; one who
will instantly and ineluctably understand my intent, and not
criticize, especially in an outwardly subjective manner.
Alternatively, /I/ am my own viewer. I decide whether my art has
achieved what I want it to, by stepping outside myself and trying to
be more objective. This latter method is much much harder to do than
to think about doing. It depends I suppose on how attached I am to
what I have done, and how little I see to "correct" or amend.
>I'll go back to my original definition, then: that intent makes it art,
>even if I never share it with anyone. If I share it with people and they
>*do* understand what I wanted them to, feel what I wanted them to, then
>it's probably good art.
This is an interesting viewpoint.
> >But surely the whole point of expressing it outwardly is to make it
> >comprehensible to someone else?
> Not necessarily. Not at all. In fact, seldom, I think. I don't do my
> art for others. I do it for me.
>So it's really just a kind of "note to self", cryptic and sloppy, which
>no one else could possibly appreciate but which reminds you of a certain
>frame of mind?
Exactly right! Though not always cryptic, OR sloppy. And oftentimes,
easily understood by many, if I care to show them. Or if they look on
their own.
> > said (and I think you were saying) it's "art" if it's
> >intended to make someone else respond in a certain way ("See as I see")
> >and good art if it actually *does* make someone respond that way. Orjan
> >(and I think Pterry) are saying if it doesn't succeed in making someone
> >feel what the artist wanted them to, then it's not art at all.
> And that's what I totally disagree with. /Bad/ art /also/ makes you
> respond! (Sometimes you throw up.) I don't think the response is what
>Ah, but unless throwing up is the *intended* response, then the art
>hasn't succeeded. Note the "in a certain way" clause.
>> makes it art, I think the INTENT is what makes it art, good or bad.
>Well, that's what I said.
That's correct. You did.
>> And that makes artists out of anyone who BELIEVES they are. No matter
>> what medium, no matter what acclaim, no matter what "depth"--no matter
>> if anyone understands the product or not. That, in my own humble
>> opinion, is what makes art ART, and what makes it differ from
>> "craft"--which is always done FOR someone or some thing.
>That sounds entirely too much like the "I'm an artist because I proclaim
>myself an artist" POV that Pterry was arguing against. That makes a
>meaningless mess of the term. I'm an artist because I've done this art
>(point) and I'm a good artist if people respond to that art as I meant
>them to. That doesn't mean lots of people have to have seen it, just
>that, of the peoplew who've seen it, most have felt what I wanted them
>to feel. That's what I say.
Ah, but that is /exactly/ what I am saying. I /do/ believe that if
you want to proclaim yourself an artist, you are.
Look at it this way: if YOU can't say you are an artist, (or writer,)
then who /is/ qualified to proclaim you one? Another artist or writer?
Well, okay, but they will be using /their/ standards. A board to
certify you? I hope not. A small group of elitists? Well, that's sort
of what /does/ happen, and I bristle at the supposed "exclusivity"
they promote--it isn't necessarily true, or good. Sometimes it even
goes against common sense and good taste.
In other words, there /are/ no existing standards to go by. The only
thing that everyone seems to identify is /concensus of opinion/--but
that very concensus leaves out all the unknown or unrecognized artists
and writers who may be out there turning out wonderful stuff. So are
they artists? Of course they are! Why wouldn't they be?
Well, that's what I had to say.
And actually, you didn't need your amended statement--I didn't focus
on the "amount" of response. ;-)
Eric Jarvis
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AC23FED...@ups.edu...
> <snip>
> > You can email instead, if you like. But I'm going to take this
> > opportunity to change something in the original post. I said
> > something to the effect of "it's good art if most people who
> > see it react the way the artist wanted them to." I want to
> > amend that, because I think it can still be good art if only
> > a very few of the people who see it react the way the artist
> > intended, but their reaction is very strong. I was sure you
> > were going to call me out on that one, so this is a pre-emptive
> > maneuver.
>
> I fail to understand the point. Why should people have to react the
> way the artist wanted them to? To me, that wouldn't necessarily
> mean a good artist, but a good psychologist.
>
> Amazing how much this sort of discussion gets me to first react from
> the gut and then think ...hold on...
>
that's how it should be...any definition of art that isn't soundly
based in the reactions of both heart and mind isn't IMO worth having
>
> I was about to say, something that provokes people to react, to
> think, or even to disapprove would be good art. But that would rate
> several musical performers, whom I refuse to call artists, to be
> artists. Because what they are doing has my strong disapproval.
> That is, it has my disapproval because of what I perceive as a lack
> of originality in what they are doing. Isn't it wonderful? I've
> just discovered I think I'm wrong when I agree with your statement,
> and I think I'm wrong when I disagree with your statement.
>
perhaps it's a sign that you should re-examine your disapproval of
their music?
either that or insist that originality must be an essential element
of art
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"money can't buy you love, but sometimes dinner
is much more important"
Mary Messall
> Mary Messall wrote:
> >I suppose what I don't understand is the difference between "saying" and
> >"wishing to be have it understood". It's true that I'm quite happy
> >writing things which I don't immediately show to anyone, and have some
> >that I will probably never share. But when I am writing, I am
> >nevertheless imagining a reader at all times. If I'm trying to say
> >anything at all, I'm trying to make it possible for someone else to
> >understand me.
> Actually, if you do art for your own pleasure, then you probably /do/
> understand the difference! I can understand imagining a reader (or a
> viewer) I also do that. BUT---my viewer is an "ideal" viewer; one who
> will instantly and ineluctably understand my intent, and not
> criticize, especially in an outwardly subjective manner.
No, that's not at all the reader I picture. The reader I picture is far
from ideal. My reader is impatient, critical, and lazy, and knows ten
times as much about everything I write about as I do.
I can't expect this reader to waste time and effort figuring out what I
meant by such and such, or where all this is supposed to be going. In
non-fiction, this means I have to make my point clear from the
beginning, and deliniate my arguments as transparently as possible. In
fiction, it means I don't get to indulge myself in scene description or
interior monologues or flashbacks or any of those other fun games until
I've brought the main characters on stage, made you care about them, and
given them a problem to solve. In poetry it means I have to keep it very
short. <g>
The fact that this reader is so much more knowledgable than me also
means that I'd bloody well better have a good defense ready for any
claim I make, and do some research about any historical or scientific
circumstance I introduce, or be ready to accept humiliation. AFP is good
practice for this. <g>
Even when I'm writing something too personal or just too poor quality
for someone else's eyes, in the process of writing I'm always addressing
this toughest critic.
> Alternatively, /I/ am my own viewer. I decide whether my art has
> achieved what I want it to, by stepping outside myself and trying to
> be more objective. This latter method is much much harder to do than
> to think about doing. It depends I suppose on how attached I am to
> what I have done, and how little I see to "correct" or amend.
Look, I keep a journal too, very irregularly. And in my journal, I say
"Frank came up for the weekend" or "She reminds me so much of my dad" or
"Gods, it's like being back in fourth grade." I can say these things in
my journal, because in that case, I *am* the audience, and my purpose is
to remind myself what my life feels like, how I got where I am, and that
my past is still there.
Now, thirty years from now, I'm still going to know that Frank is my
uncle from Oklahoma, my dad and my friend both have this thing where
they can't stand the idea of being wrong, so I have to remember to lose
arguments with them or else not start, that in fourth grade I was an
insecure, friendless, miserable little brat.
That's the kind of writing I do with only myself as an audience. It's
not art by any means, I feel. It would be incomprehensible to anyone
else (no help at all to my biographers, once I'm dead and famous.) It's
valuable to me, but as a memento, not a work of art.
If I were writing about my life as an art work, I would explain who
Frank was, what my dad is like, and how fourth grade felt. I might still
never show this to anyone, because it would be pretty personal stuff,
but I would be aiming it at that critical stranger who reads all my
work. So I would be attempting to communicate, to make things clear, to
have things understood- I would intend for some potential audience, not
just myself, to have certain reactions. That would make it art. Probably
crappy art, of course, but definitely something different than the
journal writing.
> Ah, but that is /exactly/ what I am saying. I /do/ believe that if
> you want to proclaim yourself an artist, you are.
What if I want to proclaim myself a truck driver, but I've never driven
a truck? What if I want to proclaim myself an ice-skater, but I can't
skate? In a similar way, I'm not an artist unless I've made art. It's
art if it's intended to create a specific reaction in some audience
besides myself. It's good art if it actually does.
> Look at it this way: if YOU can't say you are an artist, (or writer,)
> then who /is/ qualified to proclaim you one? Another artist or writer?
> Well, okay, but they will be using /their/ standards. A board to
> certify you? I hope not. A small group of elitists? Well, that's sort
> of what /does/ happen, and I bristle at the supposed "exclusivity"
> they promote--it isn't necessarily true, or good. Sometimes it even
> goes against common sense and good taste.
No, just as there's no elite group to proclaim truck drivers. Sure,
there's a little gray area. If I've driven a truck once, I *could*
theoretically call myself a truck-driver, but most people probably won't
agree with me. If I've only driven light trucks as an amateur, and I
crashed my last one, people probably are still going to be skeptical. If
I make my living taking big rigs a couple thousand miles, I definitely
qualify.
If I made a painting once, and no one could tell what it was supposed to
be, I'm probably not an artist. If I paint for my own pleasure, doing
still lifes of flowers, people probably are still going to be skeptical.
If I make my living selling paintings and doing gallary shows, I
definitely qualify, although I could still be a bad artist.
-Mary (vacillating between taking this to email or not- fair warning, if
we go another round, the next reply will definitely be e-mailed.)
Sockii
> Christin Keck wrote:
[hack]
> > Ah, but that is /exactly/ what I am saying. I /do/ believe that if
> > you want to proclaim yourself an artist, you are.
<snip to point>
> I'm not an artist unless I've made art. It's
> art if it's intended to create a specific reaction in some audience
> besides myself. It's good art if it actually does.
I think this is related to CK's point (below). And also to the
neverending-ness of "Definition of Art and Artists" (which was covered
earlier in the thread). People will have differing definitions of
artists (and art). You define it one way, I'll define it another.
Using your definition and jumping...er, artistry...could the Spice
Girls (what is left of them *g*) be artists? Their performance is
meant to entertain, the intended reaction is probably to lift the
audience out of the drudgery of their lives for a while, and it
succeeds for a majority of people (evidenced by the airplay).
Me, I have other ways (usually contradictory) of judging artists. An'
they all be covered b'fore so I be stopping 'dis now.
> > Look at it this way: if YOU can't say you are an artist, (or writer,)
> > then who /is/ qualified to proclaim you one? Another artist or writer?
> > Well, okay, but they will be using /their/ standards.
<snip>
[..interesting truck driver analogy (but dammit that's *craft* not art)..]
> If I made a painting once, and no one could tell what it was supposed to
> be, I'm probably not an artist.
You're going back to preschool for an example? (All I ever got was Crayola.)
> If I paint for my own pleasure, doing
> still lifes of flowers, people probably are still going to be skeptical.
If no-one else got to see the paintings, you are asking them to
evaluate your honesty. When you put your works on display, you get
what CK mentioned: someone else using *their* standards of Art and
Artists to judge your estimation of yourself as an artist. Whether or
not you believe your audience is a personal choice; you probably also
choose which of your audience to believe (i.e. the ones who like vs
the ones who don't).
Frex, I'd bet dollars to sand that people take different things out of
Mona Lisa, e.g art historians vs practising painters vs plebs vs the
guy wot commissioned it.
> If I make my living selling paintings and doing gallary shows, I
> definitely qualify, although I could still be a bad artist.
puts me in mind of Dick Francis' _To the Hilt_ -- not that the main
protog. was a bad artist.
Sockii
--
\\\\_o spreading the word of Jimmy! http://jump.to/Annotate-o-matic
\\\\\'/ ;``._ ;``._~ | afpguru-ed to SarahR <*> afpfoe of goblin
alt.fan.alt-fan-pratchett | http://wibblehome.orcon.net.nz/afpers.html
15+ mins of fame! Send me your URL for the afpers' homepages directory
Christin Keck
spewed:
>Christin Keck wrote:
>> Actually, if you do art for your own pleasure, then you probably /do/
>> understand the difference! I can understand imagining a reader (or a
>> viewer) I also do that. BUT---my viewer is an "ideal" viewer; one who
>> will instantly and ineluctably understand my intent, and not
>> criticize, especially in an outwardly subjective manner.
>
>No, that's not at all the reader I picture. The reader I picture is far
>from ideal. My reader is impatient, critical, and lazy, and knows ten
>times as much about everything I write about as I do.
>
>I can't expect this reader to waste time and effort figuring out what I
>meant by such and such, or where all this is supposed to be going. In
>non-fiction, this means I have to make my point clear from the
>beginning, and deliniate my arguments as transparently as possible. In
>fiction, it means I don't get to indulge myself in scene description or
>interior monologues or flashbacks or any of those other fun games until
>I've brought the main characters on stage, made you care about them, and
>given them a problem to solve. In poetry it means I have to keep it very
>short. <g>
Ohmygawd...you picture my MOTHER. ;-D
>The fact that this reader is so much more knowledgable than me also
>means that I'd bloody well better have a good defense ready for any
>claim I make, and do some research about any historical or scientific
>circumstance I introduce, or be ready to accept humiliation. AFP is good
>practice for this. <g>
Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with this--a sort of
self-imposed "Tutor" on your writing. But...and this is a BIG
but...there are right and wrong things you can do in writing. You
can't simply write a bunch of random words down on paper and say it's
a story, because a story is a /specific/ thing. However--you CAN throw
a bunch of random paint on a canvas, and STILL say it's art! And who
can dispute it? (Okay, silly question.) I mean, in /my/ world, no one
has the /right/ to dispute your claim.
>Even when I'm writing something too personal or just too poor quality
>for someone else's eyes, in the process of writing I'm always addressing
>this toughest critic.
I know. I lived with her for 16 years. ;-)
>Look, I keep a journal too, very irregularly. And in my journal, I say
>"Frank came up for the weekend" or "She reminds me so much of my dad" or
>"Gods, it's like being back in fourth grade." I can say these things in
>my journal, because in that case, I *am* the audience, and my purpose is
>to remind myself what my life feels like, how I got where I am, and that
>my past is still there.
>
>Now, thirty years from now, I'm still going to know that Frank is my
>uncle from Oklahoma, my dad and my friend both have this thing where
>they can't stand the idea of being wrong, so I have to remember to lose
>arguments with them or else not start, that in fourth grade I was an
>insecure, friendless, miserable little brat.
>That's the kind of writing I do with only myself as an audience. It's
>not art by any means, I feel. It would be incomprehensible to anyone
>else (no help at all to my biographers, once I'm dead and famous.) It's
>valuable to me, but as a memento, not a work of art.
Exactly. You aren't writing in your journal to /make/ art. You're
writing for another reason. Art isn't made by accident, though it's
not always made to display.
>If I were writing about my life as an art work, I would explain who
>Frank was, what my dad is like, and how fourth grade felt. I might still
>never show this to anyone, because it would be pretty personal stuff,
>but I would be aiming it at that critical stranger who reads all my
>work. So I would be attempting to communicate, to make things clear, to
>have things understood- I would intend for some potential audience, not
>just myself, to have certain reactions. That would make it art. Probably
>crappy art, of course, but definitely something different than the
>journal writing.
Of course. That's the essence of art--that you made it to BE art.
>> Ah, but that is /exactly/ what I am saying. I /do/ believe that if
>> you want to proclaim yourself an artist, you are.
>
>What if I want to proclaim myself a truck driver, but I've never driven
>a truck? What if I want to proclaim myself an ice-skater, but I can't
>skate? In a similar way, I'm not an artist unless I've made art. It's
>art if it's intended to create a specific reaction in some audience
>besides myself. It's good art if it actually does.
It's not the same and can't be compared. You're talking about a
certain specific skill, which is licensed.
They have certification boards that bestow these. (I worked for a
trucking company once.) Of course, you CAN call yourself a truck
driver, and then when you wreck your truck because you have no
experience, perhaps you'll change your mind. OR--you might also LEARN
TO DRIVE A TRUCK. Yes, you might learn the hard way, so you might
/become/ a truck driver. But to BE a truck driver, you have to have
the skill of driving a truck, and you won't get work unless you have
the truck-driving license.
>> Look at it this way: if YOU can't say you are an artist, (or writer,)
>> then who /is/ qualified to proclaim you one? Another artist or writer?
>> Well, okay, but they will be using /their/ standards. A board to
>> certify you? I hope not. A small group of elitists? Well, that's sort
>> of what /does/ happen, and I bristle at the supposed "exclusivity"
>> they promote--it isn't necessarily true, or good. Sometimes it even
>> goes against common sense and good taste.
>
>No, just as there's no elite group to proclaim truck drivers.
But there is, actually. It's the DMV.
> Sure,
>there's a little gray area. If I've driven a truck once, I *could*
>theoretically call myself a truck-driver, but most people probably won't
>agree with me. If I've only driven light trucks as an amateur, and I
>crashed my last one, people probably are still going to be skeptical. If
>I make my living taking big rigs a couple thousand miles, I definitely
>qualify.
>
>If I made a painting once, and no one could tell what it was supposed to
>be, I'm probably not an artist. If I paint for my own pleasure, doing
>still lifes of flowers, people probably are still going to be skeptical.
Which people? Why do they matter? If you say you are an artist, after
having only painted still lifes, even BADLY, then why aren't you an
artist?
>If I make my living selling paintings and doing gallary shows, I
>definitely qualify, although I could still be a bad artist.
That is also true. But logically, just because it is true, doesn't
make another scenario, like the one you described above, false.
>-Mary (vacillating between taking this to email or not- fair warning, if
>we go another round, the next reply will definitely be e-mailed.)
That's okay...the group is probably wishing we'd both shutup.
;-D
--
=======================================================
CK, or as they say in Spain, "Yes, what?"
Visit my Universe: www.seekaye.com
Or visit my Alternate Universe: Geocities.com/SoHo/Square/4033
Ted Carmichael
"Mary Messall" wrote
<snip>
> What if I want to proclaim myself a truck driver, but I've never
> driven a truck? What if I want to proclaim myself an ice-skater,
> but I can't skate?
Well, you could still be a truck driver simply by proclaiming yourself
one... just not a very *good* truck driver. I happen to be an
astronaut.
Ted
Ted...@mindspring.com
I don't mean to sound flippant... but, really, it's so much less
tedious.
Sylvain Chambon
<Ted...@YOGImindspring.BEARcom> wrote:
>"Mary Messall" wrote
><snip>
>> What if I want to proclaim myself a truck driver, but I've never
>> driven a truck? What if I want to proclaim myself an ice-skater,
>> but I can't skate?
>
>Well, you could still be a truck driver simply by proclaiming
>yourself one... just not a very *good* truck driver.
Er, no. You need a truck-driving licence to be a truck-driver.
>I happen to be an astronaut.
OTOH, AFAIK there are no rocket-driving licences :-)
Sylvain.
--
Sylvain Chambon - gou...@lepcf.org
http://lepcf.org
Elliott Grasett
"Sylvain Chambon" <sgpch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9cbnkm.h...@uberwald.se.room33.com...
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:14:43 -0500, Ted Carmichael
> <Ted...@YOGImindspring.BEARcom> wrote:
>
> >"Mary Messall" wrote
> ><snip>
> >> What if I want to proclaim myself a truck driver, but I've never
> >> driven a truck? What if I want to proclaim myself an ice-skater,
> >> but I can't skate?
> >
> >Well, you could still be a truck driver simply by proclaiming
> >yourself one... just not a very *good* truck driver.
>
> Er, no. You need a truck-driving licence to be a truck-driver.
>
> >I happen to be an astronaut.
>
> OTOH, AFAIK there are no rocket-driving licences :-)
>
Survive, mates,
Elliott
Adam Sampson
> >Well, you could still be a truck driver simply by proclaiming
> >yourself one... just not a very *good* truck driver.
>
> Er, no. You need a truck-driving licence to be a truck-driver.
Only on the road.
--
Adam Sampson <a...@gnu.org> <URL:http://azz.us-lot.org/>
Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
news:MPG.152d9d6a6...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> that's how it should be...any definition of art that isn't
> soundly based in the reactions of both heart and mind
> isn't IMO worth having
Maybe, but it would be a definition where one cannot get any further
than agreeing to disagree. An "intellectual" definition is a lot
easier to swallow for most people than a definition which has
emotion attached to it. Which would mean discussing the definition
of art is next to pointless. Arguments (defined as connected series
of statements intended to establish a proposition[1]) cannot
convince the heart (or the gut). Trying to cause a "change of heart"
by means of an argument tends to lead to the rather noisier form of
argument. Which is not what I have been trying to achieve either.
[1] a full ppoint for the first person to provide a full map
reference for the location from where I nicked that definition.
Reinier.
Richard Bos
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:14:43 -0500, Ted Carmichael
> <Ted...@YOGImindspring.BEARcom> wrote:
>
> >Well, you could still be a truck driver simply by proclaiming
> >yourself one... just not a very *good* truck driver.
>
> Er, no. You need a truck-driving licence to be a truck-driver.
Nope. You need a truck-driving license to drive a truck. You don't need
a license to be a truck driver. Until, of course, a _real_ truck driver
turns up and does the truckers' equivalent of turning you into a frog.
There _are_ professions whose very title is protected (e.g., solicitor,
I expect); I don't think "truck driver" is one of them.
Richard
Richard Bos
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:44:57 GMT, Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu>
> spewed:
>
> >The fact that this reader is so much more knowledgable than me also
> >means that I'd bloody well better have a good defense ready for any
> >claim I make, and do some research about any historical or scientific
> >circumstance I introduce, or be ready to accept humiliation. AFP is good
> >practice for this. <g>
> Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with this--a sort of
> self-imposed "Tutor" on your writing. But...and this is a BIG
> but...there are right and wrong things you can do in writing. You
> can't simply write a bunch of random words down on paper and say it's
> a story, because a story is a /specific/ thing. However--you CAN throw
> a bunch of random paint on a canvas, and STILL say it's art! And who
> can dispute it? (Okay, silly question.)
I can. Jackson Pillock is no artist in my eyes.
> I mean, in /my/ world, no one has the /right/ to dispute your claim.
Why not? People have the right to dispute my claims of being a truck
driver, a writer, a hacker; why not an artist?
Or, to put it more practically, suppose I have in my hands two crumpled
up wads of paper, to all intents and purposes indistinguishable. I raise
my left hand and proclaim: "Behold this Wad! For Lo, It Is Art!" Next, I
raise my right hand, and proclaim: "Behold this Wad! Forsooth, it is Not
Art!" Is the left-hand wad of paper art? Is the right-hand wad?
Now I take a third crumpled up wad of paper. I take it in my left hand
and proclaim: "Behold this Wad! Verily, It Is Art!" Next, I take _the
same_ wad of paper in my right hand and proclaim: "Behold this Wad! Know
Ye, it is Not Art!" _Now_ is this wad of paper art, or not?
Ok, the example is somewhat extreme. Nevertheless, it shows, IMO, quite
clearly that Proclamation By The Artist is not quite a perfect way of
deciding whether something is art or not. There must be something, a /je
ne sais quoi/ which I nevertheless claim is a sense of beauty, that
defines art, as separate from "mundane" human creations.
> >That's the kind of writing I do with only myself as an audience. It's
> >not art by any means, I feel. It would be incomprehensible to anyone
> >else (no help at all to my biographers, once I'm dead and famous.) It's
> >valuable to me, but as a memento, not a work of art.
>
> Exactly. You aren't writing in your journal to /make/ art. You're
> writing for another reason. Art isn't made by accident, though it's
> not always made to display.
>
> Of course. That's the essence of art--that you made it to BE art.
In the modern world, you're probably right (at least, in that it is
necessary; not, IMO, that it is sufficient); but what about art from
ancient Greece (or the Celts, or the Germanics, or even earlier)? A lot
of that wasn't made explicitly to be art, but "merely" to be useful and
look good. Yet _we_ call it art.
Is a can full of hot air (or worse), canned for a museum, more "art"
than a kylix which just happened to end up in one but was sculpted and
painted, originally, without any thought of art, but only to sit around
and be beautiful in between drinks? IMO, quite the contrary.
> >> Ah, but that is /exactly/ what I am saying. I /do/ believe that if
> >> you want to proclaim yourself an artist, you are.
> >
> >What if I want to proclaim myself a truck driver, but I've never driven
> >a truck? What if I want to proclaim myself an ice-skater, but I can't
> >skate? In a similar way, I'm not an artist unless I've made art. It's
> >art if it's intended to create a specific reaction in some audience
> >besides myself. It's good art if it actually does.
>
> It's not the same and can't be compared. You're talking about a
> certain specific skill, which is licensed.
Ok, other profession: what if I claim I am a journalist? What about a
programmer? There are a lot of people out there claiming to be "HTML
programmers". I want to smack them upside their faces, but they make the
claim, and manage to deceive the public-at-large into believing they are
programmers; and there is no license separating "programmers" from
"meddlers" and "script kiddies". Does this mean that they _are_
programmers? IMO, no, because they lack the requisite skills; and IYAM,
the same thing is true for artists.
An artist is someone who makes art, not someone who proclaims himself an
artist, just as a programmer is someone who programs, not someone who
changes the strings in someone else's code and calls himself a H@x0r.
> >there's a little gray area. If I've driven a truck once, I *could*
> >theoretically call myself a truck-driver, but most people probably won't
> >agree with me. If I've only driven light trucks as an amateur, and I
> >crashed my last one, people probably are still going to be skeptical. If
> >I make my living taking big rigs a couple thousand miles, I definitely
> >qualify.
> >
> >If I made a painting once, and no one could tell what it was supposed to
> >be, I'm probably not an artist.
Unless you intended it that way, of course; abstract art is art just as
much as figurative.
> >If I paint for my own pleasure, doing
> >still lifes of flowers, people probably are still going to be skeptical.
Even so, if your still-lives could be considered art, why would you not
be an artist?
> Which people? Why do they matter? If you say you are an artist, after
> having only painted still lifes, even BADLY, then why aren't you an
> artist?
Well... if you put it like that, all the wannabees who paint pretentious
crap in acrylics "because I am an artist" are artists as well. I
wouldn't want to go quite as far as that. But I do agree that public
acclaim has little to do with it.
> >If I make my living selling paintings and doing gallary shows, I
> >definitely qualify, although I could still be a bad artist.
Nope, you're a _painter_. You could probably make a living selling badly
done rip-offs of famous still-lives, and I don't think there would be
any art in that; so I wouldn't, in that case, call you an artist. OTOH,
you could be poor as a church mouse, yet make beautiful art that nobody
buys because you live in Backwater, TX, and nobody else knows of your
art. You'd still be an artist.
Richard
Keith Collyer
<9a88cm$req$1...@library.lspace.org>:
>Arguments (defined as connected series of statements intended
>to establish a proposition[1]) cannot convince the heart (or
>
>[1] a full ppoint for the first person to provide a full map
>reference for the location from where I nicked that
>definition.
Sounds like Monty Python "Is this the room for an argument"
Cheers
KeithC
--
mailto:%20ke...@computer.org Proud member of Echoes
(http://www.meddle.org)
People who pray or attend church regularly are happier than
people who don't.
Mind you, the same applies to people who go to bingo
regularly
Kelvix
<in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> writes
>There _are_ professions whose very title is protected (e.g., solicitor,
>I expect); I don't think "truck driver" is one of them.
'tis true - which is why until I qualify in August this year, I cannot
call myself a "solicitor", only a trainee solicitor. I think most of
the rules about this are in the Solicitor's Act (1974?).
There's some offence to do with impersonating a police officer - but I
haven't looked up the reference for it.
OTOH, I *am* free to call myself a lawyer :)
--
Kelvix
"William's class understood that justice was like coal or potatoes. You ordered
it when you needed it" (TT) "Listen! Lyf is gude, And thou art welbiloved and
frended..." (DQ) Reply to: law...@meanandevil.co.uk http://kelvix.orcon.net.nz
Christin Keck
Bos) spewed:
>> Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with this--a sort of
>> self-imposed "Tutor" on your writing. But...and this is a BIG
>> but...there are right and wrong things you can do in writing. You
>> can't simply write a bunch of random words down on paper and say it's
>> a story, because a story is a /specific/ thing. However--you CAN throw
>> a bunch of random paint on a canvas, and STILL say it's art! And who
>> can dispute it? (Okay, silly question.)
>
>I can. Jackson Pillock is no artist in my eyes.
And right here is the essence of what art is or is not.
In YOUR eyes. That's what it all comes down to in the end.
In my eyes, he was an artist, and a damned good one. However, I
wouldn't buy one of his works or hang it in my house. I don't
particularly LIKE them. I can, however, recognize their worth as art.
And this is /all/ my own opinion, worth nothing more than that, and
invalid for anyone else.
>Ok, other profession: what if I claim I am a journalist? What about a
>programmer? There are a lot of people out there claiming to be "HTML
>programmers". I want to smack them upside their faces, but they make the
>claim, and manage to deceive the public-at-large into believing they are
>programmers; and there is no license separating "programmers" from
>"meddlers" and "script kiddies".
Who on earth is doing this? And why? Is there money or glory in
decieving the public about one's programming skills? I have a lot of
trouble envisioning who these deceptive people might be. If you don't
write programs, you aren't programming. If you write them badly, then
you're still programming, but you're not very good at it. I fail to
see the comparison as valid here.
> Does this mean that they _are_
>programmers? IMO, no, because they lack the requisite skills; and IYAM,
>the same thing is true for artists.
Art isn't quantifiable, like programming. Nor is it a licensable
skill, like truck driving. The results of those skills is the proof.
With art, the result only depends on what the artist achieves in his
or her own mind.
You cannot define what art IS, so how can you define what an artist
is?
It's all what /you/ decide it is. (Art, not programming.)
Lady Kayla
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:49:11 GMT, in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
>Bos) spewed:
[...]
>>Ok, other profession: what if I claim I am a journalist? What about a
>>programmer? There are a lot of people out there claiming to be "HTML
>>programmers". I want to smack them upside their faces, but they make the
>>claim, and manage to deceive the public-at-large into believing they are
>>programmers; and there is no license separating "programmers" from
>>"meddlers" and "script kiddies".
>
>Who on earth is doing this? And why? Is there money or glory in
>decieving the public about one's programming skills? I have a lot of
>trouble envisioning who these deceptive people might be. If you don't
>write programs, you aren't programming. If you write them badly, then
>you're still programming, but you're not very good at it. I fail to
>see the comparison as valid here.
Probably because HTML is not a programming language, therefore you
cannot be a "HTML Programmer". It is a mark-up language - that's what
the ML bit means, after all.
--
Lady Kayla
T J Wilkinson
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:14:43 -0500, Ted Carmichael
><Ted...@YOGImindspring.BEARcom> wrote:
>
>>"Mary Messall" wrote
>><snip>
>>> What if I want to proclaim myself a truck driver, but I've never
>>> driven a truck? What if I want to proclaim myself an ice-skater,
>>> but I can't skate?
>>Well, you could still be a truck driver simply by proclaiming
>>yourself one... just not a very *good* truck driver.
>Er, no. You need a truck-driving licence to be a truck-driver.
So if you drive trucks and don't have a license then what are you?
I suspect that a lot of people in the third world who drive trucks
don't have a license, are they not truck drivers? Some of them may
even be quite good drivers, for particular meanings of good.
Tracy
--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tajwileb/
"People who have tried it, tell me that a clear conscience makes you very
happy and contented; but a full stomach does the business quite as well,
and is cheaper, and more easily obtained." - J. K. Jerome
Richard Bos
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:49:11 GMT, in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
> Bos) spewed:
>
> >> Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with this--a sort of
> >> self-imposed "Tutor" on your writing. But...and this is a BIG
> >> but...there are right and wrong things you can do in writing. You
> >> can't simply write a bunch of random words down on paper and say it's
> >> a story, because a story is a /specific/ thing. However--you CAN throw
> >> a bunch of random paint on a canvas, and STILL say it's art! And who
> >> can dispute it? (Okay, silly question.)
> >
> >I can. Jackson Pillock is no artist in my eyes.
>
> And right here is the essence of what art is or is not.
> In YOUR eyes. That's what it all comes down to in the end.
> In my eyes, he was an artist, and a damned good one.
Ok... that sounds more reasonable to me. But that wasn't what you said -
you said that if _he_ claims to be an artist, he is one. I think that's
a bit steep. If you're saying that if you claim he is an artist, he is
to you, well, there's not much to deny in that.
> >Ok, other profession: what if I claim I am a journalist? What about a
> >programmer? There are a lot of people out there claiming to be "HTML
> >programmers". I want to smack them upside their faces, but they make the
> >claim, and manage to deceive the public-at-large into believing they are
> >programmers; and there is no license separating "programmers" from
> >"meddlers" and "script kiddies".
>
> Who on earth is doing this? And why? Is there money or glory in
> decieving the public about one's programming skills?
In claiming to be a "web programmer"? You betcha. _Lots_ of money. Well,
there was. Dunno about nowadays.
> I have a lot of
> trouble envisioning who these deceptive people might be. If you don't
> write programs, you aren't programming.
Ah, well, there's programming and there's programming, isn't there? Some
people would have you think hacking up second-rate database apps with
Access Wizards is programming, and manage to get paid for it as well.
Some people would claim that building web sites is programming, and
manage to get paid for that, and presumably at programmers' rather than
web designers' rates.
> > Does this mean that they _are_
> >programmers? IMO, no, because they lack the requisite skills; and IYAM,
> >the same thing is true for artists.
>
> Art isn't quantifiable, like programming.
Programming isn't quantifiable, either. If it were, people like (to use
an over-hit but well-known butt) Microsoft wouldn't be in business.
> With art, the result only depends on what the artist achieves in his
> or her own mind.
Does it? The end result has nothing to do with whether something is art?
Sorry, not in my house. Not until someone manages to convince me why a
pile of bricks changes from "not art" to "art" merely by putting a sign
next to it.
Richard
Christin Keck
Bos) spewed:
>> >I can. Jackson Pillock is no artist in my eyes.
>>
>> And right here is the essence of what art is or is not.
>> In YOUR eyes. That's what it all comes down to in the end.
>> In my eyes, he was an artist, and a damned good one.
>
>Ok... that sounds more reasonable to me. But that wasn't what you said -
>you said that if _he_ claims to be an artist, he is one. I think that's
>a bit steep. If you're saying that if you claim he is an artist, he is
>to you, well, there's not much to deny in that.
Well, obviously...but he was an artist in HIS OWN EYES as well. He
made paintings. You don't like them, or value them, but that doesn't
really mean much to either him,(especially since he's been dead for
years,) or the people who like his work.
>
>Ah, well, there's programming and there's programming, isn't there? Some
>people would have you think hacking up second-rate database apps with
>Access Wizards is programming, and manage to get paid for it as well.
>Some people would claim that building web sites is programming, and
>manage to get paid for that, and presumably at programmers' rather than
>web designers' rates.
This doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not someone is or is
not a programmer. This is a dispute you have with dilletants. It has
all the earmarks of a huge case of sour grapes.
>> > Does this mean that they _are_
>> >programmers? IMO, no, because they lack the requisite skills; and IYAM,
>> >the same thing is true for artists.
>>
>> Art isn't quantifiable, like programming.
>
>Programming isn't quantifiable, either. If it were, people like (to use
>an over-hit but well-known butt) Microsoft wouldn't be in business.
Programming is as quantifiable a trade as anything where you are
supposed to produce a product that fulfills a certain need or desire.
It's no different than manufacturing something like a vacuum cleaner.
If you make one and it's not good, you aren't going to get repeat
business. If you make one that works, and does what it's supposed to
do, then you've done what you say you've done--programmed or made a
vacuum, or whatever.
>> With art, the result only depends on what the artist achieves in his
>> or her own mind.
>
>Does it? The end result has nothing to do with whether something is art?
>Sorry, not in my house. Not until someone manages to convince me why a
>pile of bricks changes from "not art" to "art" merely by putting a sign
>next to it.
As I said before, and as I will say one more time and then NOT EVER
SAY AGAIN (sheesh!) you cannot define what art IS. You can only define
what YOU think art is. So if a pile of bricks is art to you, then IT
IS ART.
I think I've pretty much worn this topic completely out.
Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
news:Xns907797C473F6F...@127.0.0.1...
> "Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw" <rei...@afake.address> wrote in
> <9a88cm$req$1...@library.lspace.org>:
>
> >Arguments (defined as connected series of statements intended
> >to establish a proposition[1]) cannot convince the heart (or
> >
> >[1] a full ppoint for the first person to provide a full map
> >reference for the location from where I nicked that
> >definition.
>
> Sounds like Monty Python "Is this the room for an argument"
>
Missing: year, tapes and albums it appeared on.
I'll give you a third of a ppoint.
Reinier.
Keith Collyer
>> Sounds like Monty Python "Is this the room for an argument"
>>
>That "sounds" a bit lean for a full map ref.
>Missing: year, tapes and albums it appeared on.
>I'll give you a third of a ppoint.
Well, I saw it on TV when it first came out, and that's a bit
long ago, so how about making it up to at least half a ppoint
for saying BBC TV, mid-70s?
Cheers
KeithC
--
mailto:%20ke...@computer.org Proud member of Echoes
(http://www.meddle.org)
All computers wait at the same speed
Richard Bos
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:49:55 GMT, in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
> Bos) spewed:
>
> >Ok... that sounds more reasonable to me. But that wasn't what you said -
> >you said that if _he_ claims to be an artist, he is one. I think that's
> >a bit steep. If you're saying that if you claim he is an artist, he is
> >to you, well, there's not much to deny in that.
>
> Well, obviously...but he was an artist in HIS OWN EYES as well.
Yes, but that's my whole point: _so many_ people are artists in their
own eyes. Most of them in nobody else's. If Mr. Pollock is an artist
because he says so, shouldn't the same thing be true for a passer-by who
drops his museum guide on the floor and calls it performance art?
> He made paintings.
Well, that's more relevant - but it makes him a painter. If we accept
that all painters are artists, Jackson Pollock is an artist. But I don't
see the need to accept that.
> >Ah, well, there's programming and there's programming, isn't there? Some
> >people would have you think hacking up second-rate database apps with
> >Access Wizards is programming, and manage to get paid for it as well.
> >Some people would claim that building web sites is programming, and
> >manage to get paid for that, and presumably at programmers' rather than
> >web designers' rates.
>
> This doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not someone is or is
> not a programmer. This is a dispute you have with dilletants.
So what is the difference between the dispute official artists have with
people who paint puppy dogs on velvet, or the dispute I have with
paint-drippers? They, too, are attempts to distinguish between people
who "do the real thing" and people who only go through the moves.
> >> > Does this mean that they _are_
> >> >programmers? IMO, no, because they lack the requisite skills; and IYAM,
> >> >the same thing is true for artists.
> >>
> >> Art isn't quantifiable, like programming.
> >
> >Programming isn't quantifiable, either. If it were, people like (to use
> >an over-hit but well-known butt) Microsoft wouldn't be in business.
>
> Programming is as quantifiable a trade as anything where you are
> supposed to produce a product that fulfills a certain need or desire.
Ah, but try to determine what that need _is_! Programming is not the
same thing as coding, you know. The formulation of the need in question
is also part of programming; in fact, one of the most important ones.
> It's no different than manufacturing something like a vacuum cleaner.
A vac sucks, or it doesn't. You cannot say the same thing of program
design. Many things in it are as subjective as taste in art.
> >> With art, the result only depends on what the artist achieves in his
> >> or her own mind.
> >
> >Does it? The end result has nothing to do with whether something is art?
> >Sorry, not in my house. Not until someone manages to convince me why a
> >pile of bricks changes from "not art" to "art" merely by putting a sign
> >next to it.
>
> As I said before, and as I will say one more time and then NOT EVER
> SAY AGAIN (sheesh!) you cannot define what art IS. You can only define
> what YOU think art is. So if a pile of bricks is art to you, then IT
> IS ART.
Erm... you contradict yourself. I cannot define what art is, but if I
define something as art, it is art. That's all very nice if you're
dealing only with yourself, but I don't think it works in a larger
context.
Richard
Christin Keck
Bos) spewed:
>> Well, obviously...but he was an artist in HIS OWN EYES as well.
>
>Yes, but that's my whole point: _so many_ people are artists in their
>own eyes. Most of them in nobody else's. If Mr. Pollock is an artist
>because he says so, shouldn't the same thing be true for a passer-by who
>drops his museum guide on the floor and calls it performance art?
Yes. Unfortunately for you, because you can't accept that. But yes.
>> He made paintings.
>
>Well, that's more relevant - but it makes him a painter. If we accept
>that all painters are artists, Jackson Pollock is an artist. But I don't
>see the need to accept that.
Ibid.
>> This doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not someone is or is
>> not a programmer. This is a dispute you have with dilletants.
>
>So what is the difference between the dispute official artists have with
>people who paint puppy dogs on velvet, or the dispute I have with
>paint-drippers? They, too, are attempts to distinguish between people
>who "do the real thing" and people who only go through the moves.
"Official" artists? This is probably the most presumptive thing I've
heard so far in this argument. And it's exactly what I was trying to
argue against.
>> Programming is as quantifiable a trade as anything where you are
>> supposed to produce a product that fulfills a certain need or desire.
>
>Ah, but try to determine what that need _is_! Programming is not the
>same thing as coding, you know. The formulation of the need in question
>is also part of programming; in fact, one of the most important ones.
I know what a program is. I also know that defining the need is part
of the program. But just because you have identified the parts to a
definition does not make that definition more valid. A program fills a
definite need, and that need may come from the programmer OR outside
the programmer. I have written programs. I was told what programs I
had to write. And when I wrote those programs, (which, incidentally,
were assignments for a class I took,) I was at that time a programmer.
I no longer write programs now, therefore, I am no LONGER a
programmer.
>> It's no different than manufacturing something like a vacuum cleaner.
>
>A vac sucks, or it doesn't. You cannot say the same thing of program
>design. Many things in it are as subjective as taste in art.
According to your argument, Microsoft sucks...
(Too good a straight line)
>> >> With art, the result only depends on what the artist achieves in his
>> >> or her own mind.
>> >
>> >Does it? The end result has nothing to do with whether something is art?
>> >Sorry, not in my house. Not until someone manages to convince me why a
>> >pile of bricks changes from "not art" to "art" merely by putting a sign
>> >next to it.
>>
>> As I said before, and as I will say one more time and then NOT EVER
>> SAY AGAIN (sheesh!) you cannot define what art IS. You can only define
>> what YOU think art is. So if a pile of bricks is art to you, then IT
>> IS ART.
>
>Erm... you contradict yourself. I cannot define what art is, but if I
>define something as art, it is art. That's all very nice if you're
>dealing only with yourself, but I don't think it works in a larger
>context.
That is not what I said. I said you could not DEFINE art. You can
certainly DECLARE a piece to be art. It is not a definition of art you
have made, but a declaration of a single piece OF art. There is a
world of difference.
Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
> "Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw" <rei...@afake.address> wrote in
> <9ad1um$oa9$1...@library.lspace.org>:
>
> >> Sounds like Monty Python "Is this the room for an argument"
> >>
> >That "sounds" a bit lean for a full map ref.
> >Missing: year, tapes and albums it appeared on.
> >I'll give you a third of a ppoint.
>
> Well, I saw it on TV when it first came out, and that's a bit
> long ago, so how about making it up to at least half a ppoint
> for saying BBC TV, mid-70s?
I take it you forgot to add the intended smiley to that question? Or
are you actually telling me off for giving a whole third of a
ppoint for the original answer?
Reinier/
Axel Kielhorn
> So if you drive trucks and don't have a license then what are you?
An illegal truck driver (at least here in Germany). The police often
checks trucks which may turn you into an arrested truck driver verry
soon. (And after that you are an out of work truck driver.)
> I suspect that a lot of people in the third world who drive trucks
> don't have a license, are they not truck drivers? Some of them may
> even be quite good drivers, for particular meanings of good.
I guess here the truck is the license.
Axel
--
But I have a talent, a wonderful thing
'cause everyone's running when I start to sing.
Keith Collyer
>I take it you forgot to add the intended smiley to that
>question? Or are you actually telling me off for giving a
>whole third of a ppoint for the original answer?
Yes ;->
Cheers
KeithC
--
mailto:%20ke...@computer.org Proud member of Echoes
(http://www.meddle.org)
Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen - A. Einstein