Rant
Lou Duchez
In article <51sda7$6...@nadine.teleport.com>,
nen...@teleport.com (NENSLO) wrote:
> I knew a guy once that used to hang out by these climbing rocks,
> with a rope over his shoulder and a plastic hard-hat. When climbers would
> come and strap on their harnesses and gear and things he'd clamber over
> the benches and the trash can telling the world what a bunch of phonies
> those other guys were. He never climbed the rocks himself mind you, he
> just made fun of anybody who did. Said he didn't NEED to climb them to be
> the greatest climber in the world.
> If you put out records and tapes for YEARS and achieve little or
> no recognition, BELIEVE ME FOLKS, there IS a reason, and it's very rarely
> "victimization by unscrupulous inferiors." It MIGHT be because you're
> too much of an incredible genius, but PROBABLY NOT.
Excellent imagery, but weak analogy. The ability to climb rocks is
a matter of measurable, basically objective criteria. The ability to
produce music is not measurable through objective means -- SOUNDS can
be measured, yes, but music requires subjective interpretation.
Like a couple of pieces Zoogz was talking about recently: they sound
like discordant mishmashes of voices, but Zoogz has revealed that
there's mathematics and organization behind the scenes that can be hard
to pick up on (I figgered there was something there all along, though).
If you don't know to look for it, or can't see it at all, the problem's
at YOUR end.
Nice "vbui" reference, though. Usually used with regard to "racial
inferiors" and the like, but I think it can be applied to successful
musicians, writers, and other (alleged) artists. Unless you're saying
that you really think popular opinion is typically right, in which case
I'd say you're slipping on the essential Master Control principle of HATE.
Sister Rosebrit
On 20 Sep 1996 05:51:58 -0400, ljdu...@en.com (Lou Duchez) wrote:
Lou Duchez killed an angel with:
>Like a couple of pieces Zoogz was talking about recently: they sound
>like discordant mishmashes of voices, but Zoogz has revealed that
>there's mathematics and organization behind the scenes that can be hard
>to pick up on (I figgered there was something there all along, though).
>If you don't know to look for it, or can't see it at all, the problem's
>at YOUR end.
This reminds me of people who upon hearing you don't like their
favorite music come back with "well, if you saw them LIVE".
As if by getting actual whiffs of the minstrels you too can be
transported to the higher planes where the right-thinking ones that
"get it" dwell.
And *then* you can sit at home and listen to the cd, enjoying it and
most importantly "getting it".
You like something or you don't. Come on, Lou, give us a shrug and
walk it off.
Sister Rosebrit
who wants to see Lou in his dress shoes.
and only his dress shoes.
NENSLO
Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) wrote:
: Like a couple of pieces Zoogz was talking about recently: they sound
: like discordant mishmashes of voices, but Zoogz has revealed that
: there's mathematics and organization behind the scenes that can be hard
: to pick up on (I figgered there was something there all along, though).
: If you don't know to look for it, or can't see it at all, the problem's
: at YOUR end.
Yeah, yeah I know, like that "artist" they just made a movie about
whose "paintings" look like, and are, a bunch of broken crockery and trash
stuck on a board with paint thrown at it. If I can't see how great that
is it's because I'm too dumb or something.
The fact that most people would rather just see a picture of
something or listen to a song proves we are all too "something" to
understand true greatness. I am just so stupid I think shit from a big
dog and shit from a little dog are equally appealing as snack food.
Big Dummy Nenslo
Sophia Anifantakis
: nen...@teleport.com (NENSLO) wrote:
: > I knew a guy once that used to hang out by these climbing rocks,
: > with a rope over his shoulder and a plastic hard-hat. When climbers would
: > come and strap on their harnesses and gear and things he'd clamber over
: > the benches and the trash can telling the world what a bunch of phonies
: > those other guys were. He never climbed the rocks himself mind you, he
: > just made fun of anybody who did. Said he didn't NEED to climb them to be
: > the greatest climber in the world.
: > If you put out records and tapes for YEARS and achieve little or
: > no recognition, BELIEVE ME FOLKS, there IS a reason, and it's very rarely
: > "victimization by unscrupulous inferiors." It MIGHT be because you're
: > too much of an incredible genius, but PROBABLY NOT.
But there ARE alot of really good singers and musicians that haven't made
it big. I know you specified musicians who HAVE had the backing and were
able to put out records but even so if you look at some of the tv shows
that didn't make it big and some that did, you can see that having popular
opinion doesn't always make something better.
Zoogz Rift--The Liquid Moamo
Fat Freddy's Cat
Lou Duchez wrote:
>
> In article <51sda7$6...@nadine.teleport.com>,
> nen...@teleport.com (NENSLO) wrote:
>
> > I knew a guy once that used to hang out by these climbing rocks,
> > with a rope over his shoulder and a plastic hard-hat. When climbers would
> > come and strap on their harnesses and gear and things he'd clamber over
> > the benches and the trash can telling the world what a bunch of phonies
> > those other guys were. He never climbed the rocks himself mind you, he
> > just made fun of anybody who did. Said he didn't NEED to climb them to be
> > the greatest climber in the world.
> > If you put out records and tapes for YEARS and achieve little or
> > no recognition, BELIEVE ME FOLKS, there IS a reason, and it's very rarely
> > "victimization by unscrupulous inferiors." It MIGHT be because you're
> > too much of an incredible genius, but PROBABLY NOT.
>
> a matter of measurable, basically objective criteria. The ability to
> produce music is not measurable through objective means -- SOUNDS can
> be measured, yes, but music requires subjective interpretation.
>
> like discordant mishmashes of voices, but Zoogz has revealed that
> there's mathematics and organization behind the scenes that can be hard
> to pick up on (I figgered there was something there all along, though).
> If you don't know to look for it, or can't see it at all, the problem's
> at YOUR end.
>
> inferiors" and the like, but I think it can be applied to successful
> musicians, writers, and other (alleged) artists. Unless you're saying
> that you really think popular opinion is typically right, in which case
> I'd say you're slipping on the essential Master Control principle of HATE.
Keep this shit out of alt.smokers!
Lou Duchez
NENSLO <nen...@teleport.com> wrote:
: Yeah, yeah I know, like that "artist" they just made a movie about
: whose "paintings" look like, and are, a bunch of broken crockery and trash
: stuck on a board with paint thrown at it. If I can't see how great that
: is it's because I'm too dumb or something.
: The fact that most people would rather just see a picture of
: something or listen to a song proves we are all too "something" to
: understand true greatness. I am just so stupid I think shit from a big
: dog and shit from a little dog are equally appealing as snack food.
You're entitled to your opinions, and the following is honest-to-"Bob" a
more general discussion of art than anything.
To my way of thinking, there are three main ways to approach art:
1) Encounter work, and immediately embrace or dismiss it after a
superficial examination.
2) Encounter work, and interpret it in whatever way lends it the greatest
appeal to you personally.
3) Encounter work, and try to work with it until you understand what makes
it tick and what the artist's intent was, and only then decide if has
any value.
The main flaw of the first two techniques is that you don't come away
with any new ideas. The first scenario, unfortunately, seems to describe
most peoples' attitudes towards truly different music: "I can't
immediately categorize it so I'll dismiss it". (The same could
theoretically apply to TV shows or any other medium, but how often do you
encounter a TV show that's really really different?)
The second approach seems to be fairly popular, but from my perspective
it rather misses the point of art. If all that matters is what YOU put
into it and not what the artist intended, there's no difference between a
Rorschach ink blot and that Seurat painting of the woman with the big butt.
Or worse, no difference between a 1970s big-eyed kitten and the Seurat
fat-ass.
The third approach strikes me as the most honest: try to give all
potential art a fair hearing before coming to any conclusions.
Unfortunately, it's time-consuming, and you run the risk of finding
symbolism and meaning where none was intended. Really, it's like fishing
around in your Lucky Charms for the toy Shamrockmobile, and never really
knowing if there's one in there until you've got marshmallow powder up to
your elbow. But that's the risk ya run.
John Laviolette
Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) wrote:
[ three ways to enjoy art:
superficially,
subjectively,
analytically ]
. . . and then, Pee Kitty <Pki...@cris.com> wrote:
[ he likes the subjective way best ]
I dunno about all this. I'm not certain Lou's analysis
is complete or elegant enough, and in the long run all
three are really subjective.
And I can't bring myself to agree with Pee Kitty's idea
that subjective is best.
Therefore, *I* will spew my *OWN* ideas on art!
first: art is doing. if nobody did anything, it isn't art.
an inkblot isn't art, it's just an experience. but an artist
could cleverly MAKE an inkblot that wasn't random at all, it
just appears random; THAT is art.
second: because art is doing, there is a technical level to
art which can be judged. think about well-crafted furniture
or well-drawn illustrations: these aren't normally considered
art, but can become art depending on what the craftsman does.
on the other hand, big ugly seams or poorly-drawn lines
detract from the object.
but third: art is more than doing, it is also SAYING.
the inkblot isn't art because nobody put any MEANING into it.
art has meaning. the artist thinks and feels something
when making art, and puts that something into the art.
and fourth: art is meant to be ENJOYED. and I'm being
technical, here: by "enjoyed", I mean the feeling of being
lost in the art. engrossed.
those points combine; the MORE the poor quality of an
artistic work distracts you from enjoying the art and
being lost in the meaning of it, the LESS artistic value
it has.
this is why, paradoxically, the MORE you try to put
meaning into art, the LESS enjoyable (and the less
ARTISTIC) it becomes. an artist who TRIES to make a
statment instead of letting the statement flow out
naturally ruins the art, because all you see are those
big ugly seams. also, the art admirer who TRIES to
find a statement in art winds up not enjoying the
art, because this creates a distinction between the
art and the admirer and prevents becoming lost in
the art.
there are really four ways to appreciate art:
(1) from the outside, as a work of
craftsmanship (noticing how few
seams there are);
(2) from the inside, as a work of
art (becoming lost in the art);
(3) from both sides, shifting from
one viewpoint to the other;
(4) from no side -- completely
missing the point (not appreciating
it at all.)
where do Lou's ways fall on this scale?
nowhere, really. each of the three ways Lou names
borders on the subjective -- in otherwords, appreciating
the art INSIDE ONE'S SKULL more than the art OUT THERE.
superficial appreciation is "missing the point".
the superficial admirer is barely aware of the artwork
at all, but is completely self-absorbed.
the (honestly) subjective admirer is appreciating the
art from the inside and is more aware of a work of art
"out there", but is still more or less self-absorbed:
so the subjective admirer also borders on "missing the
point".
the analytical admirer appreciates art either from the
outside (as a technical achievment) or from both sides,
but still is bordering on "missing the point".
if you are TRUELY appreciating a work of art, you WON'T
REALIZE IT UNTIL LATER.
--
-----
His Most Feathered Eminence, The Ur-Beatle
Experimental Media Research Laboratory, Northern California
For more Information, http://emrl.com or email IN...@EMRL.COM.
Pee Kitty
Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) spewed forth:
>
> To my way of thinking, there are three main ways to approach art:
>
> 1) Encounter work, and immediately embrace or dismiss it after a
> superficial examination.
>
> 2) Encounter work, and interpret it in whatever way lends it the greatest
> appeal to you personally.
>
> 3) Encounter work, and try to work with it until you understand what makes
> it tick and what the artist's intent was, and only then decide if has
> any value.
>
> The main flaw of the first two techniques is that you don't come away
> with any new ideas. The first scenario, unfortunately, seems to describe
> most peoples' attitudes towards truly different music: "I can't
> immediately categorize it so I'll dismiss it". (The same could
> theoretically apply to TV shows or any other medium, but how often do you
> encounter a TV show that's really really different?)
>
> The second approach seems to be fairly popular, but from my perspective
> it rather misses the point of art. If all that matters is what YOU put
> into it and not what the artist intended, there's no difference between a
> Rorschach ink blot and that Seurat painting of the woman with the big butt.
> Or worse, no difference between a 1970s big-eyed kitten and the Seurat
> fat-ass.
EXACTLY why it's the best approach.
Who cares about being 'fair' to the artist's ideas, or trying to
understand what they were trying to say? Shit, if we judged things on
INTENT rather than RESULTS, we wouldn't have bulldada!
If an ink blot makes me laugh, and a 54-Years-In-The-Making,
Artist-Wrenched-His-Guts-Out-And-Put-Them-On-The-Screen cinema classic
makes me laugh just as hard, then the two are equally good at making me
laugh, and that is how they shall be judged. If that's being unfair cuz I
didn't take the second guy's hard work and effort and pain and unique
twist on life into consideration...tough shit. The ink blot made me laugh;
his movie made me laugh. No matter what led up to it, that's how it turned
out.
Hell, why bother looking at things in ANY OTHER WAY than how they
ultimately affect YOU? (Except as a nice change of pace, of course;
everyone should swap worldviews every so often.) Call me a solipsist, but
this is MY WORLD and ye shall be judged by how you entertain ME. Start
dancin', boys...
> The third approach strikes me as the most honest: try to give all
> potential art a fair hearing before coming to any conclusions.
> Unfortunately, it's time-consuming, and you run the risk of finding
> symbolism and meaning where none was intended. Really, it's like fishing
> around in your Lucky Charms for the toy Shamrockmobile, and never really
> knowing if there's one in there until you've got marshmallow powder up to
> your elbow. But that's the risk ya run.
--
Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian
Meow!
--> You can fight the Conspiracy of Normalcy and get back your Slack!
--> Send $1 to Church of the SubGenius / PO Box 140306 / Dallas TX 75214
--> Or visit alt.slack or FTP to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty for info
"Why spend $30 or even $40 dollars for a filthy porno movie when you can
jerk off all over the Church of the SubGenius for only $30 bucks!"
- (Pope) Rev. Godfather Gillan [edit]
Lou Duchez
John Laviolette <taly...@boulez.emrl.com> wrote:
: Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) wrote:
: [ three ways to enjoy art:
: superficially,
: subjectively,
: analytically ]
: Therefore, *I* will spew my *OWN* ideas on art!
Cool!
: first: art is doing. if nobody did anything, it isn't art.
: an inkblot isn't art, it's just an experience. but an artist
: could cleverly MAKE an inkblot that wasn't random at all, it
: just appears random; THAT is art.
Good point. There's a difference between a story and a random sequence
of events. "Hamlet" and a drive-by shooting result in roughly the same
body count, but one is art and the other isn't.
: second: because art is doing, there is a technical level to
: art which can be judged. think about well-crafted furniture
: or well-drawn illustrations: these aren't normally considered
: art, but can become art depending on what the craftsman does.
: on the other hand, big ugly seams or poorly-drawn lines
: detract from the object.
True. But ya have to be qualified to judge art. I have an uncle who is
a closed-minded jerk who can expound for HOURS upon how Picasso was a
hack artist, simply because his most famous works don't look very
realistic. Now personally I can't get into Picasso's abstract material
and I don't think I'm qualified to judge it. But I *do* know that
Picasso was capable of mind-bending realism and abandoned it ... so I can
but assume he was after loftier game.
: but third: art is more than doing, it is also SAYING.
: the inkblot isn't art because nobody put any MEANING into it.
: art has meaning. the artist thinks and feels something
: when making art, and puts that something into the art.
Yes. Are you saying that the artist's intent is key here? That'd be my
contention.
: and fourth: art is meant to be ENJOYED. and I'm being
: technical, here: by "enjoyed", I mean the feeling of being
: lost in the art. engrossed.
Agreed as well. Art can excite either joy or rage. (Turning that
around: if you encounter someone's attempt at art and it really pisses
you off for being so lame, could THAT be the real level of art they were
intending? Man, these hypotheticals ...)
: those points combine; the MORE the poor quality of an
: artistic work distracts you from enjoying the art and
: being lost in the meaning of it, the LESS artistic value
: it has.
I'll buy that. But "poor quality" can be tough to measure. The problem
COULD be at your end too.
: this is why, paradoxically, the MORE you try to put
: meaning into art, the LESS enjoyable (and the less
: ARTISTIC) it becomes. an artist who TRIES to make a
: statment instead of letting the statement flow out
: naturally ruins the art, because all you see are those
: big ugly seams. also, the art admirer who TRIES to
: find a statement in art winds up not enjoying the
: art, because this creates a distinction between the
: art and the admirer and prevents becoming lost in
: the art.
I'll buy that. Now if you let a work unfold at its own pace, and don't
try to force it -- I see this most with literature -- the hidden levels
reveal themselves of their own accord and it's all the more enjoyable.
: there are really four ways to appreciate art:
: (1) from the outside, as a work of
: craftsmanship (noticing how few
: seams there are);
: (2) from the inside, as a work of
: art (becoming lost in the art);
: (3) from both sides, shifting from
: one viewpoint to the other;
: (4) from no side -- completely
: missing the point (not appreciating
: it at all.)
: where do Lou's ways fall on this scale?
: nowhere, really. each of the three ways Lou names
: borders on the subjective -- in otherwords, appreciating
: the art INSIDE ONE'S SKULL more than the art OUT THERE.
Well, to be fair, yours are subjective as well. Craftsmanship is in the
eye of the beholder.
: if you are TRUELY appreciating a work of art, you WON'T
: REALIZE IT UNTIL LATER.
!!! Permission to appreciate this line now? I think you hit the nail on
the head.
Peter Hipwell
In article <U0lQygiG...@en.com> ljdu...@en.com (Lou Duchez) writes:
>In article <51sda7$6...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>nen...@teleport.com (NENSLO) wrote:
>
>> I knew a guy once that used to hang out by these climbing rocks,
>> with a rope over his shoulder and a plastic hard-hat. When climbers would
>> come and strap on their harnesses and gear and things he'd clamber over
>> the benches and the trash can telling the world what a bunch of phonies
>> those other guys were. He never climbed the rocks himself mind you, he
>> just made fun of anybody who did. Said he didn't NEED to climb them to be
>> the greatest climber in the world.
>> If you put out records and tapes for YEARS and achieve little or
>> no recognition, BELIEVE ME FOLKS, there IS a reason, and it's very rarely
>> "victimization by unscrupulous inferiors." It MIGHT be because you're
>> too much of an incredible genius, but PROBABLY NOT.
>
>Excellent imagery, but weak analogy. The ability to climb rocks is
>a matter of measurable, basically objective criteria. The ability to
>produce music is not measurable through objective means -- SOUNDS can
>be measured, yes, but music requires subjective interpretation.
>
>Like a couple of pieces Zoogz was talking about recently: they sound
>like discordant mishmashes of voices, but Zoogz has revealed that
>there's mathematics and organization behind the scenes that can be hard
>to pick up on (I figgered there was something there all along, though).
>If you don't know to look for it, or can't see it at all, the problem's
>at YOUR end.
I prefer the Zappa-principle that if it sounds good to you, it's good,
and if it doesn't, it's bad. Who cares if it had careful organization
or if it is the result of a happy accident? Not the guy at this end.
David F Lynch
Pee Kitty (Pki...@cris.com) wrote:
: Who cares about being 'fair' to the artist's ideas, or trying to
: understand what they were trying to say? Shit, if we judged things on
: INTENT rather than RESULTS, we wouldn't have bulldada!
I'd go farther than that, and say that we wouldn't have ART. The origin
of all art is sensory input filtered through the perversions of a particular
human mind. In fact, I'd say that not only is Lou's third criterion (uh,
I deleted it) not the source of new ideas, it's not even possible. You
can't feel what the artist is feeling unless you ARE the artist. Remember,
the road to Pink Hell is paved with good intentions and platitudes. I
don't care if the artist has the greatest, most transcendent idea in all
of history to communicate through his work; if I see crap, it's crap,
and I'm not going to try and think about it the way the artist would.
--
*** Please e-mail me any followups because my newsfeed may not get them.
Thanks. -The Mgmt *** ALL HAIL BRAK!/Founder, First Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu (IGNORE ADDRESS IN HEADER) ObLineNoise:$aNi
Lou Duchez
In article <529j5f$7...@hermes.louisville.edu>,
dfly...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (David F Lynch) wrote:
> I'd go farther than that, and say that we wouldn't have ART. The origin
> of all art is sensory input filtered through the perversions of a particular
> human mind. In fact, I'd say that not only is Lou's third criterion (uh,
> I deleted it)
Trying to pick up on the artist's intent and mindset and only evaluating
the work after you think you've figured out what makes it tick.
> not the source of new ideas, it's not even possible. You
> can't feel what the artist is feeling unless you ARE the artist.
Not exactly, true. On the other hand, it's possible for artist
and viewer/listener/whateverer to have enough in common for concepts
to pass between them fairly reliably.
Take a look at this very sentence for evidence that such things are
possible.
> Remember,
> the road to Pink Hell is paved with good intentions and platitudes.
Intentional irony on your part? Maybe. Personally, I've never taken
that particular platitude seriously: good deeds go amiss sometimes,
it's true, but evil deeds tend to be more predictably bad. So I don't
carp on good intentions much.
> I
> don't care if the artist has the greatest, most transcendent idea in all
> of history to communicate through his work; if I see crap, it's crap,
> and I'm not going to try and think about it the way the artist would.
You just might be missing out on a new way of viewing things, is the
only possible shortcoming. I have a friend who interprets all my
music as mere "noise", be it ELP, Zoogz Rift, Joe Newman, or Jim Cser.
She likes country music, however, which is the most unoriginal,
derivative sound afoot. To her, everything else is crap and not
worth thinking about ... to me, she's actively keeping herself from
experiencing art that might excite her more than Garth Brooks ever could.
There's so many thoughts to think, it's a mistake to dismiss 'em before
trying 'em. That's how I see it.
jonno
Wasn't it J.Carl Black who said:
<<What the FUCK was that ? Hey you twerp, play me something *I* can
enjoy !>>
just after a brilliant AND beautiful piece of music (IMO)?
--
(-OO-) Then they attacked a town, a small town I'll admit, but
__ nevertheless a town of people. People who died...
(Plan 9 from outer space)
lurch
pet...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Peter Hipwell) wrote:
>lou wrote>
>>Like a couple of pieces Zoogz was talking about recently: they sound
>>like discordant mishmashes of voices, but Zoogz has revealed that
>>there's mathematics and organization behind the scenes that can be hard
>>to pick up on (I figgered there was something there all along, though).
>>If you don't know to look for it, or can't see it at all, the problem's
>>at YOUR end.
>I prefer the Zappa-principle that if it sounds good to you, it's good,
>and if it doesn't, it's bad. Who cares if it had careful organization
>or if it is the result of a happy accident? Not the guy at this end.
Right. Art? Art, schmart. What the fuck is art? Sure, the music and
visual art moguls shovel piping hot slop into the gaping maws of an
millions of unsophisticated and robotic victims of Pavlovian-style
programming and publicity, and yeah, lots of talented performers end
up barking "Attention K-mart shoppers..." over P.A. systems or humpin'
cheap parts at Auto Barn and living on Beefaroni and generic saltines
while Alanus Morrisette and Janet Jackson and semi-literate street
scuz criminal rappers fly around getting nose jobs in their private
747's, but what the fuck does that prove? That Americans are stupid?
Maybe. That what these over-hyped caterwauling hags and endocrine
disasters do is not art? That for something to be art, the person
doing it has to be broke? There's no simple or uniform way way to
define what's art and what isn't. It's defined in the eye and in the
admittedly oft-addled mind of the beholder, and by extension, as the
esentially useless shit that beholder is willing to pay to own.
Like it or not. If nodody'll buy it, there's no fucking way you can
prove it's art. But put a crucifix in a jug of piss and take a picture
of it and sell a whole bunch of copies and everybody will call you a
genius and invite you to all the best parties and you can show up
looking really stupid in a suit and eat little bitty bits of shit on
crackers and drink champagne and feel really cool at least for a
little while until you croak from the disease you got sleeping with
the tastemakers and the guys from fashion control and the arbiters of
art in L.A. or the big apple.
Yeah. It sucks. What else is new? What the fuck can anybody do about
it? Nothin', that's what.
Ah, fuck it.
lurch
lurch
>pet...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Peter Hipwell) wrote:
>>lou wrote>
>>>Like a couple of pieces Zoogz was talking about recently: they sound
>>>like discordant mishmashes of voices, but Zoogz has revealed that
>>>there's mathematics and organization behind the scenes that can be hard
>>>to pick up on (I figgered there was something there all along, though).
>>>If you don't know to look for it, or can't see it at all, the problem's
>>>at YOUR end.
>>I prefer the Zappa-principle that if it sounds good to you, it's good,
>>and if it doesn't, it's bad. Who cares if it had careful organization
>>or if it is the result of a happy accident? Not the guy at this end.
Right. Art? Art, schmart. What the fuck is art? Sure, the music and
visual art moguls shovel piping hot slop into the gaping maws of
millions of unsophisticated and robotic victims of Pavlovian-style
programming and publicity, and yeah, lots of talented performers end
up barking "Attention K-mart shoppers..." over P.A. systems or humpin'
cheap parts at Auto Barn and living on Beefaroni and generic saltines
while Alanus Morrisette and Janet Jackson and semi-literate street
scuz criminal rappers fly around getting nose jobs in their private
747's, but what the fuck does that prove? That Americans are stupid?
Maybe. That what these over-hyped caterwauling hags and endocrine
disasters do is not art? That for something to be art, the person
doing it has to be broke? There's no simple or uniform way to
jonno
lurch, in a fit of anger, wrote, and I called a few people to me screen
to read :
-Right. Art? Art, schmart. What the fuck is art? Sure, the music and
-visual art moguls shovel piping hot slop into the gaping maws of
-millions of unsophisticated and robotic victims of Pavlovian-style
-programming and publicity, and yeah, lots of talented performers end
-up barking "Attention K-mart shoppers..." over P.A. systems or humpin'
-cheap parts at Auto Barn and living on Beefaroni and generic saltines
-while Alanus Morrisette and Janet Jackson and semi-literate street
-scuz criminal rappers fly around getting nose jobs in their private
-747's, but what the fuck does that prove? That Americans are stupid?
-Maybe. That what these over-hyped caterwauling hags and endocrine
-disasters do is not art? That for something to be art, the person
-doing it has to be broke? There's no simple or uniform way to
-define what's art and what isn't. It's defined in the eye and in the
-admittedly oft-addled mind of the beholder, and by extension, as the
-esentially useless shit that beholder is willing to pay to own.
-Like it or not. If nodody'll buy it, there's no fucking way you can
-prove it's art. But put a crucifix in a jug of piss and take a picture
-of it and sell a whole bunch of copies and everybody will call you a
-genius and invite you to all the best parties and you can show up
-looking really stupid in a suit and eat little bitty bits of shit on
-crackers and drink champagne and feel really cool at least for a
-little while until you croak from the disease you got sleeping with
-the tastemakers and the guys from fashion control and the arbiters of
-art in L.A. or the big apple.
-Yeah. It sucks. What else is new? What the fuck can anybody do about
-it? Nothin', that's what.-
-Ah, fuck it.
-lurch
Wow ! pant...pant...
Ever considered a serious carreer spewing this stuff ?
Or do you prefer a job a K-mart :) ?
Lou Duchez
Pee Kitty <Pki...@cris.com> wrote:
: Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) spewed forth:
: > The second approach seems to be fairly popular, but from my perspective
: > it rather misses the point of art. If all that matters is what YOU put
: > into it and not what the artist intended, there's no difference between a
: > Rorschach ink blot and that Seurat painting of the woman with the big butt.
: > Or worse, no difference between a 1970s big-eyed kitten and the Seurat
: > fat-ass.
: EXACTLY why it's the best approach.
: Who cares about being 'fair' to the artist's ideas, or trying to
: understand what they were trying to say? Shit, if we judged things on
: INTENT rather than RESULTS, we wouldn't have bulldada!
You can get to the bulldada stage after you've given Ed Wood as fair a
hearing as you can, and still realize it's bulldada.
<ANALOGY>
You can pick up a new word processor program, and you can do three things
with it:
1) Instantly dismiss it because it doesn't work like the old program.
2) Learn how to use only the features you had in the old program.
3) Learn how to use the new program on its own terms.
The first two are unnecessarily self-limiting. The third one will allow
you to use the new package to its best potential. Yes, it means more
work ... but that third one runs the risk of giving you an influx of new
ideas and capabilities.
</ANALOGY>
As for being fair to the ARTIST ... it really amounts to being fair to
YOURSELF. Why filter everything ya see so it falls into the paradigms you
already understand all too well?
: If an ink blot makes me laugh, and a 54-Years-In-The-Making,
: Artist-Wrenched-His-Guts-Out-And-Put-Them-On-The-Screen cinema classic
: makes me laugh just as hard, then the two are equally good at making me
: laugh, and that is how they shall be judged.
Humor operates differently from, say, most poetry. Humor depends on the
initial impact most of the time, and analysis will surely kill a joke.
: Hell, why bother looking at things in ANY OTHER WAY than how they
: ultimately affect YOU? (Except as a nice change of pace, of course;
: everyone should swap worldviews every so often.)
VERY often, if ya ask me. Try out new ways of thinking. See if you can
really figure out where those [insert group of people you don't like] are
coming from.
: Call me a solipsist
What would be the point?
: but
: this is MY WORLD and ye shall be judged by how you entertain ME. Start
: dancin', boys...
Except that you don't MAKE the world. There's other stuff out there, and
wouldn't it be a good idea to figure out how some of it works?
Jim Vandewalker
In article <324A44...@vortex.biol.ruu.nl>, jonno
<jo...@vortex.biol.ruu.nl> wrote:
> -Like it or not. If nodody'll buy it, there's no fucking way you can
> -prove it's art. But put a crucifix in a jug of piss and take a picture
> -of it and sell a whole bunch of copies and everybody will call you a
> -genius
I've heard about the Mapplethorpe stuff over and over again, and I have
one question: how can you tell from a black and white photograph that it's
a container of urine?
--
Jim the Prophet
Licensed SubGenius Preacher
Pete Spomer
jonno wrote:
> Wow ! pant...pant...
>
> Ever considered a serious carreer spewing this stuff ?
>
> Or do you prefer a job a K-mart :) ?
I hope you're not trying to insult K-mart here! K-mart is a fine
institution of discount purchasing, and I'm proud to have worked with
some of the finest grumpy teenagers and chain-smoking middle-aged
housewives in all of retaildom. Ah, the magic of spending endless hours
with a pricing gun in hand, marking wallpaper down 50%! The joy of
participating in the mad chase of a shoplifter when the Secret Code was
announced! The mystical rapture of picking up the intercom and
announcing in my deep, well-modulated voice "Attention K-mart
shoppers..."! Oh, will we ever recapture those moments of our youth,
when we raced forklifts around the parking lot and wore our name-tags
upside down?
Pete
----------
The opinions expressed here are not those of anyone, including myself.
No gerbils were harmed in the making of this message. Your mileage may
vary. Do not send unsolicited advertisements to this address.
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
In article <jimvan-2609...@tpafl2-3.gate.net>, jim...@gate.net
(Jim Vandewalker) wrote:
|I've heard about the Mapplethorpe stuff over and over again, and I have
|one question: how can you tell from a black and white photograph that it's
|a container of urine?
That's easy--push Robert Mapplethorpe out of the way, then hand a camera
with freshly loaded color film to Andres Serrano, and have him take the
photo.
Mapplethorpe's claim to fame was taking homoerotic pictures of leather
daddies and fetishists.
Keep your art controversies straight, son.
P-Lil, Seattle SubGenius Mafia
--
Popess Lilith von Fraumench, Sadomasticist At Large
The Church of the Skullfarmer's Daughter
In Rapt Communion With The Dobbshead, Inc.
Fools' Press * 1202 E. Pike St., #769 * Seattle, WA 98122-3934
mitc...@interserv.com * http://www.rlabs.com/utopium/
Spiting the Gods since 1989
Peter Hipwell
In article <5250ej$9...@en.com> ljdu...@en.com (Lou Duchez) writes:
>NENSLO <nen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>: Yeah, yeah I know, like that "artist" they just made a movie about
>: whose "paintings" look like, and are, a bunch of broken crockery and trash
>: stuck on a board with paint thrown at it. If I can't see how great that
>: is it's because I'm too dumb or something.
>: The fact that most people would rather just see a picture of
>: something or listen to a song proves we are all too "something" to
>: understand true greatness. I am just so stupid I think shit from a big
>: dog and shit from a little dog are equally appealing as snack food.
>
>You're entitled to your opinions, and the following is honest-to-"Bob" a
>more general discussion of art than anything.
>
>
>1) Encounter work, and immediately embrace or dismiss it after a
> superficial examination.
>
>2) Encounter work, and interpret it in whatever way lends it the greatest
> appeal to you personally.
>
>3) Encounter work, and try to work with it until you understand what makes
> it tick and what the artist's intent was, and only then decide if has
> any value.
>
Approach art, pshaw. Encounter LIFE. Your existence is a material
surface on which SCRAWL-STROKES enscribe a pattern of
SLACK-OCCURRENCE. To pick apart the mind of the artist is to pick
apart the MIND OF GOD: there is no "art" or "nature" for SLACK, there
is only the SCRAWL-STROKE which may be smeared freely across any
OCCURRENT that is encountered.
If the emitted-behaviour of human-organisms is to be classified to
segregate "art" from the "humdrum"; if emitted-"art"-behaviour is
deliberately constructed so as to superficially enfold a message
intended to be decoded: there is always above/beyond the trite and
obvious -- LOST INTERNAL CONTINENTS of unintended message as for
all-occurrents all-natures available to the mythologizer (as Barthes
as wrestling interpretant demonstration to much-maligned decoding
approach of text:symbol system) in magnetic force line VECTOR-BREAKER
reversed poles of SLACK will demonstate, redefining into "art" the
"humdrum" and figure/ground reversing "humdrum" to ART as
person-experience SCRAWL-STOKE as erupting volcano to EXIST as life to
SLACK in-all appreciation with-you-be-love of NON-TYPED SCRAWLS.
>The second approach seems to be fairly popular, but from my perspective
>it rather misses the point of art. If all that matters is what YOU put
>into it and not what the artist intended, there's no difference between a
>Rorschach ink blot and that Seurat painting of the woman with the big butt.
>Or worse, no difference between a 1970s big-eyed kitten and the Seurat
>fat-ass.
>
This is correct. A function of historic forces only. Canonical
train-upment of 'preciation limiting feedback self-devouring
function out-puthers INDEX-DOCUMENTATION of soc-CONFRAME.
I like 70's big-eyed kitten. Cute.
"If the Ju-Ju hadn't meant us to eat people
He wouldn't have made us of FLESH."
-- The Reluctant Cannibal, Flanders and Swann
Boil That
>
>I've heard about the Mapplethorpe stuff over and over again, and I have
>one question: how can you tell from a black and white photograph that
it's
>a container of urine?
You gotcher contro-verhsul moderne art confused, boy --- Serrano's "Piss
Christ" is one thing, Mapplethorpe's B&W studies quite another kettle of
--- er, whatever.
TarlaStar(a.r.s. critic)
jim...@gate.net (Jim Vandewalker) wrote:
>In article <324A44...@vortex.biol.ruu.nl>, jonno
><jo...@vortex.biol.ruu.nl> wrote:
>> -Like it or not. If nodody'll buy it, there's no fucking way you can
>> -prove it's art. But put a crucifix in a jug of piss and take a picture
>> -of it and sell a whole bunch of copies and everybody will call you a
>> -genius
>I've heard about the Mapplethorpe stuff over and over again, and I have
>one question: how can you tell from a black and white photograph that it's
>a container of urine?
I think you have to lick the picture.
Tarla
I'd just prefer
to ASSUME
Pee Kitty
Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) spewed forth:
> Pee Kitty <Pki...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> : Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) spewed forth:
>
> : > The second approach seems to be fairly popular, but from my perspective
> : > it rather misses the point of art. If all that matters is what YOU put
> : > into it and not what the artist intended, there's no difference between a
> : > Rorschach ink blot and that Seurat painting of the woman with the big butt.
> : > Or worse, no difference between a 1970s big-eyed kitten and the Seurat
> : > fat-ass.
>
> : EXACTLY why it's the best approach.
>
> : Who cares about being 'fair' to the artist's ideas, or trying to
> : understand what they were trying to say? Shit, if we judged things on
> : INTENT rather than RESULTS, we wouldn't have bulldada!
>
> You can get to the bulldada stage after you've given Ed Wood as fair a
> hearing as you can, and still realize it's bulldada.
Or I can get to the bulldada first and give him a fair heiring later, when
I've decided that what I just said is TOTALLY wrong and swap my mind out
for another one. I haven't done that yet, so I'm still right and you're
wrong. When I end up switching, I'll join you...then WE'LL be right and
I'LL be wrong...
> <ANALOGY>
Bad one. (Sorry.) A word processor is judged on its ease of use and
functions enstuph. Art is judged on the feelings and thoughts it evokes in
you. If ALL we EVER did with our WP programs was load them, stare at the
opening screen, then shut them down, your analogy would be 100% right.
> </ANALOGY>
> As for being fair to the ARTIST ... it really amounts to being fair to
> YOURSELF. Why filter everything ya see so it falls into the paradigms you
> already understand all too well?
What does that have to do with what I said?
I said: Judge art by how it affects you.
That's got nothing to do with filters...it has to do with gut reaction,
and you can't change or filter your gut reaction. Though if you bother,
you can later go on to find out more about the artist and his works
enstuph, then that'll alter your mind a little bit and might change your
later reactions. But that's seeking knowledge, and really has very little
to do with your initial reaction to a work of 'art'.
> : If an ink blot makes me laugh, and a 54-Years-In-The-Making,
> : Artist-Wrenched-His-Guts-Out-And-Put-Them-On-The-Screen cinema classic
> : makes me laugh just as hard, then the two are equally good at making me
> : laugh, and that is how they shall be judged.
>
> Humor operates differently from, say, most poetry. Humor depends on the
> initial impact most of the time, and analysis will surely kill a joke.
Poetry depends on the initial impact for me, and analysis kills ANYTHING I
might've gotten out of it. I do, however, like to analyze jokes...I've
spent HOURS analyzing just WHY a certain joke is funny, and I still found
it funny as hell. (Difrent strokes for difrent folks.)
> : Hell, why bother looking at things in ANY OTHER WAY than how they
> : ultimately affect YOU? (Except as a nice change of pace, of course;
> : everyone should swap worldviews every so often.)
>
> VERY often, if ya ask me. Try out new ways of thinking. See if you can
> really figure out where those [insert group of people you don't like] are
> coming from.
Fuck that...JOIN THEM!
> : Call me a solipsist
>
> What would be the point?
To prove thatcha took a philosophy class in college.
I didn't. I just know the definition because it's used as an example of a
mental disadvantage in the GURPS roleplaying system..."Solipsist (-10
points): You can't really see anyone but yourself as REAL, even if you
enjoy the company of others. You have a -3 penalty when using or resisting
Fast-Talk or any social skill."
> : this is MY WORLD and ye shall be judged by how you entertain ME. Start
> : dancin', boys...
>
> Except that you don't MAKE the world. There's other stuff out there, and
> wouldn't it be a good idea to figure out how some of it works?
Yes I do. It's just a big dream of mine...y'all are nothing but figments
of my subconscious.
PS: You don't need to know how something works if you know HOW TO BREAK
IT.
Lou Duchez
Pee Kitty <Pki...@cris.com> wrote:
: Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) spewed forth:
: > <ANALOGY>
: Bad one. (Sorry.) A word processor is judged on its ease of use and
: functions enstuph. Art is judged on the feelings and thoughts it evokes in
: you. If ALL we EVER did with our WP programs was load them, stare at the
: opening screen, then shut them down, your analogy would be 100% right.
Ah, but is the determination of usefulness something you can just look at
the numbers for? Is the one with the most features the best one for you?
MSWord has a bunch of goofy features I'll never use, so it's an inferior
word processor (FOR MY PURPOSES AND MOST OTHER SANE PEOPLES') to
Geowrite. The number of functions would correlate to something like
craftsmanship of the artist, I would think, but could not serve as a
measure of artistic content.
As for ease of use ... NOW we're getting to the meat of the marrow. Any
time you change word processors, the new one is going to seem completely
stupid and counterintuitive. For those of us who grew up under Word
Perfect, for example, the use of function key combos is completely
instinctive, and dumb-ass pull-down menus are a waste of good
keystrokin'. Whereas non WP folks will scratch their heads and wonder
why the hell [F3] is the "Help" button. But if you're willing to make
the leap into the new word processor, to use it on its terms, you may
walk away with new insight and abilities.
And the same goes for art, IMHO. If it seems completely stupid, it might
actually contain material you just don't yet know how to handle. Or it
might not. But if all you're going by is initial gut reactions, you'll
probably never find out.
: > As for being fair to the ARTIST ... it really amounts to being fair to
: > YOURSELF. Why filter everything ya see so it falls into the paradigms you
: > already understand all too well?
: What does that have to do with what I said?
: I said: Judge art by how it affects you.
: That's got nothing to do with filters...it has to do with gut reaction,
: and you can't change or filter your gut reaction.
Not all of art has to do with gut reactions. Some art, yes; but other
kinds of art are a slower meal to digest. I see it with music a great
deal. The music I like best, the works and artists I stick with for the
longest periods, are the ones that sounded like noise to me at first.
"Tarkus" by ELP sat unlistened to on my shelf for *years* because it
sounded like a bunch of crap the first time I heard it. But when I forced
myself to reexamine it, I found there were levels of structure and
complexity I hadn't intuited the first time 'round, and I listen to it
fairly often now. Meanwhile, I can't abide "Lucky Man" anymore, much as I
liked it at first: I digested it all immediately.
: Poetry depends on the initial impact for me, and analysis kills ANYTHING I
: might've gotten out of it.
I'll agree, really good poetry tends to slap you in the face immediately
with passion and power. Then there's the poetry that some folks will ooh
and ahh over, where you admire the intricacies like it was a watch ...
that's not my cuppa joe either, but it's a legitimate perspective.
Comparing Tarla's poetry to Nobel laureate Richard Wilbur, for example:
Tarla's will leave you dumbstruck from the directness, whereas Wilbur's
won't (from what little I've seen), though he is probably a better
craftsman. I'll take the former any day.
: I do, however, like to analyze jokes...I've
: spent HOURS analyzing just WHY a certain joke is funny, and I still found
: it funny as hell. (Difrent strokes for difrent folks.)
Me too, sometimes.
: > : Call me a solipsist
: >
: > What would be the point?
: To prove thatcha took a philosophy class in college.
Well, I never did ... but since you aren't presupposing that no one else
exists, I guess you'd instead be an egocentrist. I mean that in a good
way ...
: I didn't. I just know the definition because it's used as an example of a
: mental disadvantage in the GURPS roleplaying system..."Solipsist (-10
: points): You can't really see anyone but yourself as REAL, even if you
: enjoy the company of others. You have a -3 penalty when using or resisting
: Fast-Talk or any social skill."
See, that's your problem. I use the Traveler game system to codify
life.
- Lou the Ex-Other
Lou Duchez
In article <DyEEM...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
pet...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Peter Hipwell) wrote:
> >The second approach seems to be fairly popular, but from my perspective
> >it rather misses the point of art. If all that matters is what YOU put
> >into it and not what the artist intended, there's no difference between a
> >Rorschach ink blot and that Seurat painting of the woman with the big butt.
> >Or worse, no difference between a 1970s big-eyed kitten and the Seurat
> >fat-ass.
> This is correct. A function of historic forces only. Canonical
> train-upment of 'preciation limiting feedback self-devouring
> function out-puthers INDEX-DOCUMENTATION of soc-CONFRAME.
Indeed, you have a valid point: just because a bunch of people say it's
great art, doesn't MEAN it's great art. However, it suggests that there
may be something of value in there. It's exactly the same as any other
idea out there: you have to evaluate it yourself.
I can't grok Picasso or most classical music, but I am content to say
that it's a shortcoming of mine as opposted to a shortcoming of the
work. Not that it worries me much to be shallow as these things go ...
and somehow, that seems to be the answer that works best for me.
> I like 70's big-eyed kitten. Cute.
The Duchez clan had such a painting. Now my sister has such a kitten.
Dumb as a box of rocks.
David F Lynch
Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) wrote:
: Not all of art has to do with gut reactions. Some art, yes; but other
: kinds of art are a slower meal to digest. I see it with music a great
: deal. The music I like best, the works and artists I stick with for the
: longest periods, are the ones that sounded like noise to me at first.
: "Tarkus" by ELP sat unlistened to on my shelf for *years* because it
: sounded like a bunch of crap the first time I heard it. But when I forced
: myself to reexamine it, I found there were levels of structure and
: complexity I hadn't intuited the first time 'round, and I listen to it
: fairly often now. Meanwhile, I can't abide "Lucky Man" anymore, much as I
: liked it at first: I digested it all immediately.
Gut reaction doesn't always mean FIRST reaction. I HATED Per Un Amico by
PFM when I first heard it, but now after giving it more listens it's one
of my favorite albums. Same with Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart.
However, I keep listening to Brain Salad Surgery every few months, trying
my hardest to give it a chance, but every time I hear fairly shallow
overly showy, well, wanking. But even if the full glory of the music
doesn't smack you in the face on first listen, there's got to be SOMETHING
in the initial listen, some impression it can make, that'll get you coming
back for more. I didn't comprehend a tenth of Apostrophe the first time
I heard it, but that lick at the beginning of St. Alphonzo's Pancake
Breakfast on marimba totally wowed me, and pretty much made me the Zappa
freak I am today.
: Well, I never did ... but since you aren't presupposing that no one else
: exists, I guess you'd instead be an egocentrist. I mean that in a good
: way ...
I took a philosophy class in college, but they never told me about Solipsism
in it. But I sitll know what it is.
: See, that's your problem. I use the Traveler game system to codify
: life.
See, there you both go! I use my brain, my experiences, and the advice
of others to codify life.
Lou Duchez
David F Lynch <dfly...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
: Gut reaction doesn't always mean FIRST reaction. I HATED Per Un Amico by
: PFM when I first heard it, but now after giving it more listens it's one
: of my favorite albums. Same with Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart.
: However, I keep listening to Brain Salad Surgery every few months, trying
: my hardest to give it a chance, but every time I hear fairly shallow
: overly showy, well, wanking.
I guess I'll agree with that ... I don't listen to it much anymore
because, like a box of Lucky Charms, its contents seem to have settled in
shipping and there's less in there than I thought. Though to be fair,
"Toccata" *is* faithful to the original Ginastera version, Dobbs help us.
But yes, I'd agree: art *does* need to involve some sort of deeper
emotional response, at least in me.
: But even if the full glory of the music
: doesn't smack you in the face on first listen, there's got to be SOMETHING
: in the initial listen, some impression it can make, that'll get you coming
: back for more.
Welllll ... if you're a noted tightwad like me, all you need sometimes is
to *want* to retry something just so ya don't feel like you've wasted
your money.
: : See, that's your problem. I use the Traveler game system to codify
: : life.
: See, there you both go! I use my brain, my experiences, and the advice
: of others to codify life.
I don't trust any school of philosophy that uses dice other than the
six-sided variety, or that doesn't use any dice at all.
David F Lynch
Lou Duchez (ljdu...@en.com) wrote:
:
: I guess I'll agree with that ... I don't listen to it much anymore
: shipping and there's less in there than I thought. Though to be fair,
: "Toccata" *is* faithful to the original Ginastera version, Dobbs help us.
Tocatta's the one track I still think is kind of neat. And it DID get
me turned on to Ginastera.
: Welllll ... if you're a noted tightwad like me, all you need sometimes is
: to *want* to retry something just so ya don't feel like you've wasted
: your money.
Tightwad... heh.. that's real funny.. you have to be one of the most generous
people I know. Well, I've had CDs that I positively was UNABLE to listen
to all the way through; money wasted or not, I just can't bear to listen to
the damn things.
: I don't trust any school of philosophy that uses dice other than the
: six-sided variety, or that doesn't use any dice at all.
I don't have any dice, but I do have a Black Thing, and that makes up for
it.
TarlaStar(a.r.s. critic)
dfly...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (David F Lynch) wrote:
>See, there you both go! I use my brain, my experiences, and the advice
>of others to codify life.
Lynch, the next time I'm in Louisville, I'm taking you to lunch. I
don't care if you smell badly or have a strange haircut. I will brook
no refusals. You've been decidedly thoughtful lately. You will pay
with pleasure.
Tarla
that is
all.
Lou Duchez
: : Welllll ... if you're a noted tightwad like me, all you need sometimes is
: : to *want* to retry something just so ya don't feel like you've wasted
: : your money.
: Tightwad... heh.. that's real funny.. you have to be one of the most generous
: people I know.
Actually, there's not much conflict there to resolve.
<PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY>
Like most folks (maybe), I want my stay on this Planet of Clocks to be
productive. I gotta feel like I've done something useful with my life.
The closest I can come up with for "useful" is to make the world better
for my passing. So it's either make a positive difference in whatever
ways I can -- which sometimes involves wealth redistribution -- or be a
bitter little troll OR immerse myself in complete irrelevance so I don't
ever have to notice that I'm pissing my life away. Thus, I'll be more
willing to buy a tape for someone else than I will for myself ... but if
I buy it for myself, then by DAMN I had better get my money's worth out
of it.
Really, it's a sickness. I just wish it were more contagious.
</PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY>
Let the mockery begin!
: : I don't trust any school of philosophy that uses dice other than the
: : six-sided variety, or that doesn't use any dice at all.
: I don't have any dice, but I do have a Black Thing, and that makes up for
: it.
The goblins gonna gitchoo if ya don't watch out!
Brrr ... just had a James Whitcomb Riley flashback.
Peter Hipwell
>
>Humor operates differently from, say, most poetry. Humor depends on the
>initial impact most of the time, and analysis will surely kill a joke.
>
Spalsyick humour, perhaps, works on initial impact. That was meant to
be slapstick, but I like it better that way. There again, a custard
pie fight needs more than one pie. So it can't just be the initial
impact. There are lots and lots of impacts, and all of them are pretty
funny. Perhaps the theory needs reworking. There again, pratfalls rely
pretty much on an initial impact. I don't think they're funny
though. Laurel and Hardy, that's funny. The tormentous accumulation of
chemical energy discharged in blinding flashes. Especially when Ollie
slips on the bar of soap and goes into that really deep puddle. That's
pretty good. Happens every time. Or Harold Lloyd in "Safety Last" with
the clock face peeling back. I don't think it needs analysis, it's
just pretty funny. Comedy of embarrassment. Character interaction over
course of the routinized exchange expectation frustration. Steptoe and
Son. They knew how to write it back then. The second film is pretty
good, where they're pretending that Wilfrid Bramble is dead to collect
the insurance money and all the relatives and mates come over for the
wake and get pissed up. Fantastic stuff.
Lou Duchez
Peter Hipwell <pet...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
: >Humor operates differently from, say, most poetry. Humor depends on the
: >initial impact most of the time, and analysis will surely kill a joke.
: Spalsyick humour, perhaps, works on initial impact. That was meant to
: be slapstick, but I like it better that way. There again, a custard
: pie fight needs more than one pie. So it can't just be the initial
: impact. There are lots and lots of impacts, and all of them are pretty
: funny. Perhaps the theory needs reworking.
As usual, you're right.
Ray Dittmeier
My friend pet...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Peter Hipwell) translated from the
original Sanskrit text:
>In article <52dns1$l...@en.com> ljdu...@en.com (Lou Duchez) writes:
>>
>>Humor operates differently from, say, most poetry. Humor depends on the
>>initial impact most of the time, and analysis will surely kill a joke.
>>
>Spalsyick humour, perhaps, works on initial impact. That was meant to
>be slapstick, but I like it better that way. There again, a custard
>pie fight needs more than one pie. So it can't just be the initial
>impact. There are lots and lots of impacts, and all of them are pretty
>funny.
Maybe, but each one is less funny than the one before it unless you
"up the ante" and make each one just a little more outrageous. Start
the pie fight and go with it for a four or five pies. Then have some
innocent person walk in and take a pie in the face. Then the landlord
walks in and gets one. Then a cop. Once you've worked your way up to
having the pope entering and getting hit, then turning around and
crunching a pie into Richard Simmons' face, it's all downhill.
--
I can't marry her; she's my friend!
-- Simba, "The Lion King"