Do objective standards exist to measure art? (was: Re: TITANIC's length--Yet another clunker from Cameron)
LIBERATOR
Do yourself a favor, throw all your hoopla crudetials out the window, cuz thats
what they are good for, NOTHING.
If you wanna be a master artist, or just a good artist, get to know yourself. You
could have the most elegant impressive PHD's in the world, but it dont mean didly
if you cant express you.
And if you are in touch with yourself, you wont need any training to express
yourself, this is the gift of self-knowing. Your being will be immediately
transcendant to the outter world, of which you want your soul apparent.
Now get with the program stupid. Heheheh.
Paul Oberlander
Leave it to some moron to ignore everything important in this person's
post and show their utter ignorance in an utterly worthless rant.
Sounds like this mattoid has a problem with people who attempt to learn
anything. And it's "credentials" you brain-dead boob. Art that is
self-referencing (as in "get to know yourself") is doomed to be the
shallow fare that comes out of rock bands on there 15th album when all
they can sing about is how hard it is to be "on the road" or directors
who have gotten to the place that all they can do is make movies about
Hollywood or making movies.
Paul
--
mailto:obr...@earthlink.net
"The greater the diameter of your knowledge, the
greater the circumference of your ignorance..."
Ben Syverson
LIBERATOR <LIBBE...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Do yourself a favor, throw all your hoopla crudetials out the window,
cuz thats
> what they are good for, NOTHING.
> Now get with the program stupid. Heheheh.
Hey LIBERATOR. I get the feeling that you're about 13 years old, with a
lot of rage, probably indirectly aimed at your parents. Usenet is not
appropriate psychotherapy, as it mostly breeds more rage, and can not help
you sort out any problems. I'd advise you to talk to your school counselor
and see if they have a therapist there that you can talk to, or whether
they can make a referral. Then talk to your parents and explain your
problem. Make sure you don't go to a quack who tells you that you have
ADD, need Prozac, need Ritalin, etc. Psychotherapists who rely on drugs
and pop psychology are not there to help you.
If you can't bring yourself to do this, how about keeping your rantings to
alt.music.rush, ok? You're deliberately asking to be flamed in your
message, and crossposted to this many newsgroups, you must have a strong
motive for pain.
later,
--
Please remove the "8"s in my email address.
- ben syverson
- be...@8eden.com
TODD J PIERCE
Hey Liberator,
Sounds like you don't like Ph.D.s cause you don't have one. Go get one
and then you might be in some position to know if they're valuable or not.
> Do yourself a favor, throw all your hoopla crudetials out the window, cuz thats
> what they are good for, NOTHING.
> And if you are in touch with yourself, you wont need any training to express
Christy
At Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:17:34 -0600, in article
> Do yourself a favor, throw all your hoopla crudetials out the window, cuz thats
> what they are good for, NOTHING.
>
> could have the most elegant impressive PHD's in the world, but it dont mean didly
> if you cant express you.
No I don't want to be a master artist. Mistress perhaps:-) but that's a
nother story.
Actually my main goal as an artist is to share stuff that is inside of me
with others (ideas, emotions, experiences). I have an urge to express
the stuff that is in me. I believe that the better I know how to use the
tools of art, the better I can express myself in a way that other people
can understand.
Splattering cans of paint on the padded wall of my asylum cell might make
me feel good if that was my artistic goal. If I wanted to splatter paint
on the wall or canvas in a way that other people might get something out
of, understand, be stimulated by, etc, then it helps tremendously to
understand the most effective ways to do that communication, the common
conventions of the art form and also the common pitfalls and mistakes to
avoid, or to correct in the process of revision.
I don't have a PHD. I simply described some of the training and
experience that I had in various areas of art to give folks an idea of
where my perspective came from.
> And if you are in touch with yourself, you wont need any training to express
> yourself, this is the gift of self-knowing. Your being will be immediately
> transcendant to the outter world, of which you want your soul apparent.
I feel pretty in touch with myself and most people I know tell me that
I'm pretty good at expressing myself. Does that mean I'm perfect in my
technique at epxressing myself? Does that mean that there is nothing
that I can learn by studying how other artists might have expressed their
ideas, especially if they have expressed related ideas. Are you saying
that I should be so self centered, egostistical, self absorbed, and
arrogant that there is nothing valuable to me in the works of others?
Personally I want to become the best artist that I can be. That requires
that I take my soul and render it to the outside world in a way that they
can understand. Not even Motzart could do that without some formal
training. Someone had to teach him how to play the piano for example.
I'm sure he was aware of other composers work if for nothing else to
understand the limitations of their work so he could do better.
> Now get with the program stupid. Heheheh.
Huh huh uhuh huh.. Ad hominum attacks are cool.. huh huh
yeah yeah yeah.. They rule!
Shutup Beavis! You suck! This guy told us to get with the program.
Yeah yeah.. it's on TV. Go watch MTV.... huh huh huh uhuh.
huh huh uhuh.. LIBERATOR must be a cool band or something..
yeah I think "Now get with the program stupid. Heheheh" must be the
lyrics from one of their songs... yeah yeah yeah.
:-)
I figured this might be a more effective communication technique for this
individual...
Cheers
--
Christy
-- Replace nospam with best in order to reply
David P. Hayes
Dealing specifically with the following passage as it relates to film:
> Beethoven was derided by the critics of his time, who were zealots of
> that day's common practice. Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" was booed
> at its first performance. The critic's paradigms had to expand before
> they could appreciate new art. Eventually such acts of brilliance force
> the rule books to be rewritten.
And:
> IMHO, this is the highest achievement that a work of art can reach. When
> it defines a new paradigm and transcends the rules, formulas, structures
> that make up the craft of that art form.
And:
> The[re are] rules and structures and theories [that] also provide a set of
tools and
> guideposts that aid an artist in creating a work. At any given time they
> represent the norms by which art is critiqued.
>
> The problem is that such things are theories and not fact. They are
> approximations of the truth-- mere silhouettes of the ineffable beauty
> that springs forth from the font of human creativity.
Those interested in this subject might want to find an essay by Pauline Kael
entitled "Circles and Squares," reprinted in her anthology "I Lost It at the
Movies" and in some multi-author anthologies. She demolished the "auteur"
theory for reasons similar to the bad, concrete-bound definitions that led
to the early criticism of Beethoven, Chopin, etc. However, Kael herself has
a problem seeing outside the parameters of various genres, and this was
brilliantly elucidated in a critique of Kael's essay that appeared in a
movie trade paper (perhaps The Exhibitor or the Motion Picture Herald) in
1968. (If anyone has better information on that response, please post it
here.
--
David Hayes
A longer excerpt from Christy's article follows:
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:44:30 -0800
> From: Christy <ka...@nospam.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.video.laserdisc, rec.arts.movies.tech,
> alt.movies.visual-effects, alt.movies.spielberg, alt.video.dvd
> Subject: Do objective standards exist to measure art? (was: Re: TITANIC's
length--Yet another clunker from Cameron)
>
> Fiction and Screenplay writing also have a body of common practice. I
> don't find it to be as monolithic and formally agreed upon as there is
> for classical music.
>
> Fiction and screenplays offers paradigms such as the three act structure
> with plot points at the end of acts 1 and 2. Screenplays adhere to this
> form mure tightly than books.
>
> A richer but similar paradigm is Joseph Campbel's Heroric Journey which
> identifies the stages of a hero's journey in myth with various Jungian
> archetypes.
>
> This is but one of many diverse schools of literary analysis. It turns
> out to be one that is used often by screenwriters because it makes it
> easier to hook a viewer into their story.
>
> The Star Wars Trilogy, despite its scientific absurdities, weak acting in
> parts, cutsy ewoks, and plot contrivances is brilliant in how it tugs on
> human pyschological archetypes to make its story resonate strongly in the
> viewers.
>
> These bodies of common practice are not accidental. If you look at them
> closely, they relate to the pyschology of the human mind. Sonata form
> reflects a pattern of repetion, development and building towards a climax
> that is ultimately satasfying to the human mind. I find that the great
> works of classical music play out a sort of implied hero's journey.
>
> Stories work because they play on basic archetypes and patterns that
> occur in the human mind.
>
> These bodies of common practice try to express and explain why great art
> moves people so and mediocre art doesn't.
>
> It is through a deep understanding of the common practice used in an
> artistic disciple that one can attempt to analyze art at an intelectual
> level that goes beyond a simple "I hated Titanic" or "I loved Titanic."
> These theories provide the language and metaphors that attempt to
> understand a great work of art.
>
> These rules and structures and theories also provide a set of tools and
> guideposts that aid an artist in creating a work. At any given time they
> represent the norms by which art is critiqued.
>
> The problem is that such things are theories and not fact. They are
> approximations of the truth-- mere silhouettes of the ineffable beauty
> that springs forth from the font of human creativity.
>
> The map is not the territory.
>
> And being just a map means that it is imperfect and constantly revised as
> our collective knowledge improves over time.
>
> Beethoven was derided by the critics of his time, who were zealots of
> that day's common practice. Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" was booed
> at its first performance. The critic's paradigms had to expand before
> they could appreciate new art. Eventually such acts of brilliance force
> the rule books to be rewritten.
>
> IMHO, this is the highest achievement that a work of art can reach. When
> it defines a new paradigm and transcends the rules, formulas, structures
> that make up the craft of that art form.
>
> This is where we start getting into subjectivity. Different schools of
> thought will express different standards for what constitutes artistic
> brilliance. Romanticism puts much more emphasis on how a piece inpsires
> the spirit and moves the viewer/reader/listener than Realism. Modernism
> values how creatively a work breaks the existing rules. And, there are
> countless others.
>
> Each of us as a inteligent person has our preferences. My asthetic
> yearns for a mix of Romantasism as long as things aren't obviously
> unrealisitic.
>
> Someone who values Realism more will judge a film by those standards.
>
Terence Clare
Christy wrote in message ...
>> Now get with the program stupid. Heheheh.
>
>Huh huh uhuh huh.. Ad hominum attacks are cool.. huh huh
>
>yeah yeah yeah.. They rule!
>
>Shutup Beavis! You suck! This guy told us to get with the program.
>
>Yeah yeah.. it's on TV. Go watch MTV.... huh huh huh uhuh.
>
>huh huh uhuh.. LIBERATOR must be a cool band or something..
>
>yeah I think "Now get with the program stupid. Heheheh" must be the
>lyrics from one of their songs... yeah yeah yeah.
>
>:-)
>
>I figured this might be a more effective communication technique for this
>individual...
>
It's a sad comment upon the state of society that to communicate to some
people with mental attributes sufficiently developed that they can use a
computer, one by necessity resorts to the speech patterns of Beavis &
Butthead.
That sucks.
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley
Nope. Art is SUBJECTIVE. That's the point.
Steve Ansell
Hey I think there is a definite place for both - formal learning ( and
its practical application) ie: School University Courses etc. AND
journeys of self discovery and so forth. In my rarely humble opinion I
feel one's attitude needs to be the thing in tune as it were in order
to facilitate learning of any kind......even retrospective
learning.....the mind has to 'get right' at some stage for stuff to
get sorted well.......
I would write more but I did not see the original post
BTW I think the author was making a pun in calling them crud
entials.....but you know TYPO's are human......as is saying that the
band necessarily writes trash after "THERE" 15th album
"Werewolf!!!"
"Where wolf?....."
"There......THERE wolf!!!"
(Young Frankenstein)....pronounced FrOnk-en-steeeeen!
....wonder if he also says "Frodrik"
end of sermon hee hee
Cheers
Steve A
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:32:55 -0800, Paul Oberlander
<obr...@earthlink.net> wrote in a style that can only be called
wonderful:
>LIBERATOR wrote:
>>
>> Do yourself a favor, throw all your hoopla crudetials out the window, cuz thats
>> what they are good for, NOTHING.
>>
>> If you wanna be a master artist, or just a good artist, get to know yourself. You
>> could have the most elegant impressive PHD's in the world, but it dont mean didly
>> if you cant express you.
>>
>> And if you are in touch with yourself, you wont need any training to express
>> yourself, this is the gift of self-knowing. Your being will be immediately
>> transcendant to the outter world, of which you want your soul apparent.
>>
>> Now get with the program stupid. Heheheh.
>
>
Terence Clare
Michele Harvey wrote in message <69o125$elu$2...@fox.template.com>...
>In article <34c2e073...@snews.zippo.com>, da...@NOSPAMopenix.com (Dan
A. Balogh) wrote:
>>DaViD Boulet/Don Harley <dha...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Nope. Art is SUBJECTIVE. That's the point.
>>
line
>should be:
>
>But subjectivity is OBJECTIVE!
>
>Michele
Actually, the conversation is:
Woody: Morality is subjective
Diane Keaton: But subjectivity is OBJECTIVE
Andy Bates
In article <34BCE51D...@HOTMAIL.COM>, LIBERATOR
<LIBBE...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Do yourself a favor, throw all your hoopla crudetials out the window, cuz
thats
> what they are good for, NOTHING.
>
> If you wanna be a master artist, or just a good artist, get to know
yourself. You
> could have the most elegant impressive PHD's in the world, but it dont
mean didly
> if you cant express you.
>
> And if you are in touch with yourself, you wont need any training to express
> yourself, this is the gift of self-knowing. Your being will be immediately
> transcendant to the outter world, of which you want your soul apparent.
Do yourself a favor: throw all your touchy-feely "get to know your inner
you" self-knowing transcendant crap out the window.
If you want to be a master artist, or just a good artist, you will probably
need some training along the way. Being "immediately transcendant to the
outter [sic] world" will get you nowhere.
Andy Bates.
John. A. W. Smith
Hey Christy,
I can't believe you're participating in this bullshit. Get it off
the laser disc news group now.
John
Fuck off would be even better.
Christy
At Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:19:29 -0800, in article <34C093...@grin.net>,
> Hey Christy,
>
> I can't believe you're participating in this bullshit. Get it off
> the laser disc news group now.
Yes mister self apointed moderator. Yes sir. I'm sorry sir.
Ummm wait.. POT = KETTLE = BLACK DOH!
I guess mister alt.video.laserdisc moderator here would rather see more
endless flames and personal attacks, especially since he seems to enjoy
writing them so much. Otherwise he would have just put the whole thread
in his kill file long ago, but then where would the fun be in that, eh?
My response was to an existing crossposted thread and even my response to
the troll who flamed me was an attempt to respond to the points he was
making about art.
I appologize for insulting your highness by participating in an off topic
thread.
I guess you and Liberator should go flame each other over something more
on topic such as laserrot or image entertainments incessent delays.
Meanwhile, I'll welcome myself to your kill file, thank you very much,
since attempts at inteligent debate are clearly out of your league.
> Fuck off would be even better.
If that's what you do with yourself in your spare time so be it.
Personally, I've got better things to do.
Paul Oberlander
John. A. W. Smith wrote:
>
> Hey Christy,
>
> I can't believe you're participating in this bullshit. Get it off
> the laser disc news group now.
>
>
> Fuck off would be even better.
You know what "Mark Thread as Read" does?
Grow up.
Gary Pollard
Tell that to the "Titanic" true believers who believe they should be posting
Fundamentalist type messages to one group after another that they have no
fucking business to be on. I have at least tried to remove these
cross-posts. They created them.
Gary
SynthSky
PS--yes, Objective standards for art ARE possible, and Ayn Rand's Romantic
Manifesto was only the beginning...
--Keith
little world
>
<please excuse large snips from extremely lucid and intelligent article>
i believe george lucas deliberately used a combination of jungian archetypes and
joseph campbell (author of "the hero with a thousand faces") as source material
for characters in the "star wars" trilogy.
does anyone know of some specific connection points with this reference
material? there's a lot of fairly clear oedipal business going on with luke,
vader and leia, but what about the more minor characters?
lw
ps: as for the rest of the article below - more, give me more!
Alex Crouvier
Cecrle wrote:
>
> Agoethe <ago...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
> >As for archetypes... every movie has them. The thing I
> >dislike the most about SW is the Empire's reference to Nazi Germany.
> >Which Jung would archetype as the devil I imagine...
>
> What about this doesn't appeal to you?
>
> -FC
The Empire is supposed to represent the Evil, doofus :-)
Alex Crouvier
TODD J PIERCE
Find the video series with Joseph Campbell, which I believe is also called
The Hero with A thousand Faces. It's on vhs and ld and is available for
free at almost any public libarary. I know we have it here in town and
also in the last place I lived. In it, he talks at length about the SW
connection. He addresses this in vol.1, and a couple others, though I
don't remember which ones.
Todd
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, little world wrote:
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:24:01 +0000
> From: little world <little...@lw.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.movies.spielberg, alt.movies.visual-effects,
> alt.music.rush, alt.video.dvd, alt.video.laserdisc,
> rec.arts.movies.past-films, rec.arts.movies.tech
> Subject: archetypes in star wars trilogy [Was: Do objective standards exist to measure art?]
>
> >
>
> <please excuse large snips from extremely lucid and intelligent article>
>
> i believe george lucas deliberately used a combination of jungian archetypes and
> joseph campbell (author of "the hero with a thousand faces") as source material
> for characters in the "star wars" trilogy.
>
> does anyone know of some specific connection points with this reference
> material? there's a lot of fairly clear oedipal business going on with luke,
> vader and leia, but what about the more minor characters?
>
> lw
>
> ps: as for the rest of the article below - more, give me more!
>
Agoethe
TODD J PIERCE <tjp...@mailer.fsu.edu> writes:
> Find the video series with Joseph Campbell, which I believe is also called
> The Hero with A thousand Faces. It's on vhs and ld and is available for
> free at almost any public libarary. I know we have it here in town and
> also in the last place I lived. In it, he talks at length about the SW
> connection. He addresses this in vol.1, and a couple others, though I
> don't remember which ones.
You might also check out Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (available on ld
from Criterion). Since this is the film Lucas based Star Wars on in the
first place. As for archetypes... every movie has them. The thing I
dislike the most about SW is the Empire's reference to Nazi Germany.
Which Jung would archetype as the devil I imagine...
Geo
Cecrle
Agoethe <ago...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
>As for archetypes... every movie has them. The thing I
>dislike the most about SW is the Empire's reference to Nazi Germany.
>Which Jung would archetype as the devil I imagine...
What about this doesn't appeal to you?
-FC
Cecrle
Alex Crouvier wrote:
What? So, Evil is scary, or what? What about the Nazis hurts their
reputation as evil? Were they really good dancers? I want to know.
-FC
Alex Crouvier
They don't have to be oh so scary to represent Evil. It's live action
cartoon on a grand scale of course. It is not a deep examination of
EVIL, but the struggle of good and the ultimate triumph over evil. STAR
WARS morality is simplistic (part fo the appeal for the jaded cynical
audience of post-Watergate, post-Vietnam era) but using archetypes it
gets the job done.
Alex Crouvier
Paul Oberlander
Agoethe wrote:
>
> TODD J PIERCE <tjp...@mailer.fsu.edu> writes:
>
> > Find the video series with Joseph Campbell, which I believe is also called
> > The Hero with A thousand Faces. It's on vhs and ld and is available for
> > free at almost any public libarary. I know we have it here in town and
> > also in the last place I lived. In it, he talks at length about the SW
> > connection. He addresses this in vol.1, and a couple others, though I
> > don't remember which ones.
>
> You might also check out Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (available on ld
> from Criterion). Since this is the film Lucas based Star Wars on in the
> dislike the most about SW is the Empire's reference to Nazi Germany.
> Which Jung would archetype as the devil I imagine...
I wouldn't say that a reference to Nazism as an archetype of the devil
was much of a stretch....
David Richards
In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.980123164709.26929B-100000@mailer> TODD J PIERCE <tjp...@mailer.fsu.edu> writes:
>Find the video series with Joseph Campbell, which I believe is also called
>The Hero with A thousand Faces. It's on vhs and ld and is available for
>free at almost any public libarary.
Actually, the SERIES is called "The Power of Myth". I believe the first
show of the series, that discusses the Star Wars connections, is called
"The Hero's Adventure". I heartily recommend all of these excellent shows.
Dave
--
I do not appreciate unsolicited commercial email. If you send it to me,
I WILL complain to your ISP. Then I will hunt you down and kill you.
Eric Hodges
> > >dislike the most about SW is the Empire's reference to Nazi Germany.
> > >Which Jung would archetype as the devil I imagine...
> >
> >
> > -FC
>
> The Empire is supposed to represent the Evil, doofus :-)
Actually, the rebel award ceremony is an homage to Leni Riefenstahl's
"Triumph of the Will". This would seem to align the rebels with the
Nazis, suggesting that some of the Empire's planets don't want to be
"liberated".
As for the Campbellian archetypes, it's quite clear that Luke represents
the farm-boy-searching-for-his-evil-father archtype, while Obi-wan
represents the wise-old-fart-making-smart-remarks archetype. Darth
represents the evil-heavy-breathing-bad-father archetype, and Yoda
represents the annoyingly-similar-to-fozzy-bear archetype. To Campbell,
everything *is* an archetype.
Paul Oberlander
Let's not forget Leia, the young, saucy galactic princess with the
hambuger bun hairstyle archetype....
;)
Snowdog
dave, is that a threat??????