SOD Magazine Ripoff
angel of apostasy
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 01:34:51 GMT, goden (goden) wrote:
>pro...@anus.com (angel of apostasy) wrote:
>
>>On 9 Jul 1997 20:29:36 GMT, sod...@aol.com (SODMag) wrote:
>
>>>Sounds of Death has one of the best reputations of any zine for NOT
>>>ripping people off.
>
>>At $8/magazine, do we even need to consider the issue?
>
>Oh but you get a free CD sampler...-smirk-
...for which the label paid good money! -- another scam cycle. which
is why i wrote for extremities...
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST COMMERCIALITY
|/|-----------------------------------------------|/|
| Spinoza Ray Prozak -*- '..burning as I fall.." |
| Death & black metal, nihilism, dissassociation |
| ...are the spirit of evil... |
| <http://www.anus.com/anus/maniphisto.html> |
|/|-----------------------------------------------|/|
nobeard
>>>>Sounds of Death has one of the best reputations of any zine for NOT
>>>>ripping people off.
>>
>>>At $8/magazine, do we even need to consider the issue?
>>
>>Oh but you get a free CD sampler...-smirk-
>
>...for which the label paid good money! -- another scam cycle. which
>is why i wrote for extremities...
I don't know the magazine, but most people don't considder the costs
involved in making a magazine, for most publishers (bar the really
large ones) magazines are a constant loss of money. It's just not a
money maker, they keep on doing it because the magazines provide a
good platform for advertisment and customer-binding. Many mags are
made by idealists who could be making much more money elsewhere.
Frankly, I'm a bit sick and tired with wanna-be writers and
intelectuals claiming to know the business because they managed to
give away a few articles once or twice. But then again 'spinoza' ray,
I'm sick and tired of your codescending, racist, semi-intelectual,
juvenile ramblings. Luckilly no-one but your own litle circle of
reject friends will ever take you seriously, not even the nazi's you
seem to revere so much. You see, some nazi's still have brains and
will recognise a teenage poser when they see one.
Please do drop by the Tribe headquarters, so we can show you how
_real_ metalheads break noses.
(You can recognise Tribe members by their backpatches, please do
remind some of us of the promise we are making)
I don't know what makes me hate your kind more... the arrogance you
display or the damage you do to our metal scene.
Greetz.
DD.
David Dylan;
Head ed of TRIBE MAGAZINE, MS-DOS based E-zine.
Music, Strategic (Role-Playing) games, computerfun,
=======================][=========================
www.xs4all.nl/~nobeard || The TRIBE MAGAZINE page!
=======================][=========================
Sathanas
angel of apostasy <pro...@anus.com> wrote in article
<33c4ff31...@news.loop.com>...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 02:58:51 GMT, br...@mailbox.uq.edu.au (Brett
> Benzie) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 01:34:51 GMT, goden (goden) wrote:
> >
> >>pro...@anus.com (angel of apostasy) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 9 Jul 1997 20:29:36 GMT, sod...@aol.com (SODMag) wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Sounds of Death has one of the best reputations of any zine for NOT
> >>>>ripping people off.
> >>
> >>>At $8/magazine, do we even need to consider the issue?
> >>
> >>Oh but you get a free CD sampler...-smirk-
> >
> >and a glossy COLOUR cover....-bigger smirk-
>
> and free homophobic SOCIAL COMMENTARY ... - vapid smirk -
>
and something to start a fire ... - pyro smirk -
angel of apostasy
own another precious piece of the underground - masturbatory smirk -
angel of apostasy
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:50:11 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>
>>>>>Sounds of Death has one of the best reputations of any zine for NOT
>>>>>ripping people off.
>>>
>>>>At $8/magazine, do we even need to consider the issue?
>>>
>>>Oh but you get a free CD sampler...-smirk-
>>
>>...for which the label paid good money! -- another scam cycle. which
>>is why i wrote for extremities...
>
>I don't know the magazine, but most people don't considder the costs
>involved in making a magazine, for most publishers (bar the really
>large ones) magazines are a constant loss of money. It's just not a
>money maker, they keep on doing it because the magazines provide a
>good platform for advertisment and customer-binding. Many mags are
>made by idealists who could be making much more money elsewhere.
Yes, and then there are the ones like sounds of death. Just for
curiosity, what's your publishing experience?
>Frankly, I'm a bit sick and tired with wanna-be writers and
>intelectuals claiming to know the business because they managed to
>give away a few articles once or twice. But then again 'spinoza' ray,
>I'm sick and tired of your codescending, racist, semi-intelectual,
>juvenile ramblings.
Please come up with examples of "racist" writings, or step down from
that comment. Thank you.
>Please do drop by the Tribe headquarters, so we can show you how
>_real_ metalheads break noses.
I'll mail you a picture and then see if you're up to approach me on
the street. Howzat?
So -- is your little rant over? Did you have anything to say except
that you disagree with what I posted?
Well; we know see who the real _bullshitter_ filling the scene with
unnecessary garbage is: nob...@xs4all.nl
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST MORONS
David White
In article <33c66916...@news.loop.com>, angel of apostasy
<pro...@anus.com> writes
>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:50:11 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>Sounds of Death has one of the best reputations of any zine for NOT
>>>>>>ripping people off.
>>>>
>>>>>At $8/magazine, do we even need to consider the issue?
>>>>
>>>>Oh but you get a free CD sampler...-smirk-
>>>
>>>...for which the label paid good money! -- another scam cycle. which
>>>is why i wrote for extremities...
>>
>>I don't know the magazine, but most people don't considder the costs
>>involved in making a magazine, for most publishers (bar the really
>>large ones) magazines are a constant loss of money. It's just not a
>>money maker, they keep on doing it because the magazines provide a
>>good platform for advertisment and customer-binding. Many mags are
>>made by idealists who could be making much more money elsewhere.
>
>Yes, and then there are the ones like sounds of death. Just for
>curiosity, what's your publishing experience?
>
>>Frankly, I'm a bit sick and tired with wanna-be writers and
>>intelectuals claiming to know the business because they managed to
>>give away a few articles once or twice. But then again 'spinoza' ray,
>>I'm sick and tired of your codescending, racist, semi-intelectual,
>>juvenile ramblings.
>
>Please come up with examples of "racist" writings, or step down from
>that comment. Thank you.
>
one accusses him of bieng a nazi he pissess his pants and demands a
retraction, its nice to know that when push comes to shove spinoza is a
good old politically correct liberal american.
support the war against the politicaly correct
hail satan lord of perversion
>>Please do drop by the Tribe headquarters, so we can show you how
>>_real_ metalheads break noses.
>
>I'll mail you a picture and then see if you're up to approach me on
>the street. Howzat?
>
>So -- is your little rant over? Did you have anything to say except
>that you disagree with what I posted?
>
>Well; we know see who the real _bullshitter_ filling the scene with
>unnecessary garbage is: nob...@xs4all.nl
>
> SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST MORONS
>
>
>|/|-----------------------------------------------|/|
> | Spinoza Ray Prozak -*- '..burning as I fall.." |
> | Death & black metal, nihilism, dissassociation |
> | ...are the spirit of evil... |
> | <http://www.anus.com/anus/maniphisto.html> |
>|/|-----------------------------------------------|/|
--
David White
angel of apostasy
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 15:26:58 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
wrote:
>>>Please come up with examples of "racist" writings, or step down from
>>>that comment. Thank you.
>>>
>>spinoza shows himself to be another sheep in wolves clothing. When some
>>one accusses him of bieng a nazi he pissess his pants and demands a
>>retraction, its nice to know that when push comes to shove spinoza is a
>>good old politically correct liberal american.
>
>actually, all he asked for was some proof...
Not only that, he asked for some proof of "racist" writings, rather
than proof that he is friendly to the ideas embodied in National
Socialism.
Funny how easy it is for these lurkers to come up with cheap shots --
but they never dare try to face me down in argument. Coincidence, or
bankruptcy of soul? You decide.
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST CARPING WHINERS
angel of apostasy
On 13 Jul 1997 03:53:34 GMT, sod...@aol.com (SODMag) wrote:
>By all means, give me the names of those subscribers, or have them contact
>us themselves. It's highly possible that your friends moved and didn't
>give forwarding addresses, or didn't forward their mail for a long enough
>period of time. Remember that SOD comes out every 7 or 8 months at best,
>and a lot can happen in that time. We would never knowingly betray any of
>our supporters by not sending them a magazine; that would be incredibly
>stupid and lame. Additionally, in our 'defense', we're only two people,
>and mistakes are sometimes made.
You're two people, and what are your major expenses?
>And regarding the CD business, again, let me state that SOD does not
>charge labels for including their CDs in our magazine. Anyone out there
>with a label who wants to promote their bands can place their CD in SOD
>(if the music is Death or Black metal, and as extreme as they can make
>it.) It's first come, first served. In exchage for the favor of them
>providing us those CDs, we give the label a free full page ad and we pay a
>lot extra to print an insert to go with the CD. For the Necropolis Records
>insert, we even made it 4 pages and printed it in silver and black ink.
So what are your costs? Two people, one computer, and a lot of free
CD's. You obviously spend money and attention to the covers, but
everything else is vanilla layout - sub-par for any major magazine
sheerly by imprecision. What do you bring in in advertising revenue?
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST REVENUE
angel of apostasy
On 13 Jul 1997 03:38:21 GMT, sod...@aol.com (SODMag) wrote:
>Our press runs are around 10,000 copies and we are distributed
>internationally. If you've ever done any kind of a zine, you can imagine
>the expenses involved in the production of this kind of magazine, not to
>mention the mailing costs, etc. etc.
Your production expenses look like one guy with a desktop PC and a few
writers and artists -- nothing compared to a major magazine.
>We don't consider ourselves to be in
>competition with Metal Maniacs or Rip; if we wanted to do that, we'd be
>covering Ozzy and Pantera and that shit. That's where the money is. They
>print 100,000 copies and only sell about 40% of the run, at best, through
>grocery stores and 7-11s. We sell all of our press run to hard core fans
>in record stores and specialty shops, with very little waste.
What about the recent spate of magazines which suddenly are missing
their CD's because of counter theft?
>SOD has stated in the past that we don't waste our time covering music
>that isn't any good. Why bother? If you read about it in our pages,
>chances are, you'll like it. Since all the reviews are written by one
>person, Dave Horn, they are coming from a consistant viewpoint. If you
>like the releases that we've given 10 skulls to in the past, then chances
>are, you'll like the 10 skull bands we'll review in the future.
Not at all, the reviews seem to approve differently anonymous and
talentless bands with random selection and equal fervor.
>Now, regarding the underground bands "that no one's ever heard of", if
>you're located in a major city with access to a great scene and a shop
>with tons of obscure zines, then yes, you're probably very well informed
>on the new music. We're trying to spread the word about great bands to
>weird, out of the way cities with no scenes at all (like our own St.
>Louis, which has almost no scene to speak of) and to people who haven't
>been able to be in touch with what's going on and who don't have access to
>the internet and MP3 files. To those readers, SOD has been a godsend, and
>we've gotten plenty of letters from those people thanking us for getting
>them in touch with new music. Sure, other zines do the same thing, but at
>least we have a CD inside that they can listen to (even though they are
>frequently 'boring'.)
For someone with nothing, anything is something; I agree there.
However I don't see an active crusade to find all the cool underground
bands as much as I see an active crusade to find bands by label which
to approve.
>Regarding the CDs, the labels provide
>them to us for free, and no, we don't charge them to include them in the
>magazine. We give it to them free, along with a free full page ad and the
>space in the insert that the CD is stapled to. Everyone who's done that
>for us has been very pleased with the response they've gotten. Their only
>expense is printing the CDs, which they were frequently going to do anyway
>to sell in their country, they just pressed a lot more to give to us for
>promotion.
So your magazine costs $8 without the cost of the CD? Amazing,
fantastic. Do you publish a budget? I could use a good laugh!
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST HIDDEN AGENDAS
Derek Mcdonald
> You get a free CD sampler...
Yes, but you do with a local magazine Brave Words And Bloody Knuckles, and
they only charge $4! :)
--
-----------| << THRASH >> Has left the stage... |----------------------
Get great deals on web page design at DMCS Technologies!
DMCS: http://www.interlog.com/~thrash/dmcs.html
RRCA: http://www.interlog.com/~thrash/rrca.html
Kevin - descanting the insalubrious
When thinking about "Re: SOD Magazine Ripoff", thr...@interlog.com
(Derek Mcdonald) typed:
>> You get a free CD sampler...
>
>Yes, but you do with a local magazine Brave Words And Bloody Knuckles, and
>they only charge $4! :)
Ah and don't forget that is in Canadian dollars, so that is
less than $3 in U.S. currency...
However if SOD only puts two or three issues out in a year,
it's probably still cheaper then other mags/zines which have up to 12
issues a year.
Kevin Beck loop...@interlog.com
angel of apostasy
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:15:15 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>>Your production expenses look like one guy with a desktop PC and a few
>>writers and artists -- nothing compared to a major magazine.
>
>Spinoza Ray, you are a litle semi-racist shithead who talks crap.
Please prove that "semi-racist" -- since you so inelegantly backed
down from the last one without changing your stance at all, I take it
you (predictably) don't understand my ideas on some controversial
subjects and have decided to file
>If
>you EVER had your own business to run, you'd talk differently.
Dumbshit, you think I'm posting at all hours because I have a job?
Trying to make yourself look stupid.
>Considder:
>-Taxes
- after deduction of costs!
>-Destribution
- minimal if you contract shared earnings
>-Rental of space
- minimal
>-legal costs
- minimal
>-copyrights
- extremely minimal if you do it half-right
Have you ever run a business in the United States? Most of what you
mention are the smaller costs of the business, dwarfed in comparison
to what I mentioned: employing quality writers and artists.
>It amounts to a FUCKING lot. The smaller the mag, the higher the
>relative costs.
Size, in the case of this magazine, is regulated by the number of
willing consumers and not the anti-commercial scruples of its owners;
therefore I must say your above argument is entirely tautological.
>BTW: I had my own business, started it when I was 19, you were
>probably getting high and thinking hayrides were the thing to do.
>
>(Had five people working for me, right)
Keep making those uninformed assumptions for my amusement. I'm
kicking your ass and you can't do a thing about it but spew guesses,
from the looks of this message -- why don't you attack my words and
not an imaginary character of me you project?
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST RECTAL LANGUAGE SYNTHESIS
I desecrate holy law | 666
And drink blood impure | F
Shit in the virgin's mouth | U
And crucify her son the whore | K
I rape the holy spirit ----|---- g
Emptiness indivisible eternal | O
And masturbate on the face of gOD D
For a nihilistic future.<http://www.anus.com/> 666
Laurent Seiter
Derek Mcdonald wrote:
>
> > You get a free CD sampler...
>
> Yes, but you do with a local magazine Brave Words And Bloody Knuckles, and
> they only charge $4! :)
--
___________________________________________________
Laurent SEITER
mailto:lse...@crim.ca
John Tracy
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:33:04 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>You all seem to be pretending a profit is a bad thing.....
It is.
>Profit is the first and best incentive to keep working on _any_
>project, and if people aren't making money on something they can't
>bring you the quality product you seem to expect, in the end everyone
>must eat and most of us would like a moderate amount of luxury as
>well.
That's what jobs are for. The only people that publish magazines for
employment are trendy shit rags like Hit Parader. Being alternative is
far more profitable than death metal.
>Anyone who claims differently is a bloody communist.
I would rather be a commie than a capitalist pig.
_____......======[This email sent to you by]======......_____
____ ____
/ _ / _ / _ _ _ be...@scn.org
(_/ (_) / ) / ) / / '/_) (_ (_/ www.geocities.com/tokyo/1371/
_/
John Tracy
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:41:57 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>I don't need allies, I don't need enemies, I fill some spare time
>crushing his feeble attempts at being an intelectual... he amuses me.
You should talk.
John Tracy
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:38:22 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 03:46:58 GMT, jtr...@aa.net (John Tracy) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:41:57 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>>
>>>I don't need allies, I don't need enemies, I fill some spare time
>>>crushing his feeble attempts at being an intelectual... he amuses me.
>>
>>You should talk.
>
>About what? I could go on for hours if the subject is right...
>Anyway, if you haven't got more to say than a meaningless phrase,
>Shut the fuck up.
>
>On the other hand, if you were to post _arguments_ or _questions_
>even _opinions_ Then I'd have something to work with.
I did. You didn't reply. Which is good, because you didn't make
youself look any stupider.
nobeard
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 03:46:58 GMT, jtr...@aa.net (John Tracy) wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:41:57 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>
>>I don't need allies, I don't need enemies, I fill some spare time
>>crushing his feeble attempts at being an intelectual... he amuses me.
>
>You should talk.
About what? I could go on for hours if the subject is right...
Anyway, if you haven't got more to say than a meaningless phrase,
Shut the fuck up.
On the other hand, if you were to post _arguments_ or _questions_
even _opinions_ Then I'd have something to work with.
i am coming to kill your god
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:38:22 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>On the other hand, if you were to post _arguments_ or _questions_
>even _opinions_ Then I'd have something to work with.
As if you have posted content matter, or done something besides troll
to feed your ego.
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST WANKERS
!---------------------------------------------------!
| | The Evil GOAT -(*)- go...@satanic.org |
| | (666) |
| -|- <http://www.satanic.org/~goat/> 666 |
| <http://www.anus.com/people/goat/> |
| | <http://www.blackplague.org/holocaust/> |
| | <http://www.kcuf.org/> * black metal * |
| -|- death metal * nihilism * satanic art |
| blasphemy * revolution * holocaust |
!---------------------------------------------------!
nobeard
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 03:41:07 GMT, jtr...@aa.net (John Tracy) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:33:04 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>
>>You all seem to be pretending a profit is a bad thing.....
>
>It is.
What do you live off? Welfare? (In which case you are living off money
coffed up by taxpayers who had to make a profit in order to, etc.)
>>Profit is the first and best incentive to keep working on _any_
>>project, and if people aren't making money on something they can't
>>bring you the quality product you seem to expect, in the end everyone
>>must eat and most of us would like a moderate amount of luxury as
>>well.
>
>That's what jobs are for. The only people that publish magazines for
Aha, but your employer can't pay you if the company isn't making a
profit. In the end, it's the same thing.
>employment are trendy shit rags like Hit Parader. Being alternative is
>far more profitable than death metal.
You are saying that trying to bring you a quality mag, as a sound
business like any other is a bad thing? Or in other words, as soon as
a Death mag starts making a profit, it should quit? All mags should be
photocopied and made by people with not enough time on their hands to
make it the best it could be? You are full of it.
>>Anyone who claims differently is a bloody communist.
>
>I would rather be a commie than a capitalist pig.
You obviously are.
Oink oink.
nobeard
>>On the other hand, if you were to post _arguments_ or _questions_
>>even _opinions_ Then I'd have something to work with.
>
>I did. You didn't reply. Which is good, because you didn't make
>youself look any stupider.
>
I surely would have replied if it reached me, please repost.
i am coming to kill your god
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:28:40 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 03:41:07 GMT, jtr...@aa.net (John Tracy) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:33:04 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>>
>>>You all seem to be pretending a profit is a bad thing.....
>>
>>It is.
>
>What do you live off? Welfare? (In which case you are living off money
>coffed up by taxpayers who had to make a profit in order to, etc.)
Ah, this is that Judeo-Christian ownership thing. Since Mr. Dylan is
logically-challenged, as we like to say, we might break it down:
David, in a Capitalist system, your point would have some merit to it
_except_ that profit is what occurs after salaries are paid; you can
easily factor a reasonable salary into the cost and be paid without
"living off profit." Profit is what is taken off the top of the
system and NOT re-invested; remember Marx's objections?
>>>Profit is the first and best incentive to keep working on _any_
>>>project, and if people aren't making money on something they can't
>>>bring you the quality product you seem to expect, in the end everyone
>>>must eat and most of us would like a moderate amount of luxury as
>>>well.
>>
>>That's what jobs are for. The only people that publish magazines for
>
>Aha, but your employer can't pay you if the company isn't making a
>profit. In the end, it's the same thing.
Shows how ignorant of bankruptcy law you are.
>>employment are trendy shit rags like Hit Parader. Being alternative is
>>far more profitable than death metal.
>
>You are saying that trying to bring you a quality mag, as a sound
>business like any other is a bad thing? Or in other words, as soon as
>a Death mag starts making a profit, it should quit? All mags should be
>photocopied and made by people with not enough time on their hands to
>make it the best it could be? You are full of it.
No, you're trying your same old solipsistic tactic of trying to make
him into a straw man -- he's saying it shouldn't be run _for profit_
(e.g. with profit as the objective) because that's not the spirit of
the underground.
Come to think about it, maybe that's why you dislike me - because I
_don't_ run my web page for profit, monetary or personal or net or
otherwise.
>>>Anyone who claims differently is a bloody communist.
>>
>>I would rather be a commie than a capitalist pig.
>
>You obviously are.
Let's hear it for socialism -- which stands contrary to the theories
of Judeo-Christian history -- and the idea of standing against moral
right to ownership. Maybe even "national" socialism, eh?
Laughing at the students of unHistory,
EVIL
nobeard
>>On the other hand, if you were to post _arguments_ or _questions_
>>even _opinions_ Then I'd have something to work with.
>
>This from the guy who refuses to post backing evidence to his
>accusations, even "evidence" he could theoretically (if his claims
>were true) select copy paste off of USENET.
Just to enlighten newcomers, for each accusation I left the
incriminating part quoted in my reply. I need not provide more backing
evidence.
>You're a loser and a profiteer from the underground, and we are not
You can claim the 'underground' all you want, I have enough evidence
to suport statements to the contrary, I just don't feel compelled to
post it.
>fooled. Your ass is dusted, and your reasons for bias -- inherent
>allegiance to Judaic moral ownership -- has been revealed. Now that
Keep talking, you are posting my evidence for me. Why not admit that
you are a nazi recruiting from the underground, and the only real
profiteer here?
(not an accusation, just an assesment.)
>you've had your day on net.Oprah, how do you feel?
Like playing some Nembrionic, eating my Pizza, making love to my
girl, and forgetting about your sad litle ass.
> SUPPORT THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE
I'm calling you a racist and a closet nazi, my backing evidence is
quoted above. Now, please, reply to content, or not at all, I do
actually have a life.
Hate
blah blah blah (goden (goden))
>David White <dew...@carpathia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> suppprt the war against sarcasm (the lowest form of HUMOUR)
>...but the highest form of WIT.
but the lowest form of...selfcongratulation...
lets see how far this one goes..
****************************visit*****************************
* Tracks Of Creation Webzine (http://www.ratw.com/creation/) *
**************************************************************
* for the latest on death/black/extreme music. *
* I write for it. Read it or I will kill you. *
**************************************************************
/} Brett A. Benzie
// hat...@dcc.net.au
/{ /> http://www.dcc.net.au/~hatred/
,__________///----/{___________________________________________________
/|==========|/\|-----/___________________________________________________\
\|==========|\/|-----\___________________________________________________/
'~~~~~~~~~~\\\----\{
\{ \>remove "DeathToSpam" from my email address to reply.
\\
\}
i am coming to kill your god
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 15:10:13 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>>>On the other hand, if you were to post _arguments_ or _questions_
>>>even _opinions_ Then I'd have something to work with.
>>
>>I did. You didn't reply. Which is good, because you didn't make
>>youself look any stupider.
>>
>I surely would have replied if it reached me, please repost.
Won't do any good -- someone's got a cancel-bot watching. If you want
to check it out, try www.dejanews.com. Those who can see my messages
have seen:
1) massive cancelling
2) massive reposting
3) see (1)
It's the kind of thing where if you had the time to hunt down everyone
deluded enough to believe getting "rid" of the words of another
somehow constitutes progress, you could eradicate this, but right now,
I just laugh off USENET and the ego-deprived self-hating
politically-submissive individuals it feeds.
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST ACCEPTING CMSGS
myles robert hamilton
With regards to the recent flaming of nobeard for making a profit
for running a magazine........
I must, in this particular case, agree with him that there is
absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit.....even if it is made
through doing something which you love.
I myself am not a fan of SOD, in fact, I really don't like the
magazine at all. I think it has many internal problems, such as
uninformative reviews, poorly executed interviews, etc... But why
shouldn't it's writers be able to reap a reward from those who enjoy what
they have to offer?
Many people will blindly go about their business buying albums and
paying for concert tickets from bands at prices well over cost, but then
make exceptions to zine editors/writers when they offer their own talents at
a cost. Why is this?
The people at SOD, and every other zine, must expend time and effort to
create each issue...if their time and effort is not worth the $$$, then
do what I do, and don't buy the magazine.
If you complain about SOD's profits, then why don't you complain about
Century Media's profits, or Morbid ANGEL's profits? REMEMBER, the only
reason that SOD charges what it charges is because PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IT
IS WORTH THEIR MONEY (that's why they hand it over to SOD in the first
place). Some People would rather have a copy of SOD than $8....let 'em,
why the fuck do you care?
I'm sick of dumbfucks trying to act noble and virtuous by bragging
about how they would do everything for free, in the name of the
"underground". This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
movie.
Melvin Slundersloth
"A man whose nipples only get stronger with each shock of the
electrodes"
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
disregarding everything else you wrote, as i'm not interested in a
discussion on that:
>This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
>movie.
music is art. or, music SHOULD be art. its those that think its "just
entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
hansons of tomorrow.
-Daemonic
myles robert hamilton
Art is entertainment. Why do you think people go to museums?
Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!! Visual and aural arts are nothing but
stimulas for the senses. Yes a movie may stimulate your senses in a
different way than a Morbid Angel album, but they are both still art and
both STILL ENTERTAINMENT. Because you happen to appreciate music more
than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose? And what do you
think of such things as fiction writers??? Is what they produce art??
They certainly created it to entertain. Same with fantasy artists.
Try and actually put some thought into your response this time
Melvin Slundersloth
Richard Stuart
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970729...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> writes
> Art is entertainment. Why do you think people go to museums?
>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!! Visual and aural arts are nothing but
>stimulas for the senses. Yes a movie may stimulate your senses in a
>different way than a Morbid Angel album, but they are both still art and
>both STILL ENTERTAINMENT.
Why do people watch films like 'Schindlers List?' Surely not to be
"entertained." Why do people listen to bands like Funeral? Surely not
because it makes them happy.
-Ricks
NO FUN... NO CORE... NO MOSH... NO TRENDS
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> disregarding everything else you wrote, as i'm not interested in a
>> discussion on that:
>>
>> >This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
>> >movie.
>>
>> music is art. or, music SHOULD be art. its those that think its "just
>> entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
>> hansons of tomorrow.
>>
>> -Daemonic
>>
> Art is entertainment.
art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public. obviously, a
piece of art can be entertaining at the same time as being art, though
one should not be sacrificed for the other.
>Why do you think people go to museums?
how many people that go to museums have participated in creating the
art they're viewing?
you confuse intent with use.
>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
i do it to express myself. as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
such is to progress the concept of art. or it should be. if everyone
was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
entertainment, right?
where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
>Visual and aural arts are nothing but
>stimulas for the senses.
i couldve told you that.
>Yes a movie may stimulate your senses in a
>different way than a Morbid Angel album, but they are both still art and
>both STILL ENTERTAINMENT.
i still dont see:
A) where i said that art cannot be used for entertainment purposes
B) where you've tried to prove music was NOT art (as per my original
post)
cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
nature.
>Because you happen to appreciate music more
>than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
>some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
cite examples.
> Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
>If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
>And what do you
>think of such things as fiction writers??? Is what they produce art??
>They certainly created it to entertain. Same with fantasy artists.
once upon a time, in a land far far away, i wrote sci-fi/fantasy on
and off, because i thought it was fun. you're living in a black and
white world.
what would you say about a book such as "Of Mice and Men"? what is it
about? most people would rather not read about something that they
have to think about to understand; what do you think the authors
intent was? obviously not JUST to make money...
> Try and actually put some thought into your response this time
-Daemonic
myles robert hamilton
First off......At no point did I ever say nor even gave the
vaguest implication that I believe that an artist should alter their
creations for the sake of making $$$$. I simply stated that there is
nothing wrong with profiting from your art.
>>
> art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
> music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
> integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public.
"Entertaining" essentially means that it is not "boring".
Entertainment and commercialism are not the same thing. From what
you have written above, you appear to be saying that something that
is inherently "artistic" is not inherently "entertaining" and in
order to achieve the latter, you would have to sacrafice the former.
Well, the new Ulver album is very entertaining, and it doesn't appear
too commercial to me.(a bit of a Darkthrone rip off, though) They could
of sold alot more albums by playing in a different style, or in a less
abrasive manner, but they chose not to sacrafice their artistic
integrity for cash...yet the end result was still entertaining.
Yes, it would be a shame if an artist altered their work in order
to make money, by appealing to commercialism.....but, I don't ever recall
saying otherwise, so why are you telling me this?
obviously, a
> piece of art can be entertaining at the same time as being art, though
> one should not be sacrificed for the other.
>
>> >Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
> >BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
>
> i do it to express myself.
You could just as easily express yourself by writting your
thoughts down on a piece of paper in a very bland manner. Why do you
choose to shroud your expression in excessory stimulis????? Perhaps,
thats a little less exciting (entertaining) to the human mind???
as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
> such is to progress the concept of art.
What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
first place??? So people can just "progress its concept"?? You could
easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
creativity....once again, what is your purpose behind adding a creative
element?????
or it should be. if everyone
> was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
> would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
> musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
> stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
> entertainment, right?
Actually, I don't find Bush or the Spice Girls entertaining at
all....their music is boring and downright annoying....very commercial,
though.
>
> where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
> it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
> mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
>
When did I say this????????????????????????
REPEAT: my comments were that if you could make a profit doing
something you love, there is nothing wrong with that. I really doubt the
session musicians who write for the spice girls like what the music they
create, so yes, they are sell outs. SOD, though shitty, is somebody
doing what they love and making money at it. Just because it sucks,
doesn't mean they have comprimised, it just means that they don't do a
good job.
> >Visual and aural arts are nothing but
> >stimulas for the senses.
>
> i couldve told you that.
>
Ahhh, you claim to see the obvious, yet its totally lacking in
your ideas.
> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
> nature.
But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining. The
idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
pointless.
>
> >Because you happen to appreciate music more
> >than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
> >some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
>
> cite examples.
>
You claim music isn't entertainment, but "art" and proceed to
imply that entertainment only exist for gaining material wealth, all the
time implying that art is an end within itself.
> > Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
> >If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
>
> to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
> musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
Ahhh, stimulis.....if the musician was doing something boring, I
bet you would lose interest (not entertaining enough)
>
> what would you say about a book such as "Of Mice and Men"? what is it
> about? most people would rather not read about something that they
> have to think about to understand
maybe people you know
; what do you think the authors
> intent was? obviously not JUST to make money...
Of course not! I am not familiar with the book, but let me
reiterate what I have been saying all along. Art, by its very nature
deals with presentation. The way you feel about something is not art,
however, the way you choose to present that feeling is art. If your
presentation is not entertaining (ie boring) than your going to have bad
art. This being the case, the thoughts behind "of mice and men" were not
just written out in a direct manner on a page of paper and presented to
the audience, instead they were shrouded in a creative presentation in
order that they not be bland and instead capture and STIMULATE the reader's
mind.
>
> > Try and actually put some thought into your response this time >
>
Melvin Slundersloth
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> First off......At no point did I ever say nor even gave the
>vaguest implication that I believe that an artist should alter their
>creations for the sake of making $$$$. I simply stated that there is
>nothing wrong with profiting from your art.
well, you said a number of times that the purpose of art is to
entertain...this DOES imply that it's ok to try to make your art more
commercial (e.g. entertaining), and therefore making you more money.
perhaps a misunderstanding.
>> art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
>> music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
>> integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public.
> "Entertaining" essentially means that it is not "boring".
>Entertainment and commercialism are not the same thing.
what is entertaining to the most people usually falls under the
category "commercial". if you make something for the sake of being
entertaining to the most amount of people possible, it's no longer
art, because its no longer designed for you.
>From what
>you have written above, you appear to be saying that something that
>is inherently "artistic" is not inherently "entertaining" and in
>order to achieve the latter, you would have to sacrafice the former.
please show me where i said that. what i said was that something
should not be made more entertaining at the cost of ones artistic
integrity...you made it the way it is, let it stand like that.
>Well, the new Ulver album is very entertaining, and it doesn't appear
>too commercial to me.(a bit of a Darkthrone rip off, though) They could
>of sold alot more albums by playing in a different style, or in a less
>abrasive manner, but they chose not to sacrafice their artistic
>integrity for cash...yet the end result was still entertaining.
did i disagree, here?
> Yes, it would be a shame if an artist altered their work in order
> to make money, by appealing to commercialism.....but, I don't ever recall
> saying otherwise, so why are you telling me this?
see first comment. you say the purpose of art is to entertain, and
nothing more...why have art, then? you could make a business out of
entertaining people with music designed to be something other then
art, and you'd have an easier time at it, because you wouldnt have to
worry about artistic integrity.
> obviously, a
>> piece of art can be entertaining at the same time as being art, though
>> one should not be sacrificed for the other.
>
>>
>>> >Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
>> >BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
>>
>> i do it to express myself.
> You could just as easily express yourself by writting your
>thoughts down on a piece of paper in a very bland manner.
music expresses emotions much better then words, i think. when i find
that i can express myself better through stream-of-consciousness
writing, thats when i'll start doing it.
>Why do you
>choose to shroud your expression in excessory stimulis?????
because those stimuli help me convey my emotions better.
>Perhaps,
>thats a little less exciting (entertaining) to the human mind???
most music i write will never see the light of day. if i was out to
entertain myself, i could think of better ways.
> as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
>> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
>> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
>> such is to progress the concept of art.
>
> What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
>first place???
no idea...its the same question as "why do we exist?". people have
thought about it for centuries, though we havent come to an answer
yet, and we may never.
>So people can just "progress its concept"??
via their own creative input, yes.
>You could
>easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
>creativity....
how?
>once again, what is your purpose behind adding a creative
>element?????
well, if i use art to express myself, and if everyone expressed
themselves the same exact way, we'd have a very boring world, wouldnt
we?
> or it should be. if everyone
>> was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
>> would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
>> musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
>> stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
>> entertainment, right?
> Actually, I don't find Bush or the Spice Girls entertaining at
>all....their music is boring and downright annoying....very commercial,
>though.
...something which most people would disagree with. for them,
entertainment is commerciality.
>> where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
>> it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
>> mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
>>
> When did I say this????????????????????????
you implied it.
> REPEAT: my comments were that if you could make a profit doing
>something you love, there is nothing wrong with that.
and i never disagreed. on the contrary, this has been most of my
argument.
>I really doubt the
>session musicians who write for the spice girls like what the music they
>create, so yes, they are sell outs. SOD, though shitty, is somebody
>doing what they love and making money at it. Just because it sucks,
>doesn't mean they have comprimised, it just means that they don't do a
>good job.
i'll withhold my opinion, as i dont read SOD.
>> >Visual and aural arts are nothing but
>> >stimulas for the senses.
>>
>> i couldve told you that.
>>
> Ahhh, you claim to see the obvious, yet its totally lacking in
>your ideas.
only a fool claims that art is not about using stimuli to express its
intent.
>> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
>> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
>> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
>> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
>> nature.
> But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining.
maybe, maybe not. the concept of entertainment is relative, as
expressed by the bush / spice girls example.
>The
>idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
>with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
>pointless.
the point is that, even if it wasnt entertaining, it would still be
art.
>> >Because you happen to appreciate music more
>> >than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
>> >some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
>>
>> cite examples.
>>
> You claim music isn't entertainment, but "art" and proceed to
>imply that entertainment only exist for gaining material wealth, all the
>time implying that art is an end within itself.
incorrect, as ive stated that music is art, though it can be used for
entertainment, as long as the original purpose is for it to be an end
in itself. i could write a beautiful poem, and selling it would not
change the contents of such, so making money from it would not be a
problem. its when you create for the sake of money that the problem
arises.
>> > Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
>> >If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
>>
>> to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
>> musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
> Ahhh, stimulis.....if the musician was doing something boring, I
>bet you would lose interest (not entertaining enough)
define "boring".
>> what would you say about a book such as "Of Mice and Men"? what is it
>> about? most people would rather not read about something that they
>> have to think about to understand
> maybe people you know
most people i've met are content to take the easy way out. such is the
problem of mankind.
>; what do you think the authors
>> intent was? obviously not JUST to make money...
> Of course not! I am not familiar with the book, but let me
>reiterate what I have been saying all along. Art, by its very nature
>deals with presentation. The way you feel about something is not art,
>however, the way you choose to present that feeling is art. If your
>presentation is not entertaining (ie boring) than your going to have bad
>art. This being the case, the thoughts behind "of mice and men" were not
>just written out in a direct manner on a page of paper and presented to
>the audience, instead they were shrouded in a creative presentation in
>order that they not be bland and instead capture and STIMULATE the reader's
>mind.
well, let me give you a general response...
"of mice and men" is a book about human nature. the two main
characters are george and lenny; george is just some average guy,
lenny is his mentally challenged friend. the entire book deals with
people's reaction to one such as lenny, and george's defense of him.
like i said...its a study of human nature. the presentation lies in
the author's depictment of the characters; granted, if they seemed
unreal, it may not be enjoyable, but it would still be art. this
applies to all forms of art.
-Daemonic
i am coming to kill your god
> If you complain about SOD's profits, then why don't you complain about
>Century Media's profits, or Morbid ANGEL's profits? REMEMBER, the only
>reason that SOD charges what it charges is because PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IT
>IS WORTH THEIR MONEY (that's why they hand it over to SOD in the first
>place). Some People would rather have a copy of SOD than $8....let 'em,
>why the fuck do you care?
>
> I'm sick of dumbfucks trying to act noble and virtuous by bragging
> about how they would do everything for free, in the name of the
>"underground". This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
>movie.
Fuck that - art is more important than entertainment. I'd gladly give
MORBID ANGEL my money for creating great art than I would pass on some
money to morons purveying schlock, and, just as you defend their
publishing of said schlock you'll love my publishing of
anti-their-schlock in the form of critique of their lack of real
motive.
FUCK THE WEAK
i am coming to kill your god
>> music is art. or, music SHOULD be art. its those that think its "just
>> entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
>> hansons of tomorrow.
>>
> Art is entertainment. Why do you think people go to museums?
>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!! Visual and aural arts are nothing but
>stimulas for the senses. Yes a movie may stimulate your senses in a
>different way than a Morbid Angel album, but they are both still art and
>both STILL ENTERTAINMENT. Because you happen to appreciate music more
>than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
>some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
Entertainment = media to keep sheep amused so they do not realize they
are slaves.
Art is more than entertainment; it stimulates through a medium an
intellectual "higher level"; unlike entertainment, it is not the
aesthetic that represents it.
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST RIGHT
> Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
>If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose? And what do you
>think of such things as fiction writers??? Is what they produce art??
>They certainly created it to entertain. Same with fantasy artists.
>
> Try and actually put some thought into your response this time
>
> Melvin Slundersloth
>
!---------------------------------------------------!
i am coming to kill your god
> as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
>> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
>> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
>> such is to progress the concept of art.
>
> What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
>first place??? So people can just "progress its concept"?? You could
>easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
>creativity....once again, what is your purpose behind adding a creative
>element?????
you might as well ask:
- why do plants grow?
- why evolution?
- why positive and negative numbers?
hail daemonic!
EVIL
myles robert hamilton
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > First off......At no point did I ever say nor even gave the
> >vaguest implication that I believe that an artist should alter their
> >creations for the sake of making $$$$. I simply stated that there is
> >nothing wrong with profiting from your art.
>
> well, you said a number of times that the purpose of art is to
> entertain...this DOES imply that it's ok to try to make your art more
> commercial (e.g. entertaining), and therefore making you more money.
> perhaps a misunderstanding.
>
No. What I am trying to say is this. Art is inherently social,
just as you said, it deals with EXPRESSION. When you express something,
you have an intended audience. Now, people could express ideas with
simple words, or writing or whatever....but they don't. The reason for
this, is because they feel that these mediums by themselves may not be
enough to either 1)convey their point or 2)Convey their point with enough
force/in the right way. Art, is then a tool employed by humans which
takes advantage of excessory forms of stimulis, for the purpose of
achieving the two points referenced above.
Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
Note: saying art is "bad" and "good" is a purely subjective
matter, because what stimulates humans is subjective as well.
>> art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
> >> music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
> >> integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public.
>
> > "Entertaining" essentially means that it is not "boring".
> >Entertainment and commercialism are not the same thing.
>
> what is entertaining to the most people usually falls under the
> category "commercial". if you make something for the sake of being
> entertaining to the most amount of people possible, it's no longer
> art, because its no longer designed for you.
Entertaining just means stimulating to your audience (no matter
who or how large it is) If you choose to make art for your girlfriend to
show how you feel about her, and you convey the message successfully,
then you have good art(even if no one else understands it)
>
> >From what
> >you have written above, you appear to be saying that something that
> >is inherently "artistic" is not inherently "entertaining" and in
> >order to achieve the latter, you would have to sacrafice the former.
>
> please show me where i said that.
Right here:
what i said was that something
> should not be made more entertaining at the cost of ones artistic
> integrity...you made it the way it is, let it stand like that.
Substitute "entertaining" with "commercial" in this sentence and
you would be correct.
>
> >Well, the new Ulver album is very entertaining, and it doesn't appear
> >too commercial to me.(a bit of a Darkthrone rip off, though) They could
> >of sold alot more albums by playing in a different style, or in a less
> >abrasive manner, but they chose not to sacrafice their artistic
> >integrity for cash...yet the end result was still entertaining.
>
> did i disagree, here?
Then you agree that the point of the MUSIC is to stimulate (entertain) the
audience in order to aid in driving home a deeper point?
>
> > Yes, it would be a shame if an artist altered their work in order
> > to make money, by appealing to commercialism.....but, I don't ever recall
> > saying otherwise, so why are you telling me this?
>
> see first comment. you say the purpose of art is to entertain, and
> nothing more...why have art, then?
because stimulis is a useful tool in the transferrel of thoughts
and emotions.
you could make a business out of
> entertaining people with music designed to be something other then
> art
What kind of music is this? The Spice Girls and such (I have a
hunch thats who you are reffering to) are still art....bad art though.
Even though they are there to make money, the purpose of their music is
to transfer emotions like "happiness" to their audience, which they
couldn't otherwise do by just telling their audience "hey, be happy!"
, and you'd have an easier time at it, because you wouldnt have to
> worry about artistic integrity.
>
> > obviously, a
> >> piece of art can be entertaining at the same time as being art, though
> >> one should not be sacrificed for the other.
>
> >
>
>
> >>
> >>> >Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
> >> >BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> i do it to express myself.
>
> > You could just as easily express yourself by writting your
> >thoughts down on a piece of paper in a very bland manner.
>
> music expresses emotions much better then words, i think. when i find
> that i can express myself better through stream-of-consciousness
> writing, thats when i'll start doing it.
>
> >Why do you
> >choose to shroud your expression in excessory stimulis?????
>
> because those stimuli help me convey my emotions better.
>
Right, they excite something in the mind, therefore allowing an
entertaining presentation of the concept which you are trying to convey.
If you didn't use the stimuli correctly, you would fail to convey what
you want to convey.....the oppossite of "stimulating" is "boring", and if
something is "boring" it is not "entertaing"
> >Perhaps,
> >thats a little less exciting (entertaining) to the human mind???
>
> most music i write will never see the light of day. if i was out to
> entertain myself, i could think of better ways.
You will hear that music yourself though. You create it so that
you may listen to it.....in order to stimulate your own mind. If your
trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
trying to entertain yourself.
>
> > as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
> >> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
> >> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
> >> such is to progress the concept of art.
> >
> > What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
> >first place???
>
> no idea...its the same question as "why do we exist?". people have
> thought about it for centuries, though we havent come to an answer
> yet, and we may never.
Its not the same question. Its answered fairly simply actually,
just examine your own behavior and analyze why you do what you do.
>
> >So people can just "progress its concept"??
>
> via their own creative input, yes.
If you don't know it's concept, then how can you claim to
progress it?
>
> >You could
> >easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
> >creativity....
>
> how?
(using the previous example) walk up to your girlfriend and say
"I love you a whole lot" Odds are, without the song/picture/art you
would of otherwise created for her, whe would not of fully understood
your point.
>
> >once again, what is your purpose behind adding a creative
> >element?????
>
> well, if i use art to express myself, and if everyone expressed
> themselves the same exact way, we'd have a very boring world, wouldnt
> we?
Yes, very "boring".....nothing would be "entertaining", now would it?
>
> > or it should be. if everyone
> >> was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
> >> would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
> >> musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
> >> stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
> >> entertainment, right?
>
> > Actually, I don't find Bush or the Spice Girls entertaining at
> >all....their music is boring and downright annoying....very commercial,
> >though.
>
> ...something which most people would disagree with. for them,
> entertainment is commerciality.
So it has to be boring to be "true art"? Anything that
stimulates is just done for money? I can tell from your previous posts
that you don't mean this, but why are you saying it??
>
> >> where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
> >> it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
> >> mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
> >>
>
> > When did I say this????????????????????????
>
> you implied it.
Explain the logical process behind the implication.
>
> > REPEAT: my comments were that if you could make a profit doing
> >something you love, there is nothing wrong with that.
>
> and i never disagreed. on the contrary, this has been most of my
> argument.
>
> >I really doubt the
> >session musicians who write for the spice girls like what the music they
> >create, so yes, they are sell outs. SOD, though shitty, is somebody
> >doing what they love and making money at it. Just because it sucks,
> >doesn't mean they have comprimised, it just means that they don't do a
> >good job.
>
> >> >Visual and aural arts are nothing but
> >> >stimulas for the senses.
> >>
> >> i couldve told you that.
> >>
>
> > Ahhh, you claim to see the obvious, yet its totally lacking in
> >your ideas.
> only a fool claims that art is not about using stimuli to express its
> intent.
>
Whose side are you on, anyway?
> >> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
> >> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
> >> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
> >> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
> >> nature.
>
> > But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining.
>
> maybe, maybe not. the concept of entertainment is relative, as
> expressed by the bush / spice girls example.
>
> >The
> >idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
> >with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
> >pointless.
>
> the point is that, even if it wasnt entertaining, it would still be
> art.
>
Right.....it would be "bad art" (subjectivity assumed)
> >> >Because you happen to appreciate music more
> >> >than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
> >> >some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
> >>
> >> cite examples.
> >>
> > You claim music isn't entertainment, but "art" and proceed to
> >imply that entertainment only exist for gaining material wealth, all the
> >time implying that art is an end within itself.
>
> incorrect, as ive stated that music is art, though it can be used for
> entertainment, as long as the original purpose is for it to be an end
> in itself.
How can art be an end within itself??????? Nothing is an end
within itself.
i could write a beautiful poem, and selling it would not
> change the contents of such, so making money from it would not be a
> problem. its when you create for the sake of money that the problem
> arises.
Right, but "bad poems" are those that are not entertaining, no
matter what you right em for.
>
>
> >> > Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
> >> >If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
> >>
> >> to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
> >> musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
>
> > Ahhh, stimulis.....if the musician was doing something boring, I
> >bet you would lose interest (not entertaining enough)
>
> define "boring".
Antonyms--"unstimulating" or "Unentertaining"
Once again, "Entertaining" has nothing to do with whether it is
art or not......it has to do with its quality. Art is entertainment.
The point behind your art is not entertainment, but the art you
shroud it in for the purpose of stimulation is...otherwise, you would
just present your point without the art.
Melvin Slundersloth
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:54:12 -0500, myles robert hamilton
> <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > If you complain about SOD's profits, then why don't you complain about
> >Century Media's profits, or Morbid ANGEL's profits? REMEMBER, the only
> >reason that SOD charges what it charges is because PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IT
> >IS WORTH THEIR MONEY (that's why they hand it over to SOD in the first
> >place). Some People would rather have a copy of SOD than $8....let 'em,
> >why the fuck do you care?
> >
> > I'm sick of dumbfucks trying to act noble and virtuous by bragging
> > about how they would do everything for free, in the name of the
> >"underground". This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
> >movie.
>
> Fuck that - art is more important than entertainment.
Art is entertainment. It tries to stimulate your senses in order
to produce a response.....same as entertainment.
I'd gladly give
> MORBID ANGEL my money for creating great art than I would pass on some
> money to morons purveying schlock
I said as much myself
Why do you listen to MorbiD Angel?
Why do you care about what they have to say?
Why doesn't david Vincent write out his thoughts on a piece of
paper in a straightforward manner and hand them to you?
Why does he shroud his beliefs in fictional metaphors??
, and, just as you
defend their > publishing of said schlock you'll love my publishing of
> anti-their-schlock in the form of critique of their lack of real
> motive.
Your critique is just speculation, if you are correct in
your assertion regarding their motive, then yes they are to be scorned.
However, it is possible that they they are true in their motive and just
producing a really crappy product.
If Morbid Angel put out an album that sucked, and still charged
what they charge (and believe me they are charging as much as the market
will allow them, in order to MAXIMIZE PROFITS) would you question their
motives??? How come you agreed with me before, but don't now??
Melvin Slundersloth
> > FUCK THE WEAK >
i am coming to kill your god
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:55:54 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
wrote:
>>> disregarding everything else you wrote, as i'm not interested in a
>>> discussion on that:
>>>
>>> >This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
>>> >movie.
>>>
>>> music is art. or, music SHOULD be art. its those that think its "just
>>> entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
>>> hansons of tomorrow.
>>>
>>> -Daemonic
>>>
>> Art is entertainment.
>
>art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
>music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
>integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public. obviously, a
>piece of art can be entertaining at the same time as being art, though
>one should not be sacrificed for the other.
Is art entertainment -- if so, what to entertain does it address -- it
seems to me entertainment is closer on the end to the political stuff,
let your brain sleep while your body lives type material. "Entertain"
at least in my usage means non-interactive, reception of some
information which keeps the mind busy without any real direction (e.g.
white zombie).
>>Why do you think people go to museums?
>
>how many people that go to museums have participated in creating the
>art they're viewing?
most go because they believe they "should"
>you confuse intent with use.
art is created from intent, with no thought as to use
it seeks nihilism and separatism from the ahted society
>>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
>>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
what Daemonic says:
>i do it to express myself.
Tho that may be a cliche, he's talking about expression he can't do
through USENET or propagandistic elements. Life is complex and
beautiful at the same time it is destructive and violent, esp. to a
scientist, and in that spiritual acceptance and progress is the
threshold of art.
HAIL SATAN!
>if everyone
>was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
>would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
>musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
>stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
>entertainment, right?
Heh! Well said. If music was entertainment, it would be solely a
product, a commodity.
>where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
>it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
>mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
Those who do not wish to be manipulated but wish a dialogue with the
author.
>> Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
>>If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
>
>to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
>musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
To appreciate the beauty of the art -- if one wants to be entertained,
the pink/tan/brown/red thing between one's legs will work just fine.
Art is the combination of content and form to create something like
life -- something affirming and developing life -- to question art is
like going to a growing plant and saying, "Why Try? You will die --
there is no point -- be entertained and let is pass" but the more
farsighted plant only grows to the sun as a subscale of its ancestors
a subscale of all plants like it a subscale of all living things (us
included).
SUPPORT ARTISTIC EVOLUTION
!---------------------------------------------------!
| | The Evil GOAT -(*)- go...@satanic.org |
| | (666) |
| -|- <http://www.satanic.org/~goat/> 666 |
| <http://www.anus.com/people/goat/> |
| | <http://www.blackplague.org/holocaust/> |
| | <http://www.kcuf.org/> * black metal * |
| -|- death metal * nihilism * satanic art |
| blasphemy * revolution * holocaust |
!---------------------------------------------------!
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 12:58:26 -0500, myles robert hamilton
> <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> music is art. or, music SHOULD be art. its those that think its "just
> >> entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
> >> hansons of tomorrow.
> >>
> > Art is entertainment. Why do you think people go to museums?
> >Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
> >BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!! Visual and aural arts are nothing but
> >stimulas for the senses. Yes a movie may stimulate your senses in a
> >different way than a Morbid Angel album, but they are both still art and
> >both STILL ENTERTAINMENT. Because you happen to appreciate music more
> >than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
> >some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
>
> Entertainment = media to keep sheep amused so they do not realize they
> are slaves.
Merely a form of entertainment(but not art!)
Art is entertainment....entertainment is not necessarily art.
Anyways, Escapism does not necessarily have anything to do with"sheep
". I hope you don't think that everyone who enjoys Morbid Angel's "art" are
not sheep....cause the majority of them are.
Tolkein....art & entertainment. THoughts on this??
>
> Art is more than entertainment; it stimulates through a medium
Entertainment doesn't?
an
> intellectual "higher level"; unlike entertainment, it is not the
> aesthetic that represents it.
>
Please qualify your statement. First, tell me what an
intellectual "higher level" is, and secondly explain the relationship
between patterns of sound and intellect. Just cause you like those
tthings which you classify as "art" more than other forms of
entertainment (because they bring you to a "higher level") does not mean
they are superior in any way.
Melvin Slundersloth
> SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST RIGHT
>
>
>
> > Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
> >If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose? And what do you
> >think of such things as fiction writers??? Is what they produce art??
> >They certainly created it to entertain. Same with fantasy artists.
> >
> > Try and actually put some thought into your response this time
> >
> > Melvin Slundersloth
> >
>
i am coming to kill your god
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:12:20 -0500, myles robert hamilton
<mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> > First off......At no point did I ever say nor even gave the
>> >vaguest implication that I believe that an artist should alter their
>> >creations for the sake of making $$$$. I simply stated that there is
>> >nothing wrong with profiting from your art.
>>
>> well, you said a number of times that the purpose of art is to
>> entertain...this DOES imply that it's ok to try to make your art more
>> commercial (e.g. entertaining), and therefore making you more money.
>> perhaps a misunderstanding.
>>
> No. What I am trying to say is this. Art is inherently social,
>just as you said, it deals with EXPRESSION. When you express something,
>you have an intended audience. Now, people could express ideas with
>simple words, or writing or whatever....but they don't. The reason for
>this, is because they feel that these mediums by themselves may not be
>enough to either 1)convey their point or 2)Convey their point with enough
>force/in the right way. Art, is then a tool employed by humans which
>takes advantage of excessory forms of stimulis, for the purpose of
>achieving the two points referenced above.
So you basically agree with him, language issues aside.
> Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
>people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
>(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
>stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
>really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
>the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
>stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
>point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
>
> Note: saying art is "bad" and "good" is a purely subjective
>matter, because what stimulates humans is subjective as well.
Art executed poorly -- without competence for integration of content
into form -- is boring because it is obvious, more gesturing without
the metaphorical beauty of artistic accomplishment.
> >> art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
>> >> music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
>> >> integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public.
>>
>> > "Entertaining" essentially means that it is not "boring".
>> >Entertainment and commercialism are not the same thing.
>>
>> what is entertaining to the most people usually falls under the
>> category "commercial". if you make something for the sake of being
>> entertaining to the most amount of people possible, it's no longer
>> art, because its no longer designed for you.
>
> Entertaining just means stimulating to your audience (no matter
>who or how large it is) If you choose to make art for your girlfriend to
>show how you feel about her, and you convey the message successfully,
>then you have good art(even if no one else understands it)
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:24:49 -0500, myles robert hamilton
> <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
> >> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
> >> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
> >> such is to progress the concept of art.
> >
> > What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
> >first place??? So people can just "progress its concept"?? You could
> >easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
> >creativity....once again, what is your purpose behind adding a creative
> >element?????
>
> you might as well ask:
> - why do plants grow?
> - why evolution?
> - why positive and negative numbers?
You mean to tell me that you can't pause, examine your behavior
and discover why it is you do what you do????? Art is a HUMAN construct,
it is a conscious endeavor. Do you do things for absolutely no reason????
...And you call me a sheep!!!!!
Melvin Slundersloth
>
> hail daemonic!
>
> EVIL
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:55:54 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
> wrote:
>
> >>> disregarding everything else you wrote, as i'm not interested in a
> >>> discussion on that:
> >>>
> >>> >This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
> >>> >movie.
> >>>
> >>> music is art. or, music SHOULD be art. its those that think its "just
> >>> entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
> >>> hansons of tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>> -Daemonic
> >>>
> >> Art is entertainment.
> >
> >art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
> >music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
> >integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public. obviously, a
> >piece of art can be entertaining at the same time as being art, though
> >one should not be sacrificed for the other.
>
> Is art entertainment -- if so, what to entertain does it address -- it
> seems to me entertainment is closer on the end to the political stuff,
> let your brain sleep while your body lives type material. "Entertain"
> at least in my usage means non-interactive, reception of some
> information which keeps the mind busy without any real direction (e.g.
> white zombie).
>
> >>Why do you think people go to museums?
> >
> >how many people that go to museums have participated in creating the
> >art they're viewing?
>
> most go because they believe they "should"
Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
>
> >you confuse intent with use.
>
> art is created from intent, with no thought as to use
I hope you realize how contradictory this statement is. No, you
might not now how your art will ultimately be used by society, but there
is definately an intent involved in its conception. You have to have an
idea before you can create...it has an intended use, regardless of how it
is ulitmately used.
> it seeks nihilism and separatism from the ahted society
Your art, maybe, but other artists surely have different intentions.
>
> >>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
> >>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
>
> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
> what Daemonic says:
>
yes, lets look.......
> >i do it to express myself.
Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
audience. If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
> > Tho that may be a
cliche, he's talking about expression he
can't do > through USENET or propagandistic elements. Life is complex and
> beautiful at the same time it is destructive and violent, esp. to a
> scientist, and in that spiritual acceptance and progress is the
> threshold of art.
>
> HAIL SATAN!
>
> >if everyone
> >was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
> >would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
> >musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
> >stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
> >entertainment, right?
>
> Heh! Well said. If music was entertainment, it would be solely a
> product, a commodity.
O.k.....the value of music exists only in relation to those who
make it and hear it.....because those people are human, it follows that
music only has value in relation to humans...those things that only have
value in relation to humans are commodities.....so, yes, music is a
commodity.
>
> >where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
> >it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
> >mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
>
> Those who do not wish to be manipulated but wish a dialogue with the
> author.
>
For the last time...I never said anything remotely relating to
the concept of creating art for the purpose of $$$$ is good, so either
quote where I said it, show where you got the inference, or SHUT THE FUCK
UP!!!!
> >> Why the fuck do you listen to music then,
art boy????? > >>If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
> >
> >to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
> >musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
>
> To appreciate the beauty of the art -- if one wants to be entertained,
> the pink/tan/brown/red thing between one's legs will work just fine.
>
Think about what apreciation of art entails for a moment. It all
deals with stimulation of your senses in an effective manner....
THE VERY FOUNDATION OF ENTERTAINMENT. Why do you apprectiate it? it
makes you feel certain feelings...so can a movie or a book or a painting
or an episode of "Webster" if your mind is that numb.
Masturbation is not art (unless your REALLY good at it), your
correct. Let me repeat this fact for you, though, Art in
Entertainment.....but Entertainment is not necessarily art.
> Art is the combination of content and
form to create something like
> life -- something affirming and developing life
Why do you value life??? Do you think most metal bands do??? Is
Zyklon B art???? Their whole theme is total holacaust.
-- to question art is
> like going to a growing plant and saying, "Why Try? You will die --
> there is no point -- be entertained and let is pass"
I find this a very unusual statement for a Nihilist....seriously,
I'm not trying to poke fun at you (I don't know you) but could you mail
me privately and explain to me how this fits into nihilism?? (I'm serious)
Yeah, i'll pass on the extened plant metaphor....
Melvin Slundersloth
but the more
> farsighted plant only grows to the sun as a subscale of its ancestors
> a subscale of all plants like it a subscale of all living things (us
> included).
>
> SUPPORT ARTISTIC EVOLUTION
>
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > First off......At no point did I ever say nor even gave the
>> >vaguest implication that I believe that an artist should alter their
>> >creations for the sake of making $$$$. I simply stated that there is
>> >nothing wrong with profiting from your art.
>>
>> well, you said a number of times that the purpose of art is to
>> entertain...this DOES imply that it's ok to try to make your art more
>> commercial (e.g. entertaining), and therefore making you more money.
>> perhaps a misunderstanding.
>>
> No. What I am trying to say is this. Art is inherently social,
>just as you said, it deals with EXPRESSION. When you express something,
>you have an intended audience.
when i create, i dont have an intented audience.
>Now, people could express ideas with
>simple words, or writing or whatever....but they don't. The reason for
>this, is because they feel that these mediums by themselves may not be
>enough to either 1)convey their point or 2)Convey their point with enough
>force/in the right way.
i'd go with #1.
>Art, is then a tool employed by humans which
>takes advantage of excessory forms of stimulis, for the purpose of
>achieving the two points referenced above.
see above.
> Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
>people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
>(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
>stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
>really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
>the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
>stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
>point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
think: what if an artist decides to make something purposefully
boring? i cite that ambient song that burzum put on filosofem
(whatever its called); it's boring, but i think theres a purpose for
it within the context of the cd.
> Note: saying art is "bad" and "good" is a purely subjective
>matter, because what stimulates humans is subjective as well.
> >> art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
>> >> music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
>> >> integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public.
>>
>> > "Entertaining" essentially means that it is not "boring".
>> >Entertainment and commercialism are not the same thing.
>>
>> what is entertaining to the most people usually falls under the
>> category "commercial". if you make something for the sake of being
>> entertaining to the most amount of people possible, it's no longer
>> art, because its no longer designed for you.
> Entertaining just means stimulating to your audience (no matter
>who or how large it is) If you choose to make art for your girlfriend to
>show how you feel about her, and you convey the message successfully,
>then you have good art(even if no one else understands it)
making art for the purpose of catering to others is a contradiction.
if you said, hmm, i'm going to write a poem, and hmm...i think i'll
write it to my girlfriend, then thats fine, though if you said,
hmm...i'm going to write a poem, and its going to follow the form of
the most popular style today, so it makes me some money, then its not
art.
>>
>> >From what
>> >you have written above, you appear to be saying that something that
>> >is inherently "artistic" is not inherently "entertaining" and in
>> >order to achieve the latter, you would have to sacrafice the former.
>>
>> please show me where i said that.
> Right here:
> what i said was that something
>> should not be made more entertaining at the cost of ones artistic
>> integrity...you made it the way it is, let it stand like that.
incorrect. i said that one should not be sacrificed for the other.
> Substitute "entertaining" with "commercial" in this sentence and
>you would be correct.
i miss your point.
>> >Well, the new Ulver album is very entertaining, and it doesn't appear
>> >too commercial to me.(a bit of a Darkthrone rip off, though) They could
>> >of sold alot more albums by playing in a different style, or in a less
>> >abrasive manner, but they chose not to sacrafice their artistic
>> >integrity for cash...yet the end result was still entertaining.
>>
>> did i disagree, here?
> Then you agree that the point of the MUSIC is to stimulate (entertain) the
>audience in order to aid in driving home a deeper point?
sometimes. think about it this way: ulver puts out nattens madrigal
(the new one), and it happens to be entertaining; this is not the
purpose (for instance). the purpose would be what the music represents
(e.g. lycanthropy), and NOT to entertain, though it happens to
entertain people nevertheless. the point is NOT to entertain, but to
create something beautiful, which just happened to be entertaining, i
think.
>> > Yes, it would be a shame if an artist altered their work in order
>> > to make money, by appealing to commercialism.....but, I don't ever recall
>> > saying otherwise, so why are you telling me this?
>>
>> see first comment. you say the purpose of art is to entertain, and
>> nothing more...why have art, then?
> because stimulis is a useful tool in the transferrel of thoughts
>and emotions.
but these emotions have been transferred ALREADY. for instance, most
doomdeath focuses on translating a few emotions. every band expresses
more or less the same ones. there is no "need" to do this, because if
you want the emotions, you can look at already written material. so,
why have any further art, if the only purpose is to A) entertain, and
B) translate already-displayed emotions?
>you could make a business out of
>> entertaining people with music designed to be something other then
>> art
> What kind of music is this? The Spice Girls and such (I have a
>hunch thats who you are reffering to) are still art....bad art though.
>Even though they are there to make money, the purpose of their music is
>to transfer emotions like "happiness" to their audience, which they
>couldn't otherwise do by just telling their audience "hey, be happy!"
there is no purpose to the music. a major tenet of art is doing what
you want, for the sake of expressing yourself, not expressing yourself
in specific ways because that's what people want to hear. the spice
girls do the latter. they are not art.
>> music expresses emotions much better then words, i think. when i find
>> that i can express myself better through stream-of-consciousness
>> writing, thats when i'll start doing it.
>>
>> >Why do you
>> >choose to shroud your expression in excessory stimulis?????
>>
>> because those stimuli help me convey my emotions better.
> Right, they excite something in the mind, therefore allowing an
>entertaining presentation of the concept which you are trying to convey.
no. why do you think a poet writes poems instead of books? because
they look at whats in their mind, and they cant express it through a
book, but they can express it through a poem. has nothing to do with
entertainment. entertainment is why we enjoy art; this is not the
purpose behind it.
>If you didn't use the stimuli correctly, you would fail to convey what
>you want to convey.....the oppossite of "stimulating" is "boring", and if
>something is "boring" it is not "entertaing"
what if an artist wanted to make something "boring"?
>> >Perhaps,
>> >thats a little less exciting (entertaining) to the human mind???
>>
>> most music i write will never see the light of day. if i was out to
>> entertain myself, i could think of better ways.
> You will hear that music yourself though. You create it so that
>you may listen to it.....in order to stimulate your own mind.
i just kind of write it down somewhere and forget about it. the only
time i really listen to it is when i'm trying to put it together.
>If your
>trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
>trying to entertain yourself.
but i'm not...
>> > as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
>> >> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
>> >> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
>> >> such is to progress the concept of art.
>> >
>> > What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
>> >first place???
>>
>> no idea...its the same question as "why do we exist?". people have
>> thought about it for centuries, though we havent come to an answer
>> yet, and we may never.
> Its not the same question. Its answered fairly simply actually,
>just examine your own behavior and analyze why you do what you do.
why dont you answer it for me, then?
>> >So people can just "progress its concept"??
>>
>> via their own creative input, yes.
> If you don't know it's concept, then how can you claim to
>progress it?
maybe i'm missing something, but i'd claim that i understood the
concept of art. perhaps you'd care to explain?
>>
>> >You could
>> >easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
>> >creativity....
>>
>> how?
> (using the previous example) walk up to your girlfriend and say
>"I love you a whole lot" Odds are, without the song/picture/art you
>would of otherwise created for her, whe would not of fully understood
>your point.
why not? you dont think that statement is self-explanatory?
>> >once again, what is your purpose behind adding a creative
>> >element?????
>>
>> well, if i use art to express myself, and if everyone expressed
>> themselves the same exact way, we'd have a very boring world, wouldnt
>> we?
> Yes, very "boring".....nothing would be "entertaining", now would it?
and the purpose of this statement is what...?
>> > or it should be. if everyone
>> >> was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
>> >> would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
>> >> musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
>> >> stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
>> >> entertainment, right?
>>
>> > Actually, I don't find Bush or the Spice Girls entertaining at
>> >all....their music is boring and downright annoying....very commercial,
>> >though.
>>
>> ...something which most people would disagree with. for them,
>> entertainment is commerciality.
> So it has to be boring to be "true art"? Anything that
>stimulates is just done for money?
like i said, for them, entertainment is commerciallity. they want the
music they listen to catered to their every whim; they want music made
just for them. they dont understand why an artist creates; they
understand why a whore creates.
>I can tell from your previous posts
>that you don't mean this, but why are you saying it??
i think you misunderstood what i meant.
>> >> where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
>> >> it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
>> >> mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
>> >>
>>
>> > When did I say this????????????????????????
>>
>> you implied it.
> Explain the logical process behind the implication.
art = entertainment
"good" art = entertaining art
"bad" art = boring art
"good" art = result strived for by artist
best action = art catered to popular opinion to make it "good"
best action = selling out
>> > REPEAT: my comments were that if you could make a profit doing
>> >something you love, there is nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> and i never disagreed. on the contrary, this has been most of my
>> argument.
>>
>> >I really doubt the
>> >session musicians who write for the spice girls like what the music they
>> >create, so yes, they are sell outs. SOD, though shitty, is somebody
>> >doing what they love and making money at it. Just because it sucks,
>> >doesn't mean they have comprimised, it just means that they don't do a
>> >good job.
>>
>> >> >Visual and aural arts are nothing but
>> >> >stimulas for the senses.
>> >>
>> >> i couldve told you that.
>> >>
>>
>> > Ahhh, you claim to see the obvious, yet its totally lacking in
>> >your ideas.
>
>> only a fool claims that art is not about using stimuli to express its
>> intent.
>>
> Whose side are you on, anyway?
it uses stimuli, obviously, though the point of art is not to
entertain, but to express. focus on what the stimuli mean, instead of
the fact that they're there.
>> >> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
>> >> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
>> >> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
>> >> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
>> >> nature.
>>
>> > But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining.
>>
>> maybe, maybe not. the concept of entertainment is relative, as
>> expressed by the bush / spice girls example.
>>
>> >The
>> >idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
>> >with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
>> >pointless.
>>
>> the point is that, even if it wasnt entertaining, it would still be
>> art.
>>
> Right.....it would be "bad art" (subjectivity assumed)
from our standpoint, perhaps, but i wouldnt suggest that the writer
turn it into "good" art because i thought it sucked.
>> >> >Because you happen to appreciate music more
>> >> >than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
>> >> >some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
>> >>
>> >> cite examples.
>> >>
>> > You claim music isn't entertainment, but "art" and proceed to
>> >imply that entertainment only exist for gaining material wealth, all the
>> >time implying that art is an end within itself.
>>
>> incorrect, as ive stated that music is art, though it can be used for
>> entertainment, as long as the original purpose is for it to be an end
>> in itself.
> How can art be an end within itself??????? Nothing is an end
>within itself.
why not?
> i could write a beautiful poem, and selling it would not
>> change the contents of such, so making money from it would not be a
>> problem. its when you create for the sake of money that the problem
>> arises.
> Right, but "bad poems" are those that are not entertaining, no
>matter what you right em for.
but...throwing out the poem and writing a "good" poem, one that most
people could appreciate and would purchase would be anathema to the
concept of art, which is expressing yourself for your own sake.
>> >> > Why the fuck do you listen to music then, art boy?????
>> >> >If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
>> >>
>> >> to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
>> >> musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
>>
>> > Ahhh, stimulis.....if the musician was doing something boring, I
>> >bet you would lose interest (not entertaining enough)
>>
>> define "boring".
> Antonyms--"unstimulating" or "Unentertaining"
i believe you mean synonyms.
pretending for the sake of argument that there's a universal objective
for "entertaining" or "boring", like i've said before, i would not
tell the musician to write something more entertaining for my sake.
again, what if the purpose of an artists creation is to bore? is it
"bad"?
>Art is entertainment.
>The point behind your art is not entertainment, but the art you
>shroud it in for the purpose of stimulation is...otherwise, you would
>just present your point without the art.
referencing Of Mice and Men again, do you think the point could have
been presented in any other way? someone may consider it boring, but i
dont see a way to present it otherwise. the same for music: you have
something you want to express, something that cannot be expressed with
simple words.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Anyways, Escapism does not necessarily have anything to do with"sheep
>". I hope you don't think that everyone who enjoys Morbid Angel's "art" are
>not sheep....cause the majority of them are.
those who appreciate it for art, and not just something to pass time
(e.g. "i'm bored, i want to hear something loud, lets listen to Morbid
Angel!") are usually not sheep.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
Laurent Seiter
myles robert hamilton wrote:
> trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
> trying to entertain yourself.
--
___________________________________________________
Laurent SEITER
mailto:lse...@crim.ca
Laurent Seiter
i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> Entertainment = media to keep sheep amused so they do not realize they
> are slaves.
>
> intellectual "higher level"; unlike entertainment, it is not the
> aesthetic that represents it.
It's a matter of complexity and faith too.
The more abstract and obscure, the more artistic... And this is often
wrong.
myles robert hamilton
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Richard Stuart wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970729...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> writes
>
> > Art is entertainment. Why do you think people go to museums?
> >Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
> >BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!! Visual and aural arts are nothing but
> >stimulas for the senses. Yes a movie may stimulate your senses in a
> >different way than a Morbid Angel album, but they are both still art and
> >both STILL ENTERTAINMENT.
>
> Why do people watch films like 'Schindlers List?' Surely not to be
> "entertained." Why do people listen to bands like Funeral? Surely not
> because it makes them happy.
>
I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
Art, a form of entertainment, deals with stimulation of the
senses. If the stimulation is ineffectual.....the art will not evoke a
response in the intended audience and will therefore serve no purpose (ie
be boring) If "Schindler's list" were a boring movie, you would of
turned it off, right? Then you would not have gotton the message.
Similarly, if the scenes didn't move you (stimulate your mind) and you
found them boring (un-entertaining) then it would be bad art (for
you...judging art is subjective anyway).
Melvin Slundersloth
>
> -Ricks
>
> NO FUN... NO CORE... NO MOSH... NO TRENDS
NO EURONYMOUS WANNA - BES
>
> http://www.grave.com/~mega/metal/Rickreviews/index.html
>
>
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Laurent Seiter wrote:
> myles robert hamilton wrote:
> > trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
> > trying to entertain yourself.
> I'm a little confused now... is masturbation art or entertainment ?
> --
Masturbation is entertainment
Art is entertainment
Masturbation is not Art.
Hard to grasp?
A car is a thing with 4 wheels
A shopping cart is a thing with 4 wheels
A shopping cart is not a car
Melvin Slundersloth
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Laurent Seiter wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton wrote:
>> > trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
>> > trying to entertain yourself.
>> I'm a little confused now... is masturbation art or entertainment ?
>> --
> Masturbation is entertainment
> Art is entertainment
> Masturbation is not Art.
masterbation can be an art. :)
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
(lots of stuff in the post cut...)
>> most go because they believe they "should"
> Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
why do you think most people go to see operas? not because they are
interested in the plot, or because they appreciate the art form, but
because they wish to become one of the "cultured elite".
>> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
>> what Daemonic says:
>>
> yes, lets look.......
>> >i do it to express myself.
> Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
>audience.
i have no audience; the purpose of my art is solely self-expression,
which justifies itself.
>If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
>transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
>mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
>creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
>to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
>your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
>entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
i tell you my art is for self-expression and just that, you tell me
it's for an audience. explain how you know more about me then i know
about myself.
>> Art is the combination of content and
>form to create something like
>> life -- something affirming and developing life
> Why do you value life??? Do you think most metal bands do??? Is
>Zyklon B art???? Their whole theme is total holacaust.
something that affirms and develops life does not neccesarily have to
value it.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
>did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
> The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
>telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
>thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
>order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
Hate
blah blah blah (xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth))
>> Masturbation is entertainment
>> Art is entertainment
>> Masturbation is not Art.
>masterbation can be an art. :)
Agreed. I have this ultra cool Raquel Darrian video to support this
claim.
****************************visit*****************************
* Tracks Of Creation Webzine (http://www.ratw.com/creation/) *
**************************************************************
* for the latest on death/black/extreme music. *
* I write for it. Read it or I will kill you. *
**************************************************************
/} Brett A. Benzie
// hat...@dcc.net.au
/{ /> http://www.dcc.net.au/~hatred/
,__________///----/{___________________________________________________
/|==========|/\|-----/___________________________________________________\
\|==========|\/|-----\___________________________________________________/
'~~~~~~~~~~\\\----\{
\{ \>remove "DeathToSpam" from my email address to reply.
\\
\}
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>
> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > First off......At no point did I ever say nor even gave the
> >> >vaguest implication that I believe that an artist should alter their
> >> >creations for the sake of making $$$$. I simply stated that there is
> >> >nothing wrong with profiting from your art.
> >>
> >> well, you said a number of times that the purpose of art is to
> >> entertain...this DOES imply that it's ok to try to make your art more
> >> commercial (e.g. entertaining), and therefore making you more money.
> >> perhaps a misunderstanding.
> >>
> > No. What I am trying to say is this. Art is inherently social,
> >just as you said, it deals with EXPRESSION. When you express something,
> >you have an intended audience.
>
> when i create, i dont have an intented audience.
At the minimum, you create for yourself (unless you play your
instrument with your ears plugged) The reason you play in the first place
is because you want to hear, correct? You may not know who else will
appreciate your creation (nor even intend for that to happen), but it is
not suprising when one does, for we are all human and share similar
experiences/likes/desires.
>
> >Now, people could express ideas with
> >simple words, or writing or whatever....but they don't. The reason for
> >this, is because they feel that these mediums by themselves may not be
> >enough to either 1)convey their point or 2)Convey their point with enough
> >force/in the right way.
>
> i'd go with #1.
If #1 is all you seek, i'm sure you would find simple speech to
provide you with enough utility on most occasions.
>
> >Art, is then a tool employed by humans which
> >takes advantage of excessory forms of stimulis, for the purpose of
> >achieving the two points referenced above.
>
> see above.
>
> > Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
> >people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
> >(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
> >stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
> >really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
> >the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
> >stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
> >point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
>
> think: what if an artist decides to make something purposefully
> boring? i cite that ambient song that burzum put on filosofem
> (whatever its called); it's boring, but i think theres a purpose for
> it within the context of the cd.
>
I am not a Burzum fan, and consequently have not heard the song....
In spite of this, I wish to reiterate a point of mine.
Judgemnets of "boring" and "entertaining" are subjective, so what you
find boring Count Grishnack may find entertaining.
Also, be careful about what you call boring....The track may be
monotonous for a purpose, but as long as it entertains, it is not really
boring. As long as it stimulates you in some way, it is entertaining.
> > Note: saying art is "bad" and "good" is a purely subjective
> >matter, because what stimulates humans is subjective as well.
>
>
> > >> art is entertainment, true, but something inherently artistic (e.g.
> >> >> music) should not be made entertaining at the cost of dropping ones
> >> >> integrity and whoring to commercialism and the public.
> >>
> >> > "Entertaining" essentially means that it is not "boring".
> >> >Entertainment and commercialism are not the same thing.
> >>
> >> what is entertaining to the most people usually falls under the
> >> category "commercial". if you make something for the sake of being
> >> entertaining to the most amount of people possible, it's no longer
> >> art, because its no longer designed for you.
>
> > Entertaining just means stimulating to your audience (no matter
> >who or how large it is) If you choose to make art for your girlfriend to
> >show how you feel about her, and you convey the message successfully,
> >then you have good art(even if no one else understands it)
>
> making art for the purpose of catering to others is a contradiction.
> if you said, hmm, i'm going to write a poem, and hmm...i think i'll
> write it to my girlfriend, then thats fine, though if you said,
> hmm...i'm going to write a poem, and its going to follow the form of
> the most popular style today, so it makes me some money, then its not
> art.
For the last time.......I never EVER said anyone should make art
for the purpose of catering to others. What I have been saying as that
if you express something, and it does not stimulate someone, they will
consider it to be "bad art" (subjective) Does this mean the artists
should change his/her style to make that person find it to be "good
art"? NO!!!! It just means exactly what I said: that the person will
find it to be bad art!!
>
> >>
> >> >From what
> >> >you have written above, you appear to be saying that something that
> >> >is inherently "artistic" is not inherently "entertaining" and in
> >> >order to achieve the latter, you would have to sacrafice the former.
> >>
> >> please show me where i said that.
>
> > Right here:
> > what i said was that something
> >> should not be made more entertaining at the cost of ones artistic
> >> integrity...you made it the way it is, let it stand like that.
>
> incorrect. i said that one should not be sacrificed for the other.
>
> > Substitute "entertaining" with "commercial" in this sentence and
> >you would be correct.
>
> i miss your point.
"Entertaining" has to do with how stimulating the art is for an
individual. "Commercial" has to do with its widespread appeal to many
indivviduals. ULVER: They made an album that has little Commercial value
(by industry standards) but was (we both agree) very entertaining. The
reason we enjoyed it is because it stimulated our senses, it didn't for
others, so they didn't like it. The message of the album (very
genarically) "lycanthropy" has been the subject of many other metal
songs/albums over the years, so why did we enjoy it...its nothing new?
Because the presentation of it was stimulating (entertaining), that's
why. If Hootie & The Blowfish wrote an honest album about the same
subject, I don't think I'd be a big fan, because I don't find them
stimulating.
Name for me an emotion that hasn't been touched upon in art?????
Remember when you said the purpose of your art was expression??? Aren't
you expressing someething old in a new way???? That's part of the reason
other people want to hear it...they can identify with the feeling in some
way. Artists very rarely express new ideas(in the micro-time span, not
over 100s of years), its the way they express old ideas in new ways that
makes them artists.
Look at Morbid Angel and Deicide. Musical difference (artistic
side) immense....message difference....none discernable
>
> >you could make a business out of
> >> entertaining people with music designed to be something other then
> >> art
>
> > What kind of music is this? The Spice Girls and such (I have a
> >hunch thats who you are reffering to) are still art....bad art though.
> >Even though they are there to make money, the purpose of their music is
> >to transfer emotions like "happiness" to their audience, which they
> >couldn't otherwise do by just telling their audience "hey, be happy!"
>
> there is no purpose to the music. a major tenet of art is doing what
> you want, for the sake of expressing yourself,
expression involves a subject to whom the concept is being
expressed, even if it is just the self. Your own creation can stimulate
you just as much as another's
not expressing yourself
> in specific ways because that's what people want to hear. the spice
> girls do the latter. they are not art.
>
>
> >> music expresses emotions much better then words, i think. when i find
> >> that i can express myself better through stream-of-consciousness
> >> writing, thats when i'll start doing it.
> >>
> >> >Why do you
> >> >choose to shroud your expression in excessory stimulis?????
> >>
> >> because those stimuli help me convey my emotions better.
>
> > Right, they excite something in the mind, therefore allowing an
> >entertaining presentation of the concept which you are trying to convey.
>
> no. why do you think a poet writes poems instead of books? because
> they look at whats in their mind, and they cant express it through a
> book, but they can express it through a poem. has nothing to do with
> entertainment. entertainment is why we enjoy art; this is not the
> purpose behind it.
>
If the poem doesn't stimulate the audience, its failing in its
expression. Expression is communication. If the poet can't reach who
they are trying to reach, they have done a poor job. Keep in mind, I am
not saying that their goal should be to reach as many people as possible,
just that those who are not reached will reguard the poets creation as
bad art, because it is unstimulating, hence boring, hence
un-entertaining. ART is SOCIAL. If all you want to do is make art that
appeals to no one but yourself, then understand others will find it to be
bad art when they fail to be stimulated by it. (since their opinions are
subjective, it makes no claim beyond their own preferences about the
value of the art though) Once again, this does not mean the artist
should change their art at all, this just means that this is how things are!
> >If you didn't use the stimuli correctly, you would fail to convey what
> >you want to convey.....the oppossite of "stimulating" is "boring", and if
> >something is "boring" it is not "entertaing"
>
> what if an artist wanted to make something "boring"?
Boring in the sense we have been using it means
unstimulating...hence, they could create something unstimulating, but it
would be pointless.
>
> >> >Perhaps,
> >> >thats a little less exciting (entertaining) to the human mind???
> >>
> >> most music i write will never see the light of day. if i was out to
> >> entertain myself, i could think of better ways.
>
> > You will hear that music yourself though. You create it so that
> >you may listen to it.....in order to stimulate your own mind.
>
> i just kind of write it down somewhere and forget about it. the only
> time i really listen to it is when i'm trying to put it together.
I don't care how often you listen to it....you listen to it.
>
> >If your
> >trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
> >trying to entertain yourself.
>
> but i'm not...
I am confused as to how the idea enters into one's head, where
they decide "Hey!, I think I will go advance art for the sake of art
without any benefit for myself." "I will play my guitar, not pay
attention to what I am doing or why, and then forget about it when I'm
done, all for the sake of art!" You have to have a motive for what you do.
> > >> > as do many others, i'm sure.
sure, it
> >> >> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
> >> >> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
> >> >> such is to progress the concept of art.
> >> >
> >> > What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
> >> >first place???
> >>
> >> no idea...its the same question as "why do we exist?". people have
> >> thought about it for centuries, though we havent come to an answer
> >> yet, and we may never.
>
> > Its not the same question. Its answered fairly simply actually,
> >just examine your own behavior and analyze why you do what you do.
>
> why dont you answer it for me, then?
>
See all my above posts about the purpose behind art
> >> >So people can just "progress its concept"??
> >>
> >> via their own creative input, yes.
>
>
> > If you don't know it's concept, then how can you claim to
> >progress it?
>
> maybe i'm missing something, but i'd claim that i understood the
> concept of art. perhaps you'd care to explain?
>
I asked you what the inherent value of art was(since you claim to
advance it for its own sake) and also "why does it exist?"
Your response was "no idea". Do you now claim that the concept
of art and the purpose behind its creation (its inherent value you speak
of) are divorced from one another???
> >> > >> >You could
> >> >easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
> >> >creativity....
> >>
> >> how?
>
> > (using the previous example) walk up to your girlfriend and say
> >"I love you a whole lot" Odds are, without the song/picture/art you
> >would of otherwise created for her, whe would not of fully understood
> >your point.
>
> why not? you dont think that statement is self-explanatory?
She might not understand the nature/depth of your love with those
simple words...but if she heard you play a passionate song, with that as
the intended subject, she might understand it better.
> > >> >once again,
what is your purpose behind adding a creative > >> >element?????
> >>
> >> well, if i use art to express myself, and if everyone expressed
> >> themselves the same exact way, we'd have a very boring world, wouldnt
> >> we?
>
> > Yes, very "boring".....nothing would be "entertaining", now would it?
>
> and the purpose of this statement is what...?
My point is boring art is useless art. If it is not stimulating (ie
everyones done it so desensitization has taken place) it will not be
effective in its expression because it lacks the ability to entertain (ie
keep the human mind focused, occupied, and stimulated)
> >> > or it should
be. if everyone
> >> >> was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
> >> >> would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
> >> >> musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
> >> >> stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
> >> >> entertainment, right?
> >>
> >> > Actually, I don't find Bush or the Spice Girls entertaining at
> >> >all....their music is boring and downright annoying....very commercial,
> >> >though.
> >>
> >> ...something which most people would disagree with. for them,
> >> entertainment is commerciality.
>
> > So it has to be boring to be "true art"? Anything that
> >stimulates is just done for money?
>
> like i said, for them, entertainment is commerciallity. they want the
> music they listen to catered to their every whim; they want music made
> just for them. they dont understand why an artist creates; they
> understand why a whore creates.
You say "entertainment is commerciallity", yet you agreed Ulver
was entertaining, yet not commercial. Remember, Melvin Slundersloth is
not the Spice GIrls, so when I speak of entertainment, i am not talking
about "Commerciallity"!!!!!!!
> > >I can tell from your
previous posts > >that you don't mean this, but why are you saying it??
>
> i think you misunderstood what i meant.
>
Guess so
> >> >> where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
> >> >> it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
> >> >> mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > When did I say this????????????????????????
> >>
> >> you implied it.
>
> > Explain the logical process behind the implication.
>
> art = entertainment
> "good" art = entertaining art
> "bad" art = boring art
> "good" art = result strived for by artist
don't forget the subjectivity part!
Ahh, wait a sec there buddy......
Were do these next 2 come in????(ie what did I say that gave you
the impression that thats what I meant???
> best action = art catered to popular opinion to make it "good"
> best action = selling out
Never said any o that!
Look down and view the purpose to my origional message once again!
>
> >> > REPEAT: my comments were that if you could make a profit doing
> >> >something you love, there is nothing wrong with that.
> >>
> >> and i never disagreed. on the contrary, this has been most of my
> >> argument.
> >>
> >> >I really doubt the
> >> >session musicians who write for the spice girls like what the music they
> >> >create, so yes, they are sell outs. SOD, though shitty, is somebody
> >> >doing what they love and making money at it. Just because it sucks,
> >> >doesn't mean they have comprimised, it just means that they don't do a
> >> >good job.
> >>
> >> >> >Visual and aural arts are nothing but
> >> >> >stimulas for the senses.
> >> >>
> >> >> i couldve told you that.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Ahhh, you claim to see the obvious, yet its totally lacking in
> >> >your ideas.
> >
> >> only a fool claims that art is not about using stimuli to express its
> >> intent.
> >>
>
> > Whose side are you on, anyway?
>
> it uses stimuli, obviously, though the point of art is not to
> entertain, but to express. focus on what the stimuli mean, instead of
> the fact that they're there.
You can't tell what they mean if they don't stimulate you!
>
> >> >> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
> >> >> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
> >> >> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
> >> >> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
> >> >> nature.
> >>
> >> > But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining.
> >>
> >> maybe, maybe not. the concept of entertainment is relative, as
> >> expressed by the bush / spice girls example.
> >>
> >> >The
> >> >idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
> >> >with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
> >> >pointless.
> >>
> >> the point is that, even if it wasnt entertaining, it would still be
> >> art.
> >>
>
> > Right.....it would be "bad art" (subjectivity assumed)
>
> from our standpoint, perhaps, but i wouldnt suggest that the writer
> turn it into "good" art because i thought it sucked.
>
Well, we have something in common, cause I never suggested that either!
(Find out were I did and I'll apologize to ya!)
> >> >> >Because you happen to appreciate music more
> >> >> >than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
> >> >> >some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
> >> >>
> >> >> cite examples.
> >> >>
> >> > You claim music isn't entertainment, but "art" and proceed to
> >> >imply that entertainment only exist for gaining material wealth, all the
> >> >time implying that art is an end within itself.
> >>
> >> incorrect, as ive stated that music is art, though it can be used for
> >> entertainment, as long as the original purpose is for it to be an end
> >> in itself.
> > How can art be an end within itself??????? Nothing is an end
> >within itself.
>
> why not?
Try and explain to me what the inherent value of art is, and I
thik you'll figure it out pretty fast. Art only has utility in so far as
the artists and audience(no matter who it is) are capable of finding.
> > > i could write a
beautiful poem, and selling it would not
> >> change the contents of such, so making money from it would not be a
> >> problem. its when you create for the sake of money that the problem
> >> arises.
>
> > Right, but "bad poems" are those that are not entertaining, no
> >matter what you right em for.
>
> but...throwing out the poem and writing a "good" poem, one that most
> people could appreciate and would purchase would be anathema to the
> concept of art, which is expressing yourself for your own sake.
>
ONCE AGAIN: Entertainment and commerciality are two different
things. "Good" does not mean mass appeal, it means subjectively
entertaining. The terms good and band only make sense at the micro level
because they are purely subjective.
> >> >> > Why the fuck do you
listen to music then, art
boy????? > >> >> >If not to entertain yourself, then for what purpose?
> >> >>
> >> >> to entertain myself, obviously, but to also appreciate what the
> >> >> musician was trying to do in a technical sense as well.
> >>
> >> > Ahhh, stimulis.....if the musician was doing something boring, I
> >> >bet you would lose interest (not entertaining enough)
> >>
> >> define "boring".
>
> > Antonyms--"unstimulating" or "Unentertaining"
>
> i believe you mean synonyms.
>
Ooops....yeah, thanks.
> pretending for the sake of argument that there's a universal objective
> for "entertaining" or "boring", like i've said before, i would not
> tell the musician to write something more entertaining for my sake.
But the whole point is that there is no universal...do you know
how many times I have said "subjective"?
If I am bored by it, I would call it bad, yes. That does not
mean it IS good or bad (there are no inherent qualities), It just means
that it does not stimulate me so I consider it bad. Keep in mind the
context of "boring" (ie not stimulating)
> > >Art is
entertainment.
> >The point behind your art is not entertainment, but the art you
> >shroud it in for the purpose of stimulation is...otherwise, you would
> >just present your point without the art.
>
> referencing Of Mice and Men again, do you think the point could have
> been presented in any other way? someone may consider it boring, but i
> dont see a way to present it otherwise. the same for music: you have
> something you want to express, something that cannot be expressed with
> simple words.
>
More like something that cannot be expressed as well with simple words
Melvin Slundersloth
>
>
>
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
now, after reading through this post, i'm convinced that we've both
been going through the same points, over and over. i'm dropping a lot
of the subjectivity crap because i havent figured out why its relevant
to the debate, and i cant figure out why i started with it. :)
>On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>>
>> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> when i create, i dont have an intented audience.
> At the minimum, you create for yourself (unless you play your
>instrument with your ears plugged) The reason you play in the first place
>is because you want to hear, correct? You may not know who else will
>appreciate your creation (nor even intend for that to happen), but it is
>not suprising when one does, for we are all human and share similar
>experiences/likes/desires.
the reason i create is because i have all sorts of fucked up emotions
running through my head. i dont want these emotions there, and i
remove them for a time by creating a work based on said emotions. the
reward is in the journey.
>> >Now, people could express ideas with
>> >simple words, or writing or whatever....but they don't. The reason for
>> >this, is because they feel that these mediums by themselves may not be
>> >enough to either 1)convey their point or 2)Convey their point with enough
>> >force/in the right way.
>>
>> i'd go with #1.
> If #1 is all you seek, i'm sure you would find simple speech to
>provide you with enough utility on most occasions.
intense and unchecked hatred: relate to me how i can express this with
"simple" speech. note that oratory is an art when used properly.
> Also, be careful about what you call boring....The track may be
>monotonous for a purpose, but as long as it entertains, it is not really
>boring. As long as it stimulates you in some way, it is entertaining.
again, what if it was meant to be boring?
>> i miss your point.
> "Entertaining" has to do with how stimulating the art is for an
>individual. "Commercial" has to do with its widespread appeal to many
>indivviduals. ULVER: They made an album that has little Commercial value
>(by industry standards) but was (we both agree) very entertaining. The
>reason we enjoyed it is because it stimulated our senses, it didn't for
>others, so they didn't like it. The message of the album (very
>genarically) "lycanthropy" has been the subject of many other metal
>songs/albums over the years, so why did we enjoy it...its nothing new?
>Because the presentation of it was stimulating (entertaining), that's
>why.
because the way it was addressed/expression of the concept was
different. besides, if nothing more, it was drawn out; i cant think of
any concept albums dealing with lycanthropy off the top of my head.
>> >> > Yes, it would be a shame if an artist altered their work in order
>> >> > to make money, by appealing to commercialism.....but, I don't ever recall
>> >> > saying otherwise, so why are you telling me this?
>> >>
>> >> see first comment. you say the purpose of art is to entertain, and
>> >> nothing more...why have art, then?
>>
>> > because stimulis is a useful tool in the transferrel of thoughts
>> >and emotions.
>>
>> but these emotions have been transferred ALREADY. for instance, most
>> doomdeath focuses on translating a few emotions. every band expresses
>> more or less the same ones. there is no "need" to do this, because if
>> you want the emotions, you can look at already written material. so,
>> why have any further art, if the only purpose is to A) entertain, and
>> B) translate already-displayed emotions
> Name for me an emotion that hasn't been touched upon in art?????
>Remember when you said the purpose of your art was expression??? Aren't
>you expressing someething old in a new way???? That's part of the reason
>other people want to hear it...they can identify with the feeling in some
>way. Artists very rarely express new ideas(in the micro-time span, not
>over 100s of years), its the way they express old ideas in new ways that
>makes them artists.
re-read my points.
A) if art is meant only to entertain, then i can just rehash age-old
concepts, with varied success depending on the ideas rehashed.
B) if art is only to display emotion, then why cant i go back to a
work already done that displays the emotion in question?
so, why have art?
> Look at Morbid Angel and Deicide. Musical difference (artistic
>side) immense....message difference....none discernable
re: message: morbid angel strikes me as a lot more intelligent,
whereas deicide seems to be more about blind hatred (not that this is
bad)...i see a difference in the message, whether its really there or
not...
>> there is no purpose to the music. a major tenet of art is doing what
>> you want, for the sake of expressing yourself,
> expression involves a subject to whom the concept is being
>expressed, even if it is just the self. Your own creation can stimulate
>you just as much as another's
but i dont use it for such.
>> no. why do you think a poet writes poems instead of books? because
>> they look at whats in their mind, and they cant express it through a
>> book, but they can express it through a poem. has nothing to do with
>> entertainment. entertainment is why we enjoy art; this is not the
>> purpose behind it.
> If the poem doesn't stimulate the audience, its failing in its
>expression.
which wasnt my point. my point was that one chooses one particular art
form over speech because A) they have no words for what they wish to
convey, or B) they cannot express themselves as well as they'd wish in
forms other then then one they've chosen.
>> >If you didn't use the stimuli correctly, you would fail to convey what
>> >you want to convey.....the oppossite of "stimulating" is "boring", and if
>> >something is "boring" it is not "entertaing"
>>
>> what if an artist wanted to make something "boring"?
> Boring in the sense we have been using it means
>unstimulating...hence, they could create something unstimulating, but it
>would be pointless.
why? they wanted to do it. if art is meant to entertain, is something
created specifically to be boring not art?
>> >If your
>> >trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
>> >trying to entertain yourself.
>>
>> but i'm not...
> I am confused as to how the idea enters into one's head, where
>they decide "Hey!, I think I will go advance art for the sake of art
>without any benefit for myself." "I will play my guitar, not pay
>attention to what I am doing or why, and then forget about it when I'm
>done, all for the sake of art!" You have to have a motive for what you do.
see all the way above. i stated my motive.
>> > >> > as do many others, i'm sure.
>sure, it
>> >> >> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
>> >> >> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
>> >> >> such is to progress the concept of art.
>> >> >
>> >> > What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
>> >> >first place???
>> >>
>> >> no idea...its the same question as "why do we exist?". people have
>> >> thought about it for centuries, though we havent come to an answer
>> >> yet, and we may never.
>>
>> > Its not the same question. Its answered fairly simply actually,
>> >just examine your own behavior and analyze why you do what you do.
>>
>> why dont you answer it for me, then?
>>
> See all my above posts about the purpose behind art
my mistake was in only answering the "why does art exist" part...for
that i apologize. as for the inherent value of art, i dont think art
has any specific value inherently assosiated with it...differs between
particular pieces of art.
>> maybe i'm missing something, but i'd claim that i understood the
>> concept of art. perhaps you'd care to explain?
>>
> I asked you what the inherent value of art was(since you claim to
>advance it for its own sake) and also "why does it exist?"
> Your response was "no idea".
in reference to "why does it exist". my mistake...i must have skipped
over the first question. my apologies.
>Do you now claim that the concept
>of art and the purpose behind its creation (its inherent value you speak
>of) are divorced from one another???
like i said, i dont think that all art has the same inherent value,
but for any particular piece, the concept of art and the purpose
behind creating it usually go hand in hand (e.g. "i want to create a
piece of art" addresses both the concept and the purpose)
>> > (using the previous example) walk up to your girlfriend and say
>> >"I love you a whole lot" Odds are, without the song/picture/art you
>> >would of otherwise created for her, whe would not of fully understood
>> >your point.
>>
>> why not? you dont think that statement is self-explanatory?
> She might not understand the nature/depth of your love with those
>simple words...but if she heard you play a passionate song, with that as
>the intended subject, she might understand it better.
good, now, explain to me again what you mean when you say simple words
are good enough to express any concept, and the only reason for making
it something artistic is to entertain. obviously the purpose of said
song isnt to be entertaining, is it?
>> and the purpose of this statement is what...?
> My point is boring art is useless art. If it is not stimulating (ie
>everyones done it so desensitization has taken place) it will not be
>effective in its expression because it lacks the ability to entertain (ie
>keep the human mind focused, occupied, and stimulated)
and i disagree, because the purpose of art is far more then to
entertain, in my opinion. so i disagree that "boring" art is useless,
just for the reason that it doesnt entertain me.
>> like i said, for them, entertainment is commerciallity. they want the
>> music they listen to catered to their every whim; they want music made
>> just for them. they dont understand why an artist creates; they
>> understand why a whore creates.
> You say "entertainment is commerciallity", yet you agreed Ulver
>was entertaining, yet not commercial.
key phrase: FOR THEM
>> > Explain the logical process behind the implication.
>>
>> art = entertainment
>> "good" art = entertaining art
>> "bad" art = boring art
>> "good" art = result strived for by artist
>don't forget the subjectivity part!
> Ahh, wait a sec there buddy......
> Were do these next 2 come in????(ie what did I say that gave you
>the impression that thats what I meant???
>> best action = art catered to popular opinion to make it "good"
>> best action = selling out
> Never said any o that!
well, if boring art is useless art, and something useless is innately
pointless, you sure do say it...
>> it uses stimuli, obviously, though the point of art is not to
>> entertain, but to express. focus on what the stimuli mean, instead of
>> the fact that they're there.
> You can't tell what they mean if they don't stimulate you!
i can tell you what a book's about even if i think it sucks.
>> >> >> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
>> >> >> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
>> >> >> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
>> >> >> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
>> >> >> nature.
>> >>
>> >> > But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining.
>> >>
>> >> maybe, maybe not. the concept of entertainment is relative, as
>> >> expressed by the bush / spice girls example.
>> >>
>> >> >The
>> >> >idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
>> >> >with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
>> >> >pointless.
>> >>
>> >> the point is that, even if it wasnt entertaining, it would still be
>> >> art.
>> >>
>>
>> > Right.....it would be "bad art" (subjectivity assumed)
>>
>> from our standpoint, perhaps, but i wouldnt suggest that the writer
>> turn it into "good" art because i thought it sucked.
>>
> Well, we have something in common, cause I never suggested that either!
> (Find out were I did and I'll apologize to ya!)
reference the above implication segment.
> Try and explain to me what the inherent value of art is, and I
>thik you'll figure it out pretty fast. Art only has utility in so far as
>the artists and audience(no matter who it is) are capable of finding.
there is no particular value assigned to a piece of art right off the
bat, but as for the concept (which is what i think you meant before,
actually, correct me if i'm wrong), the inherent purpose is either for
its own sake, or for self-expression, as i've said before. after art
is created, people may use it for any number of things, but i dont
believe that's the inherent purpose of it.
>> but...throwing out the poem and writing a "good" poem, one that most
>> people could appreciate and would purchase would be anathema to the
>> concept of art, which is expressing yourself for your own sake.
>>
> ONCE AGAIN: Entertainment and commerciality are two different
>things. "Good" does not mean mass appeal, it means subjectively
>entertaining.
and the thing that appeals to the most people is the "best", aint it?
>> > Once again, "Entertaining" has nothing to do with whether it is
>> >art or not......it has to do with its quality.
>>
>> again, what if the purpose of an artists creation is to bore? is it
>> "bad"?
> If I am bored by it, I would call it bad, yes. That does not
>mean it IS good or bad (there are no inherent qualities), It just means
>that it does not stimulate me so I consider it bad. Keep in mind the
>context of "boring" (ie not stimulating)
in this case, we have an absolute. if the artists purpose was to bore
(for whatever reason he/she has in the grand scheme of things), and
the purpose was accomplished, doesnt that make it "good"?
>> referencing Of Mice and Men again, do you think the point could have
>> been presented in any other way? someone may consider it boring, but i
>> dont see a way to present it otherwise. the same for music: you have
>> something you want to express, something that cannot be expressed with
>> simple words.
>>
> More like something that cannot be expressed as well with simple words
if you cannot express it as well, you're not expressing the same
thing, hence, what i said holds true.
John Tracy
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:28:40 GMT, nob...@xs4all.nl (nobeard) wrote:
>What do you live off? Welfare? (In which case you are living off money
>coffed up by taxpayers who had to make a profit in order to, etc.)
Yup. I'm on welfare because I don't rip people off while doing the
things I love.
>Aha, but your employer can't pay you if the company isn't making a
>profit. In the end, it's the same thing.
But my employer makes profit on his business. He doesn't try to rip
others off on his own free time. This may come as a total shock to
you, but there is a good chance that the people at SOD have jobs
outside of their magazine.
>You are saying that trying to bring you a quality mag, as a sound
>business like any other is a bad thing? Or in other words, as soon as
>a Death mag starts making a profit, it should quit? All mags should be
>photocopied and made by people with not enough time on their hands to
>make it the best it could be? You are full of it.
You don't get it. Money does not make the content better at all. Ok,
it does give you nice shiny pages and neato cover art. But when you
factor in money, things get screwed. Do you have any idea why SOD
gives 8+ skulls on every review? Certainly not because every album
they get just happens to be a masterpiece. This is not an increase in
quality.
Pleasure and money are two completely different things. Being a slave
to the dollar is not fun at all.
And if you truly think that capitalizing on free time is ok, then do
you approve of spam? Are you a spammer? It's really not too much
different than what you're fighting for.
_____......======[This email sent to you by]======......_____
____ ____
/ _ / _ / _ _ _ be...@scn.org
(_/ (_) / ) / ) / / '/_) (_ (_/ www.geocities.com/tokyo/1371/
_/
Hate
>>not suprising when one does, for we are all human and share similar
>>experiences/likes/desires.
>the reason i create is because i have all sorts of fucked up emotions
>running through my head. i dont want these emotions there, and i
>remove them for a time by creating a work based on said emotions. the
>reward is in the journey.
the real artist creates for himself, and himself only. If others can
appreciate it, thats when Art becomes entertainment. The musical
entity itself may still be "art", but when it is played live, its (and
this is very purist of me, yes, but its in essence, true) whoring
itself to entertainment. I like watching a gig as much as the next
person though.
If a band puts out a release, purely to shut their record label up, or
"for money", one might (rightfully) say it ceases to be art. Perhaps
the difference between Artistic Entertainment, and Entertaining Art?,
depends on how adept the "artist" is.
>again, what if it was meant to be boring?
valid point. Art is not something one can universally define. For
instance, I consider Graveland to be "art". Darken CANNOT be making
money from Graveland...and I hear pure hate coming from my stereo when
I play their CDs. So is it art? Most people mock me when I say I'm a
graveland fan, btw..:) Just like the way I consider that Darkthrone
is art, but Satyricon is NOT.
>> Boring in the sense we have been using it means
>>unstimulating...hence, they could create something unstimulating, but it
>>would be pointless.
>why? they wanted to do it. if art is meant to entertain, is something
>created specifically to be boring not art?
tell that to Leonard Cohen.
>in this case, we have an absolute. if the artists purpose was to bore
>(for whatever reason he/she has in the grand scheme of things), and
>the purpose was accomplished, doesnt that make it "good"?
<clap clap!> Was waiting for someone to point that out.
i am coming to kill your god
> "Entertaining" has to do with how stimulating the art is for an
>individual. "Commercial" has to do with its widespread appeal to many
>indivviduals. ULVER: They made an album that has little Commercial value
>(by industry standards) but was (we both agree) very entertaining. The
>reason we enjoyed it is because it stimulated our senses, it didn't for
>others, so they didn't like it. The message of the album (very
>genarically) "lycanthropy" has been the subject of many other metal
>songs/albums over the years, so why did we enjoy it...its nothing new?
>Because the presentation of it was stimulating (entertaining), that's
>why. If Hootie & The Blowfish wrote an honest album about the same
>subject, I don't think I'd be a big fan, because I don't find them
>stimulating.
What you are saying here is that art = aesthetic: entertainment is
derived entirely from the form; I think form and content unify to make
each other meaningful and that is why art is both mimetic and
narrative.
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST POLITICAL ART
i am coming to kill your god
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 19:03:58 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
wrote:
>> Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
>>people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
>>(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
>>stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
>>really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
>>the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
>>stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
>>point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
>
>think: what if an artist decides to make something purposefully
>boring? i cite that ambient song that burzum put on filosofem
>(whatever its called); it's boring, but i think theres a purpose for
>it within the context of the cd.
Good point. Art is not direct stimulus, but something that provokes
indirect stimulus -- a self-satisfied decryption of the artistic
message.
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JESUS CHRIST
!---------------------------------------------------!
Azag-thoth
Laurent Seiter <lse...@crim.ca> wrote:
>> i tell you my art is for self-expression and just that, you tell me
>> it's for an audience. explain how you know more about me then i know
>> about myself.
>You're your own audience.
read the other posts on the subject.
-Daemonic
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> (lots of stuff in the post cut...)
>
> >> most go because they believe they "should"
>
> > Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
>
> why do you think most people go to see operas? not because they are
> interested in the plot, or because they appreciate the art form, but
> because they wish to become one of the "cultured elite".
Granted, there are people like that.....but, once again, thats a
pretty dangerous assertion to make (especially when you have nothing to
back it up) when speaking about the majority of people. Back to Museums,
though....going to an art gallery does not make you one of the "cultural
elite", so why do people do it?????
>
> >> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
> >> what Daemonic says:
> >>
>
> > yes, lets look.......
>
> >> >i do it to express myself.
>
> > Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
> >audience.
>
> i have no audience; the purpose of my art is solely self-expression,
> which justifies itself.
"Expression" inherently involves a subject. "expression" is
communication. Who/what are you expressing yourself too?
>
> >If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
> >transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
> >mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
> >creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
> >to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
> >your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
> >entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
>
> i tell you my art is for self-expression and just that, you tell me
> it's for an audience. explain how you know more about me then i know
> about myself.
>
SEE above
> >> Art is the combination of content and
> >form to create something like
> >> life -- something affirming and developing life
>
> > Why do you value life??? Do you think most metal bands do??? Is
> >Zyklon B art???? Their whole theme is total holacaust.
>
> something that affirms and develops life does not neccesarily have to
> value it.
If it "affirms" it, sure it does. What do you thik he means by
"affirm" here? Affirming in this context means recognizing the
value/importance of the subject. Why would you affirm and develop
something consciously, when it has no value to you?????
Melvin Slundersloth
>
> -Daemonic
>
>
>
i am coming to kill your god
>> Entertainment = media to keep sheep amused so they do not realize they
>> are slaves.
> Merely a form of entertainment(but not art!)
>
> Art is entertainment....entertainment is not necessarily art.
I think what you mean to say is "entertainment" is an attribute of
art.
> Anyways, Escapism does not necessarily have anything to do with"sheep
>". I hope you don't think that everyone who enjoys Morbid Angel's "art" are
>not sheep....cause the majority of them are.
Sheep are sheep and do things for image reasons. Doesn't matter that
they listen to Morbid Angel as long as the music was composed with
more ambition in mind.
> Tolkein....art & entertainment. THoughts on this??
Tolkein: the art of storytelling (with attribute of making it
entertaining). I think that is the last part to go into the
conception, the "how do we keep it rocking along nicely"(*) sustainer.
>> Art is more than entertainment; it stimulates through a medium
>
> Entertainment doesn't?
> an
>> intellectual "higher level"; unlike entertainment, it is not the
>> aesthetic that represents it.
>>
>
> Please qualify your statement. First, tell me what an
>intellectual "higher level" is, and secondly explain the relationship
>between patterns of sound and intellect.
Patterns of sound = language
Interpretation of language = intellectual stimulus
>Just cause you like those
>tthings which you classify as "art" more than other forms of
>entertainment (because they bring you to a "higher level") does not mean
>they are superior in any way.
Ok, enough of you - first ad hominem attack cited and disregarded.
* - contains fragments of meaning ripped off from Rick Stuart, Alain
Gaudrault, and Sybren (Der dwalende...) ;)
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JUDEO-CHRISTIAN COMMODITY
Laurent Seiter
Hate wrote:
>
> blah blah blah (goden (goden))
>
> >David White <dew...@carpathia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> suppprt the war against sarcasm (the lowest form of HUMOUR)
> >...but the highest form of WIT.
>
> but the lowest form of...selfcongratulation...
> lets see how far this one goes..
The highest form of burritos.
--
Laurent Seiter
myles robert hamilton wrote:
> You mean to tell me that you can't pause, examine your behavior
> and discover why it is you do what you do????? Art is a HUMAN construct,
> it is a conscious endeavor. Do you do things for absolutely no reason????
I play music for absolutely no reason.
Laurent Seiter
Azag-thoth wrote:
> you want the emotions, you can look at already written material. so,
> why have any further art, if the only purpose is to A) entertain, and
> B) translate already-displayed emotions?
To make your own thing.
See :
> there is no purpose to the music. a major tenet of art is doing what
> you want, for the sake of expressing yourself, not expressing yourself
> in specific ways because that's what people want to hear. the spice
> girls do the latter. they are not art.
True, they should at least show their tits.
> no. why do you think a poet writes poems instead of books? because
it's shorter.
Laurent Seiter
>
>
> > Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
>
> interested in the plot, or because they appreciate the art form, but
> because they wish to become one of the "cultured elite".
A bit exagerated...
> i tell you my art is for self-expression and just that, you tell me
> it's for an audience. explain how you know more about me then i know
> about myself.
You're your own audience.
Laurent Seiter
Hate wrote:
>
> blah blah blah (xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth))
>
> >> Masturbation is entertainment
> >> Art is entertainment
> >> Masturbation is not Art.
> >masterbation can be an art. :)
time.
> Agreed. I have this ultra cool Raquel Darrian video to support this
> claim.
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
Not as well.....but if his art failed to stimulate the audience
to whom he was directing the point, would it explain what he was trying
to say???? NO! It would be useless to them.
Melvin Slundersloth
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Laurent Seiter wrote:
>
> >> myles robert hamilton wrote:
> >> > trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
> >> > trying to entertain yourself.
> >> I'm a little confused now... is masturbation art or entertainment ?
> >> --
>
> > Masturbation is entertainment
>
> > Art is entertainment
>
> > Masturbation is not Art.
>
> masterbation can be an art. :)
>
> -Daemonic
Well.....uhhh....maybe I agree there after all :)
Melvin Slundersloth
>
>
>
Jason Christie
Shades of Fallon and Jackson Pollack?
Or whoever.
--
Jason - GORTICIAN/DMMA
Mail: gort...@juno.com, Files: gort...@worldnet.att.net
Death Metal Music Association
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/2296/
Hate <hat...@dcc.net.auDeathToSpam> wrote in article
<33dfc92...@news.uq.edu.au>...
> blah blah blah (xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth))
>
> >> Masturbation is entertainment
> >> Art is entertainment
> >> Masturbation is not Art.
> >masterbation can be an art. :)
>
> Agreed. I have this ultra cool Raquel Darrian video to support this
> claim.
>
>
Azag-thoth
go...@satanic.org (i am coming to kill your god) wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:36:59 -0500, myles robert hamilton
><mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> Entertainment = media to keep sheep amused so they do not realize they
>>> are slaves.
>> Merely a form of entertainment(but not art!)
>>
>> Art is entertainment....entertainment is not necessarily art.
>I think what you mean to say is "entertainment" is an attribute of
>art.
that was the original meaning of my statement, though your statement
expresses it much more clearly.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
>> >did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
>>
>> > The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
>> >telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
>> >thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
>> >order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
>>
>> point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
>> to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
>>
>> >
> Not as well.....
which is one of the reasons one chooses art over conventional methods
of expression.
>but if his art failed to stimulate the audience
>to whom he was directing the point, would it explain what he was trying
>to say???? NO! It would be useless to them.
even those that do not appreciate a piece of art can appreciate its
point, many times. one understands what a song like My Dying Bride
"The Snow in my Hand" is trying to express, even if they dont like it.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> (lots of stuff in the post cut...)
>>
>> >> most go because they believe they "should"
>>
>> > Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
>>
>> why do you think most people go to see operas? not because they are
>> interested in the plot, or because they appreciate the art form, but
>> because they wish to become one of the "cultured elite".
> Granted, there are people like that.....but, once again, thats a
>pretty dangerous assertion to make (especially when you have nothing to
>back it up) when speaking about the majority of people. Back to Museums,
>though....going to an art gallery does not make you one of the "cultural
>elite", so why do people do it?????
going to an art gallery doesnt make you one of the "cultured elite"?
it goes hand in hand with opera, foreign films, and classic books they
dont understand.
>>
>> >> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
>> >> what Daemonic says:
>> >>
>>
>> > yes, lets look.......
>>
>> >> >i do it to express myself.
>>
>> > Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
>> >audience.
>>
>> i have no audience; the purpose of my art is solely self-expression,
>> which justifies itself.
> "Expression" inherently involves a subject. "expression" is
>communication. Who/what are you expressing yourself too?
i'm not expressing myself to anyone. it's quite like talking to no
one.
>> >If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
>> >transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
>> >mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
>> >creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
>> >to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
>> >your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
>> >entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
>>
>> i tell you my art is for self-expression and just that, you tell me
>> it's for an audience. explain how you know more about me then i know
>> about myself.
>>
> SEE above
ditto.
>> >> Art is the combination of content and
>> >form to create something like
>> >> life -- something affirming and developing life
>>
>> > Why do you value life??? Do you think most metal bands do??? Is
>> >Zyklon B art???? Their whole theme is total holacaust.
>>
>> something that affirms and develops life does not neccesarily have to
>> value it.
> If it "affirms" it, sure it does. What do you thik he means by
>"affirm" here? Affirming in this context means recognizing the
>value/importance of the subject.
it means saying "yes, we're all alive, we all bleed, we all die...now
where do we go from here?"
>Why would you affirm and develop
>something consciously, when it has no value to you?????
"yes, we're all alive, and it means shit to me."
make sense?
-Daemonic
Hate
blah blah blah (Laurent Seiter <lse...@crim.ca>)
>> Agreed. I have this ultra cool Raquel Darrian video to support this
>> claim.
still there...complaining about the workload, (pun!) of course.
Laurent Seiter
Hate wrote:
> graveland fan, btw..:) Just like the way I consider that Darkthrone
> is art, but Satyricon is NOT.
Whhhhhhyyyyyyyyy ?????
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
> >did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
>
> > The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
> >telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
> >thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
> >order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
>
> point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
> to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
>
> >
Yes, he could of.........would it have produced the
response he wanted in his audience (which may and probably includes
himself)?????? NO, thats why he included stimulis with his message.
Melvin Slundersloth
myles robert hamilton
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>
> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > First off......At no point did I ever say nor even gave the
> >> >vaguest implication that I believe that an artist should alter their
> >> >creations for the sake of making $$$$. I simply stated that there is
> >> >nothing wrong with profiting from your art.
> >>
> >> well, you said a number of times that the purpose of art is to
> >> entertain...this DOES imply that it's ok to try to make your art more
> >> commercial (e.g. entertaining), and therefore making you more money.
> >> perhaps a misunderstanding.
> >>
> > No. What I am trying to say is this. Art is inherently social,
> >just as you said, it deals with EXPRESSION. When you express something,
> >you have an intended audience.
>
> when i create, i dont have an intented audience.
You listen to your own music or view your own creations don't
you? Look at it this way:
When your creating, say music, to express your emotions, you
don't always "succeed" in creating it the way you want to in your first
attempt, right? You say to yourself "this is not what I was trying to
say" and set about revising the song. Now, what is your criteria for
judging whether your own music is good or not? Whether or not it
succeeds at stimulating you in the right way (to allow your
creation to cause the theraputic effect of "letting out your emotions").
Therefore, when you are revising your music (which I'm sure you do), you
are customizing it for YOURSELF, because you are your own audience. If
you were not listening/paying attention, then anything you happen to spew
out would suit you. You Interact with your own creation.
Melvin Slundersloth
>
> >Now, people could express ideas with
> >simple words, or writing or whatever....but they don't. The reason for
> >this, is because they feel that these mediums by themselves may not be
> >enough to either 1)convey their point or 2)Convey their point with enough
> >force/in the right way.
>
> i'd go with #1.
>
> >Art, is then a tool employed by humans which
> >takes advantage of excessory forms of stimulis, for the purpose of
> >achieving the two points referenced above.
>
> see above.
>
> > Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
> >people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
> >(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
> >stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
> >really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
> >the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
> >stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
> >point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
>
> think: what if an artist decides to make something purposefully
> boring? i cite that ambient song that burzum put on filosofem
> (whatever its called); it's boring, but i think theres a purpose for
> it within the context of the cd.
>
> you want the emotions, you can look at already written material. so,
> why have any further art, if the only purpose is to A) entertain, and
> B) translate already-displayed emotions?
>
> >you could make a business out of
> >> entertaining people with music designed to be something other then
> >> art
>
> > What kind of music is this? The Spice Girls and such (I have a
> >hunch thats who you are reffering to) are still art....bad art though.
> >Even though they are there to make money, the purpose of their music is
> >to transfer emotions like "happiness" to their audience, which they
> >couldn't otherwise do by just telling their audience "hey, be happy!"
>
> there is no purpose to the music. a major tenet of art is doing what
> you want, for the sake of expressing yourself, not expressing yourself
> in specific ways because that's what people want to hear. the spice
> girls do the latter. they are not art.
>
>
> >> music expresses emotions much better then words, i think. when i find
> >> that i can express myself better through stream-of-consciousness
> >> writing, thats when i'll start doing it.
> >>
> >> >Why do you
> >> >choose to shroud your expression in excessory stimulis?????
> >>
> >> because those stimuli help me convey my emotions better.
>
> > Right, they excite something in the mind, therefore allowing an
> >entertaining presentation of the concept which you are trying to convey.
>
> no. why do you think a poet writes poems instead of books? because
> they look at whats in their mind, and they cant express it through a
> book, but they can express it through a poem. has nothing to do with
> entertainment. entertainment is why we enjoy art; this is not the
> purpose behind it.
>
> >If you didn't use the stimuli correctly, you would fail to convey what
> >you want to convey.....the oppossite of "stimulating" is "boring", and if
> >something is "boring" it is not "entertaing"
>
> what if an artist wanted to make something "boring"?
>
> >> >Perhaps,
> >> >thats a little less exciting (entertaining) to the human mind???
> >>
> >> most music i write will never see the light of day. if i was out to
> >> entertain myself, i could think of better ways.
>
> > You will hear that music yourself though. You create it so that
> >you may listen to it.....in order to stimulate your own mind.
>
> i just kind of write it down somewhere and forget about it. the only
> time i really listen to it is when i'm trying to put it together.
>
> >If your
> >trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
> >trying to entertain yourself.
>
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
>> >did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
>>
>> > The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
>> >telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
>> >thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
>> >order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
>>
>> point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
>> to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
>>
>> >
> Yes, he could of.........would it have produced the
>response he wanted in his audience (which may and probably includes
>himself)?????? NO, thats why he included stimulis with his message.
you told me before that if i had no audience and i simply wanted to
express a point, i could do it by writing some shit on paper. please
explain.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> You listen to your own music or view your own creations don't
>you? Look at it this way:
> When your creating, say music, to express your emotions, you
>don't always "succeed" in creating it the way you want to in your first
>attempt, right?
the way i'll create is by taking whatever i have so far, and figuring
out what i want to come next in my head. usually, what i want
displayed comes out properly. but for the sake of argument, lets
see...
>You say to yourself "this is not what I was trying to
>say" and set about revising the song. Now, what is your criteria for
>judging whether your own music is good or not? Whether or not it
>succeeds at stimulating you in the right way (to allow your
>creation to cause the theraputic effect of "letting out your emotions").
more that i look at myself and see what has been expressed and what
has not. the difference between this and what you mentioned is that i
may think that a song is crappy, but it still helps me express myself.
emotions were put into it, even if the end result isnt too great. and
why revise something that's accomplished its purpose (sating my desire
to create, etc.)? sometimes i'll revise music the next time around,
though what i mean by "revise" is usually just stealing the beginning
riff and starting over. :)
>Therefore, when you are revising your music (which I'm sure you do), you
>are customizing it for YOURSELF, because you are your own audience. If
>you were not listening/paying attention, then anything you happen to spew
>out would suit you. You Interact with your own creation.
-Daemonic
i am coming to kill your god
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:32:34 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
wrote:
>> The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
>>telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
>>thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
>>order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
>
>point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
>to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
Of Schindler's List? Since that is a very dogmatic and propagandistic
movie, it would probably be pretty easy to state its contents on
paper: PITY US FOR WE WOULD RULE YOU.
They put it on the doorframes in Hollywood!
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY
myles robert hamilton
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> now, after reading through this post, i'm convinced that we've both
> been going through the same points, over and over. i'm dropping a lot
> of the subjectivity crap because i havent figured out why its relevant
> to the debate, and i cant figure out why i started with it. :)
Its key to my points, so don't dump it
>
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>
> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> >>
> >> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> when i create, i dont have an intented audience.
>
> > At the minimum, you create for yourself (unless you play your
> >instrument with your ears plugged) The reason you play in the first place
> >is because you want to hear, correct? You may not know who else will
> >appreciate your creation (nor even intend for that to happen), but it is
> >not suprising when one does, for we are all human and share similar
> >experiences/likes/desires.
>
> the reason i create is because i have all sorts of fucked up emotions
> running through my head. i dont want these emotions there, and i
> remove them for a time by creating a work based on said emotions. the
> reward is in the journey.
The Journey is not complete until you have completed the
product. The product has to stimulate you in some way, so that your
emotions are able to leave you in the theraputic manner which you seek.
Art involves interaction. Is it not possible for you to create art that
doesn't represent how you feel, and then become dissatisfied with it????
Why the dissatisfaction? WHy wasn't the journey as rewarding as when you
created good art????
> > >> >Now, people could express ideas with
> >> >simple words, or writing or whatever....but they don't. The reason for
> >> >this, is because they feel that these mediums by themselves may not be
> >> >enough to either 1)convey their point or 2)Convey their point with enough
> >> >force/in the right way.
> >>
> >> i'd go with #1.
>
> > If #1 is all you seek, i'm sure you would find simple speech to
> >provide you with enough utility on most occasions.
>
> intense and unchecked hatred: relate to me how i can express this with
> "simple" speech. note that oratory is an art when used properly.
You feel sad and lonely, so you say " I feel sad and lonely".
Your point has been conveyed. Does your audience also "feel" the
sadness and lonelienss? no. THis is because languages' routine use has
made it rather ineffective in transmitting anything beyond simple
facts & directives. (due to desensitization). This is where art comes
in, to entertain the minds of the audience so that they may "feel" what
the artist is feeling by recieving stimulis designed to have that
effect. Notice, most of the time unless you have background on a song
without lyrics/descernable lyrics you can't tell what it is about beyond
simple concepts like "hey this is a sad song".
Melvin Slundersloth
>
> > Also, be careful about what you call boring....The track may be
> >monotonous for a purpose, but as long as it entertains, it is not really
> >boring. As long as it stimulates you in some way, it is entertaining.
>
> again, what if it was meant to be boring?
>
> >> i miss your point.
>
> > "Entertaining" has to do with how stimulating the art is for an
> >individual. "Commercial" has to do with its widespread appeal to many
> >indivviduals. ULVER: They made an album that has little Commercial value
> >(by industry standards) but was (we both agree) very entertaining. The
> >reason we enjoyed it is because it stimulated our senses, it didn't for
> >others, so they didn't like it. The message of the album (very
> >genarically) "lycanthropy" has been the subject of many other metal
> >songs/albums over the years, so why did we enjoy it...its nothing new?
> >Because the presentation of it was stimulating (entertaining), that's
> >why.
>
> because the way it was addressed/expression of the concept was
> different. besides, if nothing more, it was drawn out; i cant think of
> any concept albums dealing with lycanthropy off the top of my head.
>
> >> >> > Yes, it would be a shame if an artist altered their work in order
> >> >> > to make money, by appealing to commercialism.....but, I don't ever recall
> >> >> > saying otherwise, so why are you telling me this?
> >> >>
> >> >> see first comment. you say the purpose of art is to entertain, and
> >> >> nothing more...why have art, then?
> >>
> >> > because stimulis is a useful tool in the transferrel of thoughts
> >> >and emotions.
> >>
> >> but these emotions have been transferred ALREADY. for instance, most
> >> doomdeath focuses on translating a few emotions. every band expresses
> >> more or less the same ones. there is no "need" to do this, because if
> >> you want the emotions, you can look at already written material. so,
> >> why have any further art, if the only purpose is to A) entertain, and
> >> B) translate already-displayed emotions
>
> > Name for me an emotion that hasn't been touched upon in art?????
> >Remember when you said the purpose of your art was expression??? Aren't
> >you expressing someething old in a new way???? That's part of the reason
> >other people want to hear it...they can identify with the feeling in some
> >way. Artists very rarely express new ideas(in the micro-time span, not
> >over 100s of years), its the way they express old ideas in new ways that
> >makes them artists.
>
> re-read my points.
>
> A) if art is meant only to entertain, then i can just rehash age-old
> concepts, with varied success depending on the ideas rehashed.
>
> B) if art is only to display emotion, then why cant i go back to a
> work already done that displays the emotion in question?
>
> so, why have art?
>
> > Look at Morbid Angel and Deicide. Musical difference (artistic
> >side) immense....message difference....none discernable
>
> re: message: morbid angel strikes me as a lot more intelligent,
> whereas deicide seems to be more about blind hatred (not that this is
> bad)...i see a difference in the message, whether its really there or
> not...
>
> >> there is no purpose to the music. a major tenet of art is doing what
> >> you want, for the sake of expressing yourself,
>
> > expression involves a subject to whom the concept is being
> >expressed, even if it is just the self. Your own creation can stimulate
> >you just as much as another's
>
> but i dont use it for such.
>
>
> >> no. why do you think a poet writes poems instead of books? because
> >> they look at whats in their mind, and they cant express it through a
> >> book, but they can express it through a poem. has nothing to do with
> >> entertainment. entertainment is why we enjoy art; this is not the
> >> purpose behind it.
>
> > If the poem doesn't stimulate the audience, its failing in its
> >expression.
>
> which wasnt my point. my point was that one chooses one particular art
> form over speech because A) they have no words for what they wish to
> convey, or B) they cannot express themselves as well as they'd wish in
> forms other then then one they've chosen.
>
> >> >If you didn't use the stimuli correctly, you would fail to convey what
> >> >you want to convey.....the oppossite of "stimulating" is "boring", and if
> >> >something is "boring" it is not "entertaing"
> >>
> >> what if an artist wanted to make something "boring"?
>
> > Boring in the sense we have been using it means
> >unstimulating...hence, they could create something unstimulating, but it
> >would be pointless.
>
> why? they wanted to do it. if art is meant to entertain, is something
> created specifically to be boring not art?
>
> >> >If your
> >> >trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
> >> >trying to entertain yourself.
> >>
> >> but i'm not...
>
> > I am confused as to how the idea enters into one's head, where
> >they decide "Hey!, I think I will go advance art for the sake of art
> >without any benefit for myself." "I will play my guitar, not pay
> >attention to what I am doing or why, and then forget about it when I'm
> >done, all for the sake of art!" You have to have a motive for what you do.
>
> see all the way above. i stated my motive.
>
> >> > >> > as do many others, i'm sure.
> >sure, it
> >> >> >> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
> >> >> >> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
> >> >> >> such is to progress the concept of art.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
> >> >> >first place???
> >> >>
> >> >> no idea...its the same question as "why do we exist?". people have
> >> >> thought about it for centuries, though we havent come to an answer
> >> >> yet, and we may never.
> >>
> >> > Its not the same question. Its answered fairly simply actually,
> >> >just examine your own behavior and analyze why you do what you do.
> >>
> >> why dont you answer it for me, then?
> >>
>
> > See all my above posts about the purpose behind art
>
> my mistake was in only answering the "why does art exist" part...for
> that i apologize. as for the inherent value of art, i dont think art
> has any specific value inherently assosiated with it...differs between
> particular pieces of art.
>
> >> maybe i'm missing something, but i'd claim that i understood the
> >> concept of art. perhaps you'd care to explain?
> >>
>
> > I asked you what the inherent value of art was(since you claim to
> >advance it for its own sake) and also "why does it exist?"
>
> > Your response was "no idea".
>
> in reference to "why does it exist". my mistake...i must have skipped
> over the first question. my apologies.
>
> >Do you now claim that the concept
> >of art and the purpose behind its creation (its inherent value you speak
> >of) are divorced from one another???
>
> like i said, i dont think that all art has the same inherent value,
> but for any particular piece, the concept of art and the purpose
> behind creating it usually go hand in hand (e.g. "i want to create a
> piece of art" addresses both the concept and the purpose)
>
> >> > (using the previous example) walk up to your girlfriend and say
> >> >"I love you a whole lot" Odds are, without the song/picture/art you
> >> >would of otherwise created for her, whe would not of fully understood
> >> >your point.
> >>
> >> why not? you dont think that statement is self-explanatory?
>
> > She might not understand the nature/depth of your love with those
> >simple words...but if she heard you play a passionate song, with that as
> >the intended subject, she might understand it better.
>
> good, now, explain to me again what you mean when you say simple words
> are good enough to express any concept, and the only reason for making
> it something artistic is to entertain. obviously the purpose of said
> song isnt to be entertaining, is it?
>
> >> and the purpose of this statement is what...?
>
> > My point is boring art is useless art. If it is not stimulating (ie
> >everyones done it so desensitization has taken place) it will not be
> >effective in its expression because it lacks the ability to entertain (ie
> >keep the human mind focused, occupied, and stimulated)
>
> and i disagree, because the purpose of art is far more then to
> entertain, in my opinion. so i disagree that "boring" art is useless,
> just for the reason that it doesnt entertain me.
>
> >> like i said, for them, entertainment is commerciallity. they want the
> >> music they listen to catered to their every whim; they want music made
> >> just for them. they dont understand why an artist creates; they
> >> understand why a whore creates.
>
> > You say "entertainment is commerciallity", yet you agreed Ulver
> >was entertaining, yet not commercial.
>
> key phrase: FOR THEM
>
> >> > Explain the logical process behind the implication.
> >>
> >> art = entertainment
> >> "good" art = entertaining art
> >> "bad" art = boring art
> >> "good" art = result strived for by artist
> >don't forget the subjectivity part!
> > Ahh, wait a sec there buddy......
>
> > Were do these next 2 come in????(ie what did I say that gave you
> >the impression that thats what I meant???
>
> >> best action = art catered to popular opinion to make it "good"
> >> best action = selling out
>
> > Never said any o that!
>
> well, if boring art is useless art, and something useless is innately
> pointless, you sure do say it...
>
> >> it uses stimuli, obviously, though the point of art is not to
> >> entertain, but to express. focus on what the stimuli mean, instead of
> >> the fact that they're there.
>
> > You can't tell what they mean if they don't stimulate you!
>
> i can tell you what a book's about even if i think it sucks.
>
> >> >> >> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
> >> >> >> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
> >> >> >> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
> >> >> >> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
> >> >> >> nature.
> >> >>
> >> >> > But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining.
> >> >>
> >> >> maybe, maybe not. the concept of entertainment is relative, as
> >> >> expressed by the bush / spice girls example.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The
> >> >> >idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
> >> >> >with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
> >> >> >pointless.
> >> >>
> >> >> the point is that, even if it wasnt entertaining, it would still be
> >> >> art.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Right.....it would be "bad art" (subjectivity assumed)
> >>
> >> from our standpoint, perhaps, but i wouldnt suggest that the writer
> >> turn it into "good" art because i thought it sucked.
> >>
>
> > Well, we have something in common, cause I never suggested that either!
> > (Find out were I did and I'll apologize to ya!)
>
> reference the above implication segment.
>
> > Try and explain to me what the inherent value of art is, and I
> >thik you'll figure it out pretty fast. Art only has utility in so far as
> >the artists and audience(no matter who it is) are capable of finding.
>
> there is no particular value assigned to a piece of art right off the
> bat, but as for the concept (which is what i think you meant before,
> actually, correct me if i'm wrong), the inherent purpose is either for
> its own sake, or for self-expression, as i've said before. after art
> is created, people may use it for any number of things, but i dont
> believe that's the inherent purpose of it.
>
> >> but...throwing out the poem and writing a "good" poem, one that most
> >> people could appreciate and would purchase would be anathema to the
> >> concept of art, which is expressing yourself for your own sake.
> >>
> > ONCE AGAIN: Entertainment and commerciality are two different
> >things. "Good" does not mean mass appeal, it means subjectively
> >entertaining.
>
> and the thing that appeals to the most people is the "best", aint it?
>
> >> > Once again, "Entertaining" has nothing to do with whether it is
> >> >art or not......it has to do with its quality.
> >>
> >> again, what if the purpose of an artists creation is to bore? is it
> >> "bad"?
>
> > If I am bored by it, I would call it bad, yes. That does not
> >mean it IS good or bad (there are no inherent qualities), It just means
> >that it does not stimulate me so I consider it bad. Keep in mind the
> >context of "boring" (ie not stimulating)
>
> in this case, we have an absolute. if the artists purpose was to bore
> (for whatever reason he/she has in the grand scheme of things), and
> the purpose was accomplished, doesnt that make it "good"?
>
> >> referencing Of Mice and Men again, do you think the point could have
> >> been presented in any other way? someone may consider it boring, but i
> >> dont see a way to present it otherwise. the same for music: you have
> >> something you want to express, something that cannot be expressed with
> >> simple words.
> >>
>
> > More like something that cannot be expressed as well with simple words
>
> if you cannot express it as well, you're not expressing the same
> thing, hence, what i said holds true.
>
>
>
i am coming to kill your god
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:49:33 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
wrote:
>myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>disregarding everything else you wrote, as i'm not interested in a
>discussion on that:
>
>>This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
>>movie.
>
>music is art. or, music SHOULD be art. its those that think its "just
>entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
>hansons of tomorrow.
I agree. Entertainment has no real value; it keeps life from coming
into your head. Art, on the other hand, is a door... not everyone who
listens to Morbid Angel gets it (luckily!) but those who have are
rewarded inherently with the value of perception.
SUPPORT THE WAR FOR TRUE METAL ART
i am coming to kill your god
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 13:26:29 -0500, myles robert hamilton
<mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >>Why do you think people go to museums?
>> >
>> >how many people that go to museums have participated in creating the
>> >art they're viewing?
>>
>> most go because they believe they "should"
>
> Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
Not at all - most people are sheep and do what they believe they
"should." They identify museums with higher culture, and we all want
to be part of that, right?
>> >you confuse intent with use.
>>
>> art is created from intent, with no thought as to use
>
> I hope you realize how contradictory this statement is. No, you
>might not now how your art will ultimately be used by society, but there
>is definately an intent involved in its conception. You have to have an
>idea before you can create...it has an intended use, regardless of how it
>is ulitmately used.
It has something to communicate and does not consider how it might be
"used" as it is abstract from politics...see my comments versus
"entertainment."
>> it seeks nihilism and separatism from the ahted society
>
> Your art, maybe, but other artists surely have different intentions.
Some do; some "artists" for example would like you to believe in the
omnipotence of the white "race." My point is more that art stands
against politics and social order purely by what it is, not by its
content: society is sleep, art is wakefulness.
>> >>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
>> >>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
>>
>> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
>> what Daemonic says:
>>
>
> yes, lets look.......
>
>> >i do it to express myself.
>
> Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
>audience. If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
>transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
>mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
>creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
>to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
>your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
>entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
Entertainment is an attribute, not a classification; you have an
intended form of communication but it works on a personal and not
social level.
>> > Tho that may be a
>cliche, he's talking about expression he
>can't do > through USENET or propagandistic elements. Life is complex and
>> beautiful at the same time it is destructive and violent, esp. to a
>> scientist, and in that spiritual acceptance and progress is the
>> threshold of art.
>>
>> HAIL SATAN!
>>
>> >if everyone
>> >was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
>> >would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
>> >musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
>> >stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
>> >entertainment, right?
>>
>> Heh! Well said. If music was entertainment, it would be solely a
>> product, a commodity.
>
> O.k.....the value of music exists only in relation to those who
>make it and hear it.....because those people are human, it follows that
>music only has value in relation to humans...those things that only have
>value in relation to humans are commodities.....so, yes, music is a
>commodity.
Solipsistic semantics, my friend. Commodity means it is something you
purchase that has a whole quality, e.g. is consistent and delivers
something expected. Like Hollywood movies, which are essentially
Judeo-Christian propaganda (if you disagree: Star Wars, Raiders of the
Lost Ark, Schindler's List, etc), commodity serves "use" and not
intent: the idea of making something for consumption is the goal, and
not the goal of self-expression in a lucid and challenging manner.
>> >where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
>> >it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
>> >mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
>>
>> Those who do not wish to be manipulated but wish a dialogue with the
>> author.
>
> For the last time...I never said anything remotely relating to
>the concept of creating art for the purpose of $$$$ is good, so either
>quote where I said it, show where you got the inference, or SHUT THE FUCK
>UP!!!!
Boy, you need to sober up before you read that again - what's making
you irritated? I don't think I accused you of what you're reacting
to. In any case, I've repeated myself about twice on every point,
so... closure.
SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JUDEO-CHRISTIAN COMMODITY ART
Laurent Seiter
i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> Not at all - most people are sheep and do what they believe they
> "should." They identify museums with higher culture, and we all want
> to be part of that, right?
museum somewhere ?
> content: society is sleep, art is wakefulness.
The Wheel Of Fortune.
> Entertainment is an attribute, not a classification;
Right. Some even find their job entertaining.
myles robert hamilton
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 19:03:58 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
> wrote:
>
> >> Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
> >>people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
> >>(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
> >>stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
> >>really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
> >>the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
> >>stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
> >>point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
> >
> >think: what if an artist decides to make something purposefully
> >boring? i cite that ambient song that burzum put on filosofem
> >(whatever its called); it's boring, but i think theres a purpose for
> >it within the context of the cd.
>
> Good point. Art is not direct stimulus, but something that provokes
> indirect stimulus -- a self-satisfied decryption of the artistic
> message.
>
Stimulis is both direct & foreign(to the mind) by nature. You are
stimulated to think...your thoughts themselves, however, are not stimulis.
Melvin Slundersloth
> SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JESUS CHRIST
> >>> > Yes, it would be a shame if an artist altered their work in order
> >>> > to make money, by appealing to commercialism.....but, I don't ever recall
> >>> > saying otherwise, so why are you telling me this?
> >>>
> >>> see first comment. you say the purpose of art is to entertain, and
> >>> nothing more...why have art, then?
> >
> >> because stimulis is a useful tool in the transferrel of thoughts
> >>and emotions.
> >
> >but these emotions have been transferred ALREADY. for instance, most
> >doomdeath focuses on translating a few emotions. every band expresses
> >more or less the same ones. there is no "need" to do this, because if
> >you want the emotions, you can look at already written material. so,
> >why have any further art, if the only purpose is to A) entertain, and
> >B) translate already-displayed emotions?
> >
> >>you could make a business out of
> >>> entertaining people with music designed to be something other then
> >>> art
> >
> >> What kind of music is this? The Spice Girls and such (I have a
> >>hunch thats who you are reffering to) are still art....bad art though.
> >>Even though they are there to make money, the purpose of their music is
> >>to transfer emotions like "happiness" to their audience, which they
> >>couldn't otherwise do by just telling their audience "hey, be happy!"
> >
> >there is no purpose to the music. a major tenet of art is doing what
> >you want, for the sake of expressing yourself, not expressing yourself
> >in specific ways because that's what people want to hear. the spice
> >girls do the latter. they are not art.
> >
> >
> >>> music expresses emotions much better then words, i think. when i find
> >>> that i can express myself better through stream-of-consciousness
> >>> writing, thats when i'll start doing it.
> >>>
> >>> >Why do you
> >>> >choose to shroud your expression in excessory stimulis?????
> >>>
> >>> because those stimuli help me convey my emotions better.
> >
> >> Right, they excite something in the mind, therefore allowing an
> >>entertaining presentation of the concept which you are trying to convey.
> >
> >no. why do you think a poet writes poems instead of books? because
> >they look at whats in their mind, and they cant express it through a
> >book, but they can express it through a poem. has nothing to do with
> >entertainment. entertainment is why we enjoy art; this is not the
> >purpose behind it.
> >
> >>If you didn't use the stimuli correctly, you would fail to convey what
> >>you want to convey.....the oppossite of "stimulating" is "boring", and if
> >>something is "boring" it is not "entertaing"
> >
> >what if an artist wanted to make something "boring"?
> >
> >>> >Perhaps,
> >>> >thats a little less exciting (entertaining) to the human mind???
> >>>
> >>> most music i write will never see the light of day. if i was out to
> >>> entertain myself, i could think of better ways.
> >
> >> You will hear that music yourself though. You create it so that
> >>you may listen to it.....in order to stimulate your own mind.
> >
> >i just kind of write it down somewhere and forget about it. the only
> >time i really listen to it is when i'm trying to put it together.
> >
> >>If your
> >>trying to stimulate your mind with sensory manipulation, then you are
> >>trying to entertain yourself.
> >
> >but i'm not...
> >
> >>> > as do many others, i'm sure. sure, it
> >>> >> entertains people after being made, i wont debate that, but the
> >>> >> ORIGINAL INTENT of writing a piece of music or making a sculpture or
> >>> >> such is to progress the concept of art.
> >>> >
> >>> > What is the inherent value of Art????? Why does art exist in the
> >>> >first place???
> >>>
> >>> no idea...its the same question as "why do we exist?". people have
> >>> thought about it for centuries, though we havent come to an answer
> >>> yet, and we may never.
> >
> >> Its not the same question. Its answered fairly simply actually,
> >>just examine your own behavior and analyze why you do what you do.
> >
> >why dont you answer it for me, then?
> >
> >>> >So people can just "progress its concept"??
> >>>
> >>> via their own creative input, yes.
> >
> >
> >> If you don't know it's concept, then how can you claim to
> >>progress it?
> >
> >maybe i'm missing something, but i'd claim that i understood the
> >concept of art. perhaps you'd care to explain?
> >
> >>>
> >>> >You could
> >>> >easily do the things which you claim art does for you without
> >>> >creativity....
> >>>
> >>> how?
> >
> >> (using the previous example) walk up to your girlfriend and say
> >>"I love you a whole lot" Odds are, without the song/picture/art you
> >>would of otherwise created for her, whe would not of fully understood
> >>your point.
> >
> >why not? you dont think that statement is self-explanatory?
> >
> >>> >once again, what is your purpose behind adding a creative
> >>> >element?????
> >>>
> >>> well, if i use art to express myself, and if everyone expressed
> >>> themselves the same exact way, we'd have a very boring world, wouldnt
> >>> we?
> >
> >> Yes, very "boring".....nothing would be "entertaining", now would it?
> >
> >and the purpose of this statement is what...?
> >
> >>> > or it should be. if everyone
> >>> >> was in music to make money, and only make money, every single band
> >>> >> would sound like Bush or the Spice girls, and there would be no
> >>> >> musical progression whatsoever (in other words, there would be musical
> >>> >> stagnation for all eternity). but whats it matter? its just
> >>> >> entertainment, right?
> >>>
> >>> > Actually, I don't find Bush or the Spice Girls entertaining at
> >>> >all....their music is boring and downright annoying....very commercial,
> >>> >though.
> >>>
> >>> ...something which most people would disagree with. for them,
> >>> entertainment is commerciality.
> >
> >> So it has to be boring to be "true art"? Anything that
> >>stimulates is just done for money?
> >
> >like i said, for them, entertainment is commerciallity. they want the
> >music they listen to catered to their every whim; they want music made
> >just for them. they dont understand why an artist creates; they
> >understand why a whore creates.
> >
> >>I can tell from your previous posts
> >>that you don't mean this, but why are you saying it??
> >
> >i think you misunderstood what i meant.
> >
> >>> >> where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
> >>> >> it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
> >>> >> mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>> > When did I say this????????????????????????
> >>>
> >>> you implied it.
> >
> >> Explain the logical process behind the implication.
> >
> >art = entertainment
> >"good" art = entertaining art
> >"bad" art = boring art
> >"good" art = result strived for by artist
> >best action = art catered to popular opinion to make it "good"
> >best action = selling out
> >
> >
> >>> > REPEAT: my comments were that if you could make a profit doing
> >>> >something you love, there is nothing wrong with that.
> >>>
> >>> and i never disagreed. on the contrary, this has been most of my
> >>> argument.
> >>>
> >>> >I really doubt the
> >>> >session musicians who write for the spice girls like what the music they
> >>> >create, so yes, they are sell outs. SOD, though shitty, is somebody
> >>> >doing what they love and making money at it. Just because it sucks,
> >>> >doesn't mean they have comprimised, it just means that they don't do a
> >>> >good job.
> >>>
> >>> >> >Visual and aural arts are nothing but
> >>> >> >stimulas for the senses.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> i couldve told you that.
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>> > Ahhh, you claim to see the obvious, yet its totally lacking in
> >>> >your ideas.
> >>
> >>> only a fool claims that art is not about using stimuli to express its
> >>> intent.
> >>>
> >
> >> Whose side are you on, anyway?
> >
> >it uses stimuli, obviously, though the point of art is not to
> >entertain, but to express. focus on what the stimuli mean, instead of
> >the fact that they're there.
> >
> >>> >> cliched movies are either incredibly bad art, or yet another marketing
> >>> >> project. what do you think most disney movies are? attempts to get
> >>> >> kids to see them. what was a movie like contact? an attempt to get
> >>> >> money, obviously, but also an attempt to express something about human
> >>> >> nature.
> >>>
> >>> > But contact would've been bad art if it wasn't entertaining.
> >>>
> >>> maybe, maybe not. the concept of entertainment is relative, as
> >>> expressed by the bush / spice girls example.
> >>>
> >>> >The
> >>> >idea behind the movie may be sound, but the fact remains that art deals
> >>> >with presentation, and presentation has to be entertaining or it is
> >>> >pointless.
> >>>
> >>> the point is that, even if it wasnt entertaining, it would still be
> >>> art.
> >>>
> >
> >> Right.....it would be "bad art" (subjectivity assumed)
> >
> >from our standpoint, perhaps, but i wouldnt suggest that the writer
> >turn it into "good" art because i thought it sucked.
> >
> >>> >> >Because you happen to appreciate music more
> >>> >> >than other forms of entertainment, you seem to believe that it exists on
> >>> >> >some higher plane, above other forms of entertainment.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> cite examples.
> >>> >>
> >>> > You claim music isn't entertainment, but "art" and proceed to
> >>> >imply that entertainment only exist for gaining material wealth, all the
> >>> >time implying that art is an end within itself.
> >>>
> >>> incorrect, as ive stated that music is art, though it can be used for
> >>> entertainment, as long as the original purpose is for it to be an end
> >>> in itself.
> >> How can art be an end within itself??????? Nothing is an end
> >>within itself.
> >
> >why not?
> >
> >> i could write a beautiful poem, and selling it would not
> >>> change the contents of such, so making money from it would not be a
> >>> problem. its when you create for the sake of money that the problem
> >>> arises.
> >
> >> Right, but "bad poems" are those that are not entertaining, no
> >>matter what you right em for.
> >
> >but...throwing out the poem and writing a "good" poem, one that most
> >people could appreciate and would purchase would be anathema to the
> >concept of art, which is expressing yourself for your own sake.
> >
> >> Once again, "Entertaining" has nothing to do with whether it is
> >>art or not......it has to do with its quality.
> >
> >again, what if the purpose of an artists creation is to bore? is it
> >"bad"?
> >
> >>Art is entertainment.
> >>The point behind your art is not entertainment, but the art you
> >>shroud it in for the purpose of stimulation is...otherwise, you would
> >>just present your point without the art.
> >
> >referencing Of Mice and Men again, do you think the point could have
> >been presented in any other way? someone may consider it boring, but i
> >dont see a way to present it otherwise. the same for music: you have
> >something you want to express, something that cannot be expressed with
> >simple words.
> >
> >-Daemonic
myles robert hamilton
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>
> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
> >> >did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
> >>
> >> > The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
> >> >telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
> >> >thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
> >> >order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
> >>
> >> point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
> >> to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
> >>
> >> >
> > Not as well.....
>
> which is one of the reasons one chooses art over conventional methods
> of expression.
>
> >but if his art failed to stimulate the audience
> >to whom he was directing the point, would it explain what he was trying
> >to say???? NO! It would be useless to them.
>
> even those that do not appreciate a piece of art can appreciate its
> point, many times. one understands what a song like My Dying Bride
> "The Snow in my Hand" is trying to express, even if they dont like it.
Notice.....
How would they know???? BY reading the words. If they simply
listened to the music, they would not have a clue what the song was
about....
But its like with the girlfriend example......sure she would
realize you are trying to say "I love you", but because the music doesn't
give her that message, the full extent of the thought is not transmitted,
for (as you admit) words can't always say everything you want to say.
Melvin Slundersloth
>
> -Daemonic
>
>
>
myles robert hamilton
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>
> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> (lots of stuff in the post cut...)
> >>
> >> >> most go because they believe they "should"
> >>
> >> > Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
> >>
> >> why do you think most people go to see operas? not because they are
> >> interested in the plot, or because they appreciate the art form, but
> >> because they wish to become one of the "cultured elite".
>
> > Granted, there are people like that.....but, once again, thats a
> >pretty dangerous assertion to make (especially when you have nothing to
> >back it up) when speaking about the majority of people. Back to Museums,
> >though....going to an art gallery does not make you one of the "cultural
> >elite", so why do people do it?????
>
> going to an art gallery doesnt make you one of the "cultured elite"?
> it goes hand in hand with opera, foreign films, and classic books they
> dont understand.
I hope you don't really believe this.....
>
> >>
> >> >> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
> >> >> what Daemonic says:
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > yes, lets look.......
> >>
> >> >> >i do it to express myself.
> >>
> >> > Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
> >> >audience.
> >>
> >> i have no audience; the purpose of my art is solely self-expression,
> >> which justifies itself.
>
>
> > "Expression" inherently involves a subject. "expression" is
> >communication. Who/what are you expressing yourself too?
>
> i'm not expressing myself to anyone. it's quite like talking to no
> one.
>
> >> >If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
> >> >transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
> >> >mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
> >> >creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
> >> >to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
> >> >your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
> >> >entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
> >>
> >> i tell you my art is for self-expression and just that, you tell me
> >> it's for an audience. explain how you know more about me then i know
> >> about myself.
> >>
> > SEE above
>
> ditto.
>
> >> >> Art is the combination of content and
> >> >form to create something like
> >> >> life -- something affirming and developing life
> >>
> >> > Why do you value life??? Do you think most metal bands do??? Is
> >> >Zyklon B art???? Their whole theme is total holacaust.
> >>
> >> something that affirms and develops life does not neccesarily have to
> >> value it.
>
> > If it "affirms" it, sure it does. What do you thik he means by
> >"affirm" here? Affirming in this context means recognizing the
> >value/importance of the subject.
>
>
That is not affirmation......that is recognition. Recognition,
has no implications toward value. I recognize we're all alive...why
should I give a shit?
it means saying "yes, we're all alive, we all bleed, we all die...now
> where do we go from here?"
>
> >Why would you affirm and develop
> >something consciously, when it has no value to you?????
>
> "yes, we're all alive, and it means shit to me."
Why?
>
> make sense?
Absolutely not.
Once again, Is Zyklon B art? They aren't saying "were alive and
it means shit to me."
Melvin Slundersloth>
> -Daemonic
>
>
>
myles robert hamilton
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> go...@satanic.org (i am coming to kill your god) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:36:59 -0500, myles robert hamilton
> ><mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> Entertainment = media to keep sheep amused so they do not realize they
> >>> are slaves.
> >> Merely a form of entertainment(but not art!)
> >>
> >> Art is entertainment....entertainment is not necessarily art.
>
> >I think what you mean to say is "entertainment" is an attribute of
> >art.
>
> that was the original meaning of my statement, though your statement
> expresses it much more clearly.
> >
>
Entertainment is stimulis designed to produce a response in the
mind of a subject who willingly exposes themselves to the stimulis. (roughly)
Art is entertainment because the point of the art itself is to
stimulate the mind of the audience. While the aggregate goal of the art
& concept package is to transfer an emotion....the function of the art by
itself in this case is soley stimulation, for the purpose of producing a
response (and hence entertainment) The way art transfers a concept is by
entertaining.
Melvin Slundersloth
myles robert hamilton
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > You listen to your own music or view your own creations don't
> >you? Look at it this way:
>
> > When your creating, say music, to express your emotions, you
> >don't always "succeed" in creating it the way you want to in your first
> >attempt, right?
>
> the way i'll create is by taking whatever i have so far, and figuring
> out what i want to come next in my head. usually, what i want
> displayed comes out properly. but for the sake of argument, lets
> see...
>
> >You say to yourself "this is not what I was trying to
> >say" and set about revising the song. Now, what is your criteria for
> >judging whether your own music is good or not? Whether or not it
> >succeeds at stimulating you in the right way (to allow your
> >creation to cause the theraputic effect of "letting out your emotions").
>
> more that i look at myself and see what has been expressed and what
> has not.
I'm starting to get confused by this. Just a question.....when
you speak of expressing yourself, do you mean that you are giving a
reflection of how you feel, or that you are channeling your emotions
outside of yourself (and hence getting rid of them, so to speak)?
the difference between this and what you mentioned is that i
> may think that a song is crappy
Could you explain what your criteria for such a judgement is so I
can get an idea of where your coming from. Just so you understand the
source of my confusion, I believed you to be saying (not saying you
actually said this, but what I think you have been saying) that art has
value in expression, so how can you think a song is crappy when it helps
you to express?
Melvin Slundersloth
, but it still helps me express myself.
> emotions were put into it, even if the end result isnt too great. and
> why revise something that's accomplished its purpose (sating my desire
> to create, etc.)? sometimes i'll revise music the next time around,
> though what i mean by "revise" is usually just stealing the beginning
> riff and starting over. :)
>
> >Therefore, when you are revising your music (which I'm sure you do), you
> >are customizing it for YOURSELF, because you are your own audience. If
> >you were not listening/paying attention, then anything you happen to spew
> >out would suit you. You Interact with your own creation.
>
> -Daemonic
>
>
>
myles robert hamilton
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:49:33 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
> wrote:
>
> >myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >disregarding everything else you wrote, as i'm not interested in a
> >discussion on that:
> >
> >>This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
> >>movie.
> >
> >music is art. or, music SHOULD be art.
Music is art...but art is entertainment. (though entertainment is
not art and entertainment does not necessarily have anything to do with
commercialism)
its those that think its "just
> >entertainment" that pave the way for all the would-be spice girls and
> >hansons of tomorrow.
and masterbators!
>
> I agree. Entertainment has no real value; it keeps life from coming
> into your head.
Wait....aren't you the guy who brags about smoking pot???? If
entertainment has no value to you...then explain this.
Also, as a nihilist, do you not recognize the utility of escapism
in dealing with the absurdity of life? (not saying you have to..just
wondering if you do)
Melvin Slundersloth
Art, on the other hand, is a door... not everyone who
> listens to Morbid Angel gets it (luckily!) but those who have are
> rewarded inherently with the value of perception.
>
> SUPPORT THE WAR FOR TRUE METAL ART
>
>
>
>
myles robert hamilton
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 13:26:29 -0500, myles robert hamilton
> <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >>Why do you think people go to museums?
> >> >
> >> >how many people that go to museums have participated in creating the
> >> >art they're viewing?
> >>
> >> most go because they believe they "should"
> >
> > Complete and utter 100% unfounded bullshit
>
> Not at all - most people are sheep and do what they believe they
> "should." They identify museums with higher culture, and we all want
> to be part of that, right?
NOPE
>
> >> >you confuse intent with use.
> >>
> >> art is created from intent, with no thought as to use
> >
> > I hope you realize how contradictory this statement is. No, you
> >might not now how your art will ultimately be used by society, but there
> >is definately an intent involved in its conception. You have to have an
> >idea before you can create...it has an intended use, regardless of how it
> >is ulitmately used.
>
> It has something to communicate
If it has something to communicate, then that is what its inteded
use is. what it might not consider is who exactly may end up seeing it.
and does not consider how it might be
> "used" as it is abstract from politics
Art has been created to express political views very often. Look
at a ton of the great literature out there. Ever read "a modest
proposal" its art, its also political as hell
...see my comments versus
> "entertainment."
>
> >> it seeks nihilism and separatism from the ahted society
> >
> > Your art, maybe, but other artists surely have different intentions.
>
> Some do; some "artists" for example would like you to believe in the
> omnipotence of the white "race." My point is more that art stands
> against politics and social order purely by what it is, not by its
> content: society is sleep, art is wakefulness.
Explain how your example of "Omnipotence of the white race" art
is "wakeful" (by wakeful I assume you mean enlightened beyond what
society can't see)
>
> >> >>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
> >> >>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
> >> what Daemonic says:
> >>
> >
> > yes, lets look.......
> >
> >> >i do it to express myself.
> >
> > Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
> >audience. If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
> >transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
> >mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
> >creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
> >to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
> >your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
> >entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
>
> Entertainment is an attribute, not a classification; you have an
> intended form of communication but it works on a personal and not
> social level.
Me saying something personal to you is a social act. it involves
interactions between 2 beings
I disagree. if the point of art is self expression, then that
expression is the use. You wouldn't create something unless you had a
use for it.
>
> >> >where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
> >> >it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
> >> >mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
> >>
> >> Those who do not wish to be manipulated but wish a dialogue with the
> >> author.
> >
> > For the last time...I never said anything remotely relating to
> >the concept of creating art for the purpose of $$$$ is good, so either
> >quote where I said it, show where you got the inference, or SHUT THE FUCK
> >UP!!!!
>
> Boy, you need to sober up before you read that again - what's making
> you irritated? I don't think I accused you of what you're reacting
> to. In any case, I've repeated myself about twice on every point,
> so... closure.
my reaction was to the "mass-marketing" clause coupled to the
talk of art as manipulation.
I too am sick of saying the same things over and over
In case your monicker is a reference to me or my ideas...I am not jewish
or christian....
>
> SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JUDEO-CHRISTIAN COMMODITY ART
Melvin Slundersloth
Laurent Seiter
i am coming to kill your god wrote:
> listens to Morbid Angel gets it (luckily!) but those who have are
> rewarded inherently with the value of perception.
The difference being the intensity of the stimulation of the senses and
the, to another extent, the generated brain activity.
> SUPPORT THE WAR FOR TRUE METAL ART
SUPPORT THE WAR FOR PLEASURE
Gerry Saracco
nobeard wrote:
> Oh yes it does. Don't you think a long-distance phonecall to interview
> an artist costs money??
Why are you calling them? Whenever I interview a band, it's on their
dime, not mine. Labels are supposed to take that hit under promotion
expenses, and I've never interviewed an unsigned band that didn't call
me to do it.
If you're calling the label acts to talk, you are getting screwed over.
Gerry
Urban Warfare
i am coming to kill your god
>> Not at all - most people are sheep and do what they believe they
>> "should." They identify museums with higher culture, and we all want
>> to be part of that, right?
>
> NOPE
Sheepthink is that way.
>> > I hope you realize how contradictory this statement is. No, you
>> >might not now how your art will ultimately be used by society, but there
>> >is definately an intent involved in its conception. You have to have an
>> >idea before you can create...it has an intended use, regardless of how it
>> >is ulitmately used.
>>
>> It has something to communicate
>
> If it has something to communicate, then that is what its inteded
>use is. what it might not consider is who exactly may end up seeing it.
>
> and does not consider how it might be
>> "used" as it is abstract from politics
>
> Art has been created to express political views very often. Look
>at a ton of the great literature out there. Ever read "a modest
>proposal" its art, its also political as hell
It's satire, correct? I wouldn't call that art -- brilliant political
writing sure.
>...see my comments versus
>> "entertainment."
>>
>> >> it seeks nihilism and separatism from the ahted society
>> >
>> > Your art, maybe, but other artists surely have different intentions.
>>
>> Some do; some "artists" for example would like you to believe in the
>> omnipotence of the white "race." My point is more that art stands
>> against politics and social order purely by what it is, not by its
>> content: society is sleep, art is wakefulness.
>
> Explain how your example of "Omnipotence of the white race" art
>is "wakeful" (by wakeful I assume you mean enlightened beyond what
>society can't see)
You missed my sarcasm in the quotes (the technique you are using
also). Notice I am mocking those who believe in OOTWR.
>>
>> >> >>Why do you think that people paint/write music/create..blah, blah..??
>> >> >>BECAUSE IT IS ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!
>> >>
>> >> To communicate things otherwise unknown in normal life, I think. Look
>> >> what Daemonic says:
>> >>
>> >
>> > yes, lets look.......
>> >
>> >> >i do it to express myself.
>> >
>> > Expression is social. Expression inherently has an inteded
>> >audience. If you fail to impact your intended audience, then you fail in
>> >transmitting what it is you are trying to express. Entertaining does not
>> >mean altering your product so that a lot of people will like it, it means
>> >creating something that is capable of stimulating your audience (in order
>> >to have success at your attempt at expression) no matter who/how large
>> >your audience may be. I am not demeaning music by calling it
>> >entertainment, I am just pointing out what it truely is.
>>
>> Entertainment is an attribute, not a classification; you have an
>> intended form of communication but it works on a personal and not
>> social level.
>
> Me saying something personal to you is a social act. it involves
>interactions between 2 beings
Semantic at best.
A "use" would mean a definite conclusion with practical repercussions
-- you are making something that can be used for a range of uses, but
which does not aspire to a practical "use" e.g. vectored action.
>>
>> >> >where do you think the concept of a "sell-out" comes from, pray tell?
>> >> >it comes from the people that appreciate music as art, and not some
>> >> >mass markerting project, as you'd have it be.
>> >>
>> >> Those who do not wish to be manipulated but wish a dialogue with the
>> >> author.
>> >
>> > For the last time...I never said anything remotely relating to
>> >the concept of creating art for the purpose of $$$$ is good, so either
>> >quote where I said it, show where you got the inference, or SHUT THE FUCK
>> >UP!!!!
>>
>> Boy, you need to sober up before you read that again - what's making
>> you irritated? I don't think I accused you of what you're reacting
>> to. In any case, I've repeated myself about twice on every point,
>> so... closure.
>
> my reaction was to the "mass-marketing" clause coupled to the
>talk of art as manipulation.
I am referring to your wanting to make art a commodity, which means
that the only difference is in aesthetic, not Aesthetics.
> I too am sick of saying the same things over and over
>
>In case your monicker is a reference to me or my ideas...I am not jewish
>or christian....
It ain't ;)
>> SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JUDEO-CHRISTIAN COMMODITY ART
>
> Melvin Slundersloth
>
>>
>> !---------------------------------------------------!
>> | | The Evil GOAT -(*)- go...@satanic.org |
>> | | (666) |
>> | -|- <http://www.satanic.org/~goat/> 666 |
>> | <http://www.anus.com/people/goat/> |
>> | | <http://www.blackplague.org/holocaust/> |
>> | | <http://www.kcuf.org/> * black metal * |
>> | -|- death metal * nihilism * satanic art |
>> | blasphemy * revolution * holocaust |
>> !---------------------------------------------------!
>>
>>
I SHIT ON gOD'S FACE
i am coming to kill your god
>
>
>On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 19:03:58 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Art has to be entertaining (not necessarily to a broad group of
>> >>people, just to its intended audience), because "unentertaining" art
>> >>(ie...boring art) represents a failure of the artist to properly utilize
>> >>stimulis to aid in achieving the above goals. Its like when you buy a
>> >>really bad album, you can maybe see what the artist is trying to do, yet
>> >>the stimulis (sound/music) is unentertaining, and you become bored and
>> >>stop listening. That is bad art (still art, though), because what is the
>> >>point of adding stimulis that fails to stimulate?
>> >
>> >think: what if an artist decides to make something purposefully
>> >boring? i cite that ambient song that burzum put on filosofem
>> >(whatever its called); it's boring, but i think theres a purpose for
>> >it within the context of the cd.
>>
>> Good point. Art is not direct stimulus, but something that provokes
>> indirect stimulus -- a self-satisfied decryption of the artistic
>> message.
>>
>
>
> Stimulis is both direct & foreign(to the mind) by nature. You are
>stimulated to think...your thoughts themselves, however, are not stimulis.
>
> Melvin Slundersloth
Chain reactions of stimulus, then. Have it your (semantic) way :)
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>>
>> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
>> >> >did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
>> >>
>> >> > The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
>> >> >telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
>> >> >thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
>> >> >order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
>> >>
>> >> point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
>> >> to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> > Not as well.....
>>
>> which is one of the reasons one chooses art over conventional methods
>> of expression.
>>
>> >but if his art failed to stimulate the audience
>> >to whom he was directing the point, would it explain what he was trying
>> >to say???? NO! It would be useless to them.
>>
>> even those that do not appreciate a piece of art can appreciate its
>> point, many times. one understands what a song like My Dying Bride
>> "The Snow in my Hand" is trying to express, even if they dont like it.
>Notice.....
> How would they know???? BY reading the words. If they simply
>listened to the music, they would not have a clue what the song was
>about....
the music and vocal melodies/styles are beautiful, forlorn, and
bereaved-sounding. i couldnt give a fuck about the lyrics. i could
basically tell you what mussorgsky "a night on bald mountain" is
about; that piece is classical and thusly has no lyrics. likewise, i
could tell you what "the snow in my hand" was about, even if it didnt
have lyrics.
> But its like with the girlfriend example......sure she would
>realize you are trying to say "I love you", but because the music doesn't
>give her that message, the full extent of the thought is not transmitted,
>for (as you admit) words can't always say everything you want to say.
the only relevant thing here is the thought that you were doing your
best to translate the thought, and you wrote a song specifically for
her; its the thought that counts in this situation.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>>
>> >> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I made this point about a million times now, though your letter
>> >> >did come before the rest, so I will say it again.
>> >>
>> >> > The author of "Schindler's List" could of made his point by just
>> >> >telling you, but would you have listned? Instead he chose to shroud his
>> >> >thoughts in entertaining stimulis (entertaining does not mean "happy") in
>> >> >order to get your attention and further drive his/her point home.
>> >>
>> >> point: do you think the author could really explain what he was trying
>> >> to display by writing a few words on paper? i'd like to see that...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> > Yes, he could of.........would it have produced the
>> >response he wanted in his audience (which may and probably includes
>> >himself)?????? NO, thats why he included stimulis with his message.
>>
>> you told me before that if <edit> i simply wanted to
>> express a point, i could do it by writing some shit on paper. please
>> explain.
> It deals with the way the audience recieves it. there is a
>difference between grasping a concept (mere comprehension) and
>experiencing a concept. When you explain something(words), it can be
>understood.....when you share something, it is experienced.
this is the purpose of Art.
> The former is much less effective than the latter at making the
>point stick. The audience might not put too much "stock" in what you have
>to say, unless you say it with force. The point is made both
>ways....what differs is how effectively it is made.
again, this is one of the purposes of art...though i think that art
has more to do with abstract concepts that one cannot understand
without experiencing, or concepts that cannot be put into words and
such, not the kind of "this was bad; this is why" thing that
schindlers list had going. granted, schindlers list took an artistic
route to exploring the concept, but the basis is (and now i'm ripping
off SRP :) "pushing a dogma". though in this case its not really a
dogma, is it?
> Its like people who were warned that entering the nazi death
>camps would be disgusting (during the liberation). When they were told
>what was happening, they had comprehension.....when they actually
>experienced it, many had reactions that were not initially seen when they
>were first told (vomiting, crying...etc)
perhaps, but, off the subject, dont you think if i said "you will see
exactly such-and-such", explained in gory detail, they'd have a better
idea of what i was talking about?
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Azag-thoth wrote:
>> myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> now, after reading through this post, i'm convinced that we've both
>> been going through the same points, over and over. i'm dropping a lot
>> of the subjectivity crap because i havent figured out why its relevant
>> to the debate, and i cant figure out why i started with it. :)
> Its key to my points, so don't dump it
i never disagreed that the viewer of a piece of art draws subjective
opinions of how "good" it is, so i'll give you that point, if you'd
like...i thought it was pointless to argue a specific point when we're
in agreement.
> The Journey is not complete until you have completed the
>product. The product has to stimulate you in some way, so that your
>emotions are able to leave you in the theraputic manner which you seek.
this defies the concept of the journey being more important then the
finding, no?
>Art involves interaction. Is it not possible for you to create art that
>doesn't represent how you feel, and then become dissatisfied with it????
>Why the dissatisfaction? WHy wasn't the journey as rewarding as when you
>created good art????
many a time, i've looked back upon works i'd created recently, and
decided they were total shit. but they worked for me, so why argue?
>> intense and unchecked hatred: relate to me how i can express this with
>> "simple" speech. note that oratory is an art when used properly.
> You feel sad and lonely, so you say " I feel sad and lonely".
>Your point has been conveyed. Does your audience also "feel" the
>sadness and lonelienss? no. THis is because languages' routine use has
>made it rather ineffective in transmitting anything beyond simple
>facts & directives. (due to desensitization).
this is because the point has not been conveyed. what i want to see is
you telling me how you can take some basic words and explain exactly
how you feel to someone. i bet you cant.
>This is where art comes
>in, to entertain the minds of the audience so that they may "feel" what
>the artist is feeling by recieving stimulis designed to have that
>effect. Notice, most of the time unless you have background on a song
>without lyrics/descernable lyrics you can't tell what it is about beyond
>simple concepts like "hey this is a sad song".
incorrect, i actually try to understand what i think a song is about
without knowing anything about it save what is presented musically.
take burzum "det som engang var"; my interpretation of it would be a
person trapped in some horrific yet strangely beautiful world, with no
escape possible. music expresses artistic intent infinitely better
then any lyric ive heard.
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> more that i look at myself and see what has been expressed and what
>> has not.
> I'm starting to get confused by this. Just a question.....when
>you speak of expressing yourself, do you mean that you are giving a
>reflection of how you feel, or that you are channeling your emotions
>outside of yourself (and hence getting rid of them, so to speak)?
the intent is the second, and usually, theres an inadvertant attempt
at the first.
>the difference between this and what you mentioned is that i
>> may think that a song is crappy
> Could you explain what your criteria for such a judgement is so I
>can get an idea of where your coming from. Just so you understand the
>source of my confusion, I believed you to be saying (not saying you
>actually said this, but what I think you have been saying) that art has
>value in expression, so how can you think a song is crappy when it helps
>you to express?
expression is a big part of what makes art art, though i'd also say
that another part is that art leads you to question, or wonder
about/philosophise upon some particular aspect of our world. for
instance, the art of death metal (as a whole) has made me question the
inherent values of our society, and the nature of its people; my
particular place in the world; what it means to be human; why i should
care about any of that; etc. the art i create expresses my inner
emotions, though it hasnt done anything for criteria #2, and usually
just leaves me feeling uncaring and nihilistic with no reasoning
behind it. never said i was a good artist... :)
-Daemonic
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, i am coming to kill your god wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:49:33 GMT, xy...@mindspring.com (Azag-thoth)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >disregarding everything else you wrote, as i'm not interested in a
>> >discussion on that:
>> >
>> >>This is entertainment children.....same as a fuckin'
>> >>movie.
>> >
>> >music is art. or, music SHOULD be art.
> Music is art...but art is entertainment. (though entertainment is
>not art and entertainment does not necessarily have anything to do with
>commercialism)
are we back to this again?
Azag-thoth
myles robert hamilton <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> going to an art gallery doesnt make you one of the "cultured elite"?
>> it goes hand in hand with opera, foreign films, and classic books they
>> dont understand.
> I hope you don't really believe this.....
i've had first-hand proof of this, therefore, i dont see a reason not
to believe it...
granted, there are those that are actually interested in art, though i
think most do it for some sort of odd ego trip. i for one am not
particuarly interested in most art found in museums (i find some
paintings interesting, though thats the extent of it), so i dont go.
>> > If it "affirms" it, sure it does. What do you thik he means by
>> >"affirm" here? Affirming in this context means recognizing the
>> >value/importance of the subject.
> That is not affirmation......that is recognition. Recognition,
>has no implications toward value. I recognize we're all alive...why
>should I give a shit?
i would say that affirmation and recognition are basically the same
things. so now we're at a point where we have two different meanings
for the same term. lets ask SRP (the original poster, i think) what he
meant...
> it means saying "yes, we're all alive, we all bleed, we all die...now
>> where do we go from here?"
>>
>> >Why would you affirm and develop
>> >something consciously, when it has no value to you?????
>>
>> "yes, we're all alive, and it means shit to me."
> Why?
perhaps what the piece of art is meant to show...? dont look at me, i
dont go for that when i create.
>> make sense?
> Absolutely not.
> Once again, Is Zyklon B art? They aren't saying "were alive and
>it means shit to me."
if their theme is holocaust, then they're saying "yes, we're alive,
and life doesnt mean anything, so we can kill everybody and not have a
problem because we're nihilists, and thusly these are our beliefs,
and this is what our art shows". excuse me if i've missed some point,
but i was never too interested by zyklon-b.
-Daemonic