Define beauty
Charles Riggs
this morning, thinking this was too beautiful to describe in words.
[some time passes]
Then it occurred to me that this is literally true, not just
figuratively true. What if the sky were coloured green, instead of
shades of red? I wouldn't find it beautiful then; I'd find it weird.
But green is no less beautiful than red, and if we came to expect
green skies in the morning instead of red skies in the morning, we'd
undoubtedly find them equally as beautiful. Beauty, then, isn't just
in the eyes of the beholder, it must fit within some expected norm.
This, to me, means there may be such a thing as universally accepted
beauty, but it remains beauty of a subjective sort.
The COD is of no help. It says beauty is "a combination of qualities
that delights the aesthetic senses". That doesn't give us a clue as to
what delights us, or why.
I wrote this post before reading one of the quotations, under
"beauty", in the OED. I think it's quite good, although written in the
stilted language of the day, and the second part of it is more or less
in line with my thinking, this morning. Here it is:
1784 J. Barry Lect. Art ii. (1848) 103 According to the definitions
generally given, Beauty consists of unity and gradual variety; or
unity, variety, and harmony. Our rule for judging of the mode and
degree of this combination of variety and unity seems to be no other
than that of its fitness and conformity to the designation of each
species.
--
Charles Riggs
chriggs |at| eircom |dot| com
frank green
Charles Riggs wrote:
Dear Charles,
I am so pleased that you came to your own about beauty not being in
the eye of the beholder. I'm not so sure that your conclusion that it
should fit within some expected norm is exactly right, but it is well
said. I particularly think you may be onto something with the word
"expected."
I think you would love to read Ananda K. Coomaraswamy's work. He is
the greatest aesthete since Aristotle. His greatest work is in a book
originally titled WHY EXHIBIT WORKS OF ART, now called THE CHRISTIAN AND
ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF ART. He says there and in other places that beauty
is the attractive power of perfection, that it cannot be in the eye of the
beholder (as a definition) since some people prefer deformity and
deformity is by definition ugly. I'm not doing him justice, but perhaps
you get an idea of how much I like your use of the word "expected."
Simon R. Hughes
[previous .sig snipped]
> Dear Charles,
> I am so pleased that you came to your own about beauty not being in
> the eye of the beholder. I'm not so sure that your conclusion that it
> should fit within some expected norm is exactly right, but it is well
> said. I particularly think you may be onto something with the word
> "expected."
> I think you would love to read Ananda K. Coomaraswamy's work. He is
> the greatest aesthete since Aristotle. His greatest work is in a book
> originally titled WHY EXHIBIT WORKS OF ART, now called THE CHRISTIAN AND
> ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF ART. He says there and in other places that beauty
> is the attractive power of perfection,
Does he define perfection? Does he define attraction? Not a circular
argument, I hope.
> that it cannot be in the eye of the
> beholder (as a definition) since some people prefer deformity and
> deformity is by definition ugly.
Let me guess who gets to pass judgement on the deformed and ugly...
> I'm not doing him justice, but perhaps
> you get an idea of how much I like your use of the word "expected."
Either you haven't done him justice, or he isn't the greatest
aesthete since Aristotle.
Kant stopped everyone thinking that beauty was a quality of the
object, or was in the eye of the beholder: "Beauty is the form of
finality in an object, so far as perceived in it apart from the
representation of an end." Nobody has been able to refute that (yet)
-- there are too many problems connected with giving beauty to the
thing or the viewer.
If your Mr Coomaraswamy's thoughts have gone back to before Kant,
without effectively dealing with Kant, then he represents a
regression of thought, and can not, therefore, be the greatest
aesthete since Aristotle.
Of course, Kant was a philosopher, not an aesthete in the loose
sense.
--
Simon R. Hughes
"I often think there should exist a special typographical
sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine
round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.
frank green
"Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
What? Can't you read? He put the term in a class and a subclass.
> Does he define attraction? Not a circular
> argument, I hope.
Read him and see.
>
>
> > that it cannot be in the eye of the
> > beholder (as a definition) since some people prefer deformity and
> > deformity is by definition ugly.
>
> Let me guess who gets to pass judgement on the deformed and ugly...
>
What does that mean? Are you daft?
>
> > I'm not doing him justice, but perhaps
> > you get an idea of how much I like your use of the word "expected."
>
> Either you haven't done him justice, or he isn't the greatest
> aesthete since Aristotle.
Of course I'm not doing him justice. Read him and judge for yourself, if you're
not too lazy or filled with yourself.
>
>
> Kant stopped everyone thinking that beauty was a quality of the
> object, or was in the eye of the beholder: "Beauty is the form of
> finality in an object, so far as perceived in it apart from the
> representation of an end." Nobody has been able to refute that (yet)
> -- there are too many problems connected with giving beauty to the
> thing or the viewer.
>
> If your Mr Coomaraswamy's thoughts have gone back to before Kant,
> without effectively dealing with Kant, then he represents a
> regression of thought, and can not, therefore, be the greatest
> aesthete since Aristotle.
>
> Of course, Kant was a philosopher, not an aesthete in the loose
> sense.
> --
> Simon R. Hughes
> "I often think there should exist a special typographical
> sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine
> round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.
I'm glad you can read Kant. If so, when you read A.K.C., you will marvel.
Kant's German idealism makes for a wonderful insight into A.K.C.
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Kant stopped everyone thinking that beauty was a quality of the
>object, or was in the eye of the beholder: "Beauty is the form of
>finality in an object, so far as perceived in it apart from the
>representation of an end." Nobody has been able to refute that (yet)
>-- there are too many problems connected with giving beauty to the
>thing or the viewer.
No-one can refute it, perhaps, because no-one can understand it. I
think his phraseology is rotten, by the way, but who am I? Beauty must
conform to some preconceived standard, I think, or else we can't know
it is "truly" beautiful. Would Kant agree?
frank green
Charles Riggs wrote:
I'd have to reread some portions of Kant to be more sure, but I would say
that since everything is perceived through the activity of the categories
of the imagination, he would agree.
Simon R. Hughes
>
>
> Charles Riggs wrote:
>
> > conform to some preconceived standard, I think, or else we can't know
> > it is "truly" beautiful. Would Kant agree?
[.sig snipped, as it ought to be]
> I'd have to reread some portions of Kant to be more sure, but I would say
> that since everything is perceived through the activity of the categories
> of the imagination, he would agree.
He wouldn't. See my answer to Charles.
Simon R. Hughes
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:00:01 +0100, Simon R. Hughes
> <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>
>
> >Kant stopped everyone thinking that beauty was a quality of the
> >object, or was in the eye of the beholder: "Beauty is the form of
> >finality in an object, so far as perceived in it apart from the
> >representation of an end." Nobody has been able to refute that (yet)
> >-- there are too many problems connected with giving beauty to the
> >thing or the viewer.
>
> No-one can refute it, perhaps, because no-one can understand it.
Books have been written about it; he is understood.
> I
> think his phraseology is rotten, by the way, but who am I?
Kant's economy with the language is wonderful. (Some people think
him flabby, would you believe?) He is well worth the effort you have
to put in to reading his work, but you really have to start at the
beginning, where he tells the reader how he will use each term.
> Beauty must
> conform to some preconceived standard, I think, or else we can't know
> it is "truly" beautiful. Would Kant agree?
No. The "standard" (he's not an idealist, he's a transcendendalist)
is not at all conceived (which would place it in the eye of the
beholder). It exists in the mind -- universally, he claims (which
prevents it being located in the eye of the beholder) -- but is not
open to philosophical scrutiny.
(I can still hear my professor shouting: "This is NOT psychology;
this is Immanuel KANT!")
Beauty, to Kant, is the capture of our interest independent of our
grasp of the purpose of the object we consider beautiful. That's
more or less what the sentence I quoted above means.
Again, all I can recommend is that you spend the time unravelling
the riches in Kant, starting with the _Critique of Pure Reason_. The
_Critique of Practical Reason_ is next, and his aesthetic theory in
the _Critique of Judgement_ comes just prior to taking a well-
deserved rest.
Kant's _Critique of Judgement_ (1790) is the outstanding modern
work of aesthetics, which focuses on the problem of how
aesthetic judgements can be subjective and yet lay claim to the
agreement of others, and asserts the existence of a special
aesthetic attitude marked by disinterestedness.
-- The Oxford Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997.
frank green
"Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
> Thus Spake Charles Riggs:
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:00:01 +0100, Simon R. Hughes
> > <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Kant stopped everyone thinking that beauty was a quality of the
> > >object, or was in the eye of the beholder: "Beauty is the form of
> > >finality in an object, so far as perceived in it apart from the
> > >representation of an end." Nobody has been able to refute that (yet)
> > >-- there are too many problems connected with giving beauty to the
> > >thing or the viewer.
> >
> > No-one can refute it, perhaps, because no-one can understand it.
>
> Books have been written about it; he is understood.
>
> > I
> > think his phraseology is rotten, by the way, but who am I?
>
> Kant's economy with the language is wonderful. (Some people think
> him flabby, would you believe?) He is well worth the effort you have
> to put in to reading his work, but you really have to start at the
> beginning, where he tells the reader how he will use each term.
>
> > Beauty must
> > conform to some preconceived standard, I think, or else we can't know
> > it is "truly" beautiful. Would Kant agree?
>
> No. The "standard" (he's not an idealist, he's a transcendendalist)
Would you care to elaborate?
>
> is not at all conceived (which would place it in the eye of the
> beholder). It exists in the mind -- universally, he claims (which
> prevents it being located in the eye of the beholder) -- but is not
> open to philosophical scrutiny.
>
> (I can still hear my professor shouting: "This is NOT psychology;
> this is Immanuel KANT!")
>
> Beauty, to Kant, is the capture of our interest independent of our
> grasp of the purpose of the object we consider beautiful.
Exactly! What do you think A.K.C. was saying? Have you read him? I've
certainly read, even taught Kant.
> That's
> more or less what the sentence I quoted above means.
>
> Again, all I can recommend is that you spend the time unravelling
> the riches in Kant, starting with the _Critique of Pure Reason_. The
> _Critique of Practical Reason_ is next, and his aesthetic theory in
> the _Critique of Judgement_ comes just prior to taking a well-
> deserved rest.
>
> Kant's _Critique of Judgement_ (1790) is the outstanding modern
> work of aesthetics, which focuses on the problem of how
> aesthetic judgements can be subjective and yet lay claim to the
> agreement of others, and asserts the existence of a special
> aesthetic attitude marked by disinterestedness.
> -- The Oxford Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997.
And what a brilliant work it is!
Simon, what are you arguing? You are helping people who read this thread
understand beauty. What's your beef? I think you would flip over A.K.C.,
if you haven't read him.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Thus Spake frank green:
> >
> >
> > Charles Riggs wrote:
> >
> > > Beauty must
> > > conform to some preconceived standard, I think, or else we can't know
> > > it is "truly" beautiful. Would Kant agree?
>
> [.sig snipped, as it ought to be]
>
> > I'd have to reread some portions of Kant to be more sure, but I would say
> > that since everything is perceived through the activity of the categories
> > of the imagination, he would agree.
>
> He wouldn't. See my answer to Charles.
Can't we just all recite Keats in unison and get back to something
important like middle names or muffins?
--
Bob Lieblich
An-aesthetic
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Beauty, to Kant, is the capture of our interest independent of our
>grasp of the purpose of the object we consider beautiful. That's
>more or less what the sentence I quoted above means.
I'm intrigued, but am still having some trouble understanding. Well,
not too much trouble, now that you've translated it, but I don't
understand what he means by "purpose". To me, beautiful things needn't
have a purpose, but I realise you're only starting in with an
explanation of his ideas on beauty.
To me, it is a very important question, and is one I've often asked
myself: why do I consider some things beautiful, some things not so
beautiful, and some things downright ugly?
>Again, all I can recommend is that you spend the time unravelling
>the riches in Kant, starting with the _Critique of Pure Reason_. The
>_Critique of Practical Reason_ is next, and his aesthetic theory in
>the _Critique of Judgement_ comes just prior to taking a well-
>deserved rest.
Earlier in your post, I was about to ask where I should start. I've
only read a compendium, where Kant was all too briefly discussed. I
will copy your post to my "For action" folder, so I can recall the
titles the next time I'm on www.amazon.co.uk, which is due to be soon.
--
Charles Riggs
chriggs |at| eircom |dot| com
"Perhaps my best years are gone...but I wouldn't want
them back. Not with the fire in me now."
Krapp's last tape
Simon R. Hughes
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:32:39 +0100, Simon R. Hughes
> <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>
> >Beauty, to Kant, is the capture of our interest independent of our
> >grasp of the purpose of the object we consider beautiful. That's
> >more or less what the sentence I quoted above means.
>
> I'm intrigued, but am still having some trouble understanding. Well,
> not too much trouble, now that you've translated it, but I don't
> understand what he means by "purpose".
It's the Aristotelian final cause.
> To me, beautiful things needn't
> have a purpose, but I realise you're only starting in with an
> explanation of his ideas on beauty.
That's Kant's point: the purpose is irrelevant. Our enjoyment of a
large number of things is dependent on their ability to fulfill a
purpose -- we are interested in it's functionality. (Would we enjoy
using a glass that had a hole in the bottom?). The enjoyment of the
beautiful is not dependent on the existence of a purpose -- the
interest is captured anyway, by something else: beauty (which is not
a quality of the object, but may as well be, as far as we're
concerned, since beauty should be considered universal).
Simon R. Hughes
>
>
> "Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
>
> > Thus Spake Charles Riggs:
> > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:00:01 +0100, Simon R. Hughes
> > > <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
[...]
> > Kant's _Critique of Judgement_ (1790) is the outstanding modern
> > work of aesthetics, which focuses on the problem of how
> > aesthetic judgements can be subjective and yet lay claim to the
> > agreement of others, and asserts the existence of a special
> > aesthetic attitude marked by disinterestedness.
> > -- The Oxford Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997.
>
> And what a brilliant work it is!
> Simon, what are you arguing?
Arguing? I was answering Charles's question, from Kant.
> You are helping people who read this thread
> understand beauty. What's your beef?
Why should I have one?
> I think you would flip over A.K.C.,
> if you haven't read him.
I haven't read him, but I will be looking into whether he's worth
reading.
Simon R. Hughes
> "Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
> > Thus Spake frank green:
> > > Charles Riggs wrote:
> > >
> > > > Beauty must
> > > > conform to some preconceived standard, I think, or else we can't know
> > > > it is "truly" beautiful. Would Kant agree?
> >
> > [.sig snipped, as it ought to be]
> >
> > > I'd have to reread some portions of Kant to be more sure, but I would say
> > > that since everything is perceived through the activity of the categories
> > > of the imagination, he would agree.
> >
> > He wouldn't. See my answer to Charles.
>
> Can't we just all recite Keats in unison
The world hasn't ended yet.
> and get back to something
> important like middle names or muffins?
I'm waiting for Robert Fontana to come along and prove the anti-
intellectualism of your posting, and how you are advocating obesity.
frank green
Charles Riggs wrote:
Are you interested in pursuing a formal definition of "art"?
Charles Riggs
wrote:
<my words, snipped>
>Are you interested in pursuing a formal definition of "art"?
Sure. Give it a go.
--
Charles Riggs
chriggs|at|eircom|dot|net
frank green
Charles Riggs wrote:
You first. Venn?
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>
>
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:06:10 GMT, frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <my words, snipped>
>>
>> >Are you interested in pursuing a formal definition of "art"?
>>
>> Sure. Give it a go.
>> --
>> Charles Riggs
>> chriggs|at|eircom|dot|net
>
>You first. Venn?
I'm not sure I have the mental energy for this, frank. Not at this
moment, anyway. Any definition I could give would be wrong, for some
art, or for art in general, as some see it.
What makes a creation a piece of art is a subjective thing, varying
from person to person, i.e. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
thought I'd be on safe ground saying that little about it, but I see
I'm already in trouble. Art need not be beautiful. Few would find John
Cage's music beautiful, but many would claim some of his compositions
are works of art. I find nothing beautiful about Picasso's distorted
depictions of woman, after his Rose Period, but I'd have to call them
art. Some certainly do, since any one of them fetches an obscenely
high price when auctioned.
I could go on, but I see I'm beginning to ramble. I'm far from having
put my finger on what art is. Your turn.
sand
Oh well, here I go again.
Art is the use of materials and/or techniques in a way which reveals
something new and unique to the society within which it is produced.
It may be beautiful or repugnant, expensive or without cost. But in
the ideal circumstance, the viewer subsequently views the world
differently.Frequently, it requires multiple exposures to the product
to obtain the effect.
Jan Sand
M. J. Powell
<jan_...@hotmail.com> writes
snip
>Oh well, here I go again.
>
>Art is the use of materials and/or techniques in a way which reveals
>something new and unique to the society within which it is produced.
>It may be beautiful or repugnant, expensive or without cost. But in
>the ideal circumstance, the viewer subsequently views the world
>differently.Frequently, it requires multiple exposures to the product
>to obtain the effect.
Beer?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
sand
Naturally. And, of course, sex(with or without beer).
Jan Sand
Robert Bannister
Either La Fontaine or Molière, or maybe both, said the purpose of art is
to please. Many artists disagree with this idea completely, but it works
for me, and of course what pleases me may be horrendous to you.
--
Rob Bannister
Harvey V
> Charles Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:11:31 GMT, frank green
>> <fran...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:06:10 GMT, frank green
>>>> <fran...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>>> <my words, snipped>
>>>>> Are you interested in pursuing a formal definition of "art"?
>>>> Sure. Give it a go.
>>>> --
>>>> Charles Riggs
>>>> chriggs|at|eircom|dot|net
>>> You first. Venn?
>> I'm not sure I have the mental energy for this, frank. Not at
>> this moment, anyway. Any definition I could give would be wrong,
>> for some art, or for art in general, as some see it.
-snip-
>> I could go on, but I see I'm beginning to ramble. I'm far from
>> having put my finger on what art is. Your turn.
> Either La Fontaine or Molière, or maybe both, said the purpose of
> art is to please. Many artists disagree with this idea completely,
> but it works for me, and of course what pleases me may be
> horrendous to you.
I don't think we'll come up with a definitive answer on this one, given
that past ages have never agreed on the definition. (I'm an
architectural and building historian who hasn't yet stumbled across a
universally-agreed description. But that won't stop me from trying.)
There's an obvious subjective element, but I've never accepted that it
lies solely in subjectivity -- that "art is what I say it is" -- since
in that case we would logically have to classify everything as art or
possible art. I know there are schools of thought that say this, but
anything which opens all human activity to the category -- child abuse
or a list of spare auto parts, say -- doesn't work for me.
On the other hand, "pleasing" as a *purpose* doesn't seem a very useful
criterion: the purpose of Guernica wasn't to please, but refusing on
that basis to classify it as art would, to me, seem perverse.
Some general criteria might include:
It must be mediated by the senses and be inter-personal.
(An internally-generated and otherwise unexpressed
philosophical thought is not, to my mind, a work of art.)
It elicits non-functional responses. (The fact that we
respond to the list of spare auto parts by, perhaps, fixing
the car doesn't make that list a work of art.)
It is produced with the intention of eliciting response. (I
do not entirley agree with the concept of "found art": the
*response* may be artistic, but the "found item" is not.)
Any definition is probably going to be shot down here, but I'll offer
something like "art is that which elicits non-functional mental or
emotional responses through sensory perception".
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Linz
I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
Anno Siegel
[...]
> Any definition is probably going to be shot down here, but I'll offer
> something like "art is that which elicits non-functional mental or
> emotional responses through sensory perception".
I'm not happy with "non-functional". Tapping your foot to some music
is a functional response (isn't it ?), but it is also a definitely
a response to music as a work of art.
I'm afraid that trying to define the kind of response art is supposed
to elicit, we'd end up with something like "artistic".
Anno
Robert Lieblich
>
> Harvey V <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.usage.english:
>
> [...]
>
> > Any definition is probably going to be shot down here, but I'll offer
> > something like "art is that which elicits non-functional mental or
> > emotional responses through sensory perception".
>
> I'm not happy with "non-functional". Tapping your foot to some music
> is a functional response (isn't it ?), but it is also a definitely
> a response to music as a work of art.
Perhaps we could substitute "non-utilitarian"? I think Harvey is at
least in the ballpark. I doubt I could do nearly as well.
>
> I'm afraid that trying to define the kind of response art is supposed
> to elicit, we'd end up with something like "artistic".
It's hard not to argue in circles when the goal is to define "art."
And every time I see some old metal toy or small wooden box
appraised for several thousand dollars (UK pounds) on *Antiques
Roadshow*, I find myself musing about the definition of "value."
The eye of the beholder isn't the full answer either.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who loves Mahler's Sixth (which tells you a lot if you know Mahler's
Sixth)
mickwick
>Harvey V <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.usage.english:
>> Any definition is probably going to be shot down here, but I'll offer
>> something like "art is that which elicits non-functional mental or
>> emotional responses through sensory perception".
>
>I'm not happy with "non-functional". Tapping your foot to some music
>is a functional response (isn't it ?), but it is also a definitely
>a response to music as a work of art.
>
>I'm afraid that trying to define the kind of response art is supposed
>to elicit, we'd end up with something like "artistic".
I don't really believe in Art. Art is just Craft with a few noughts on
the end. Or, where there is no discernible Craft, it's what happens when
Craft has disappeared up its own backside (or, in the case of Conceptual
Art, has been subcontracted to disappear up someone else's backside,
most probably belonging to 'this really great little man I know in, you
know, like Brick Lane, worked there all his life and he's got really big
hands, all calloused and sort of real, you know, super!')
Even _The NSOED_'s definition emphasises skill (craft) so much that your
local painter-decorator should qualify as an artist ahead of, say,
Rothko or Mondrian, and that can't be right, surely?
_The Penguin Dictionary of Art and Artists_ doesn't bother to define Art
but _The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Quotations_ yields the following:
'Art is thoughtful workmanship.' - W. R. Lethaby
'Art is the expression of the profoundest thoughts in the simplest way.'
- Albert Einstein
'Music and the plastic arts seek to express the generalized essence of
man's predicament in the universe.' - John Strachey
'Art does not reproduce what we see. It makes us see.' - Paul Klee
('Painting is a blind man's profession.' - Pablo Picasso)
'The whole of art is an appeal to a reality which is not without us but
within our minds.' - Desmond MacCarthy
'All art deals with the absurd and aims at the simple.' - Iris Murdoch
'Art is meant to disturb.' - Georges Braque
'Art is photosynthesis.' - Karl Kraus
'Art is significant deformity.' - Roger Fry
'Art is not a mirror to reflect the world, but a hammer with which to
shape it.' - Vladimir 'Mad Vlad' Mayakovsky (crazy guy!)
'Art is not a special sauce applied to ordinary cooking; it is the
cooking itself if it is good.' - W. R. Lethaby
'Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful
objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill
gives us modern art.' - Tom Stoppard
'Painting is discovery. Every good artist paints what he is.' - Jackson
Pollock (aka Mr Blobby)
'Artists can colour the sky red because they *know* it's blue. Those of
us who aren't artists must colour things the way they really are or
people might think we're stupid.' - Jules Feiffer
'Art, thought Lord Buttonhooke with a clarity of perception that belongs
to the slightly drunk alone, is art.' - Caryl Brahms and S. J. Simon
--
Mickwick
mickwick
>Either La Fontaine or Molière, or maybe both, said the purpose of art is
>to please. Many artists disagree with this idea completely, but it works
>for me, and of course what pleases me may be horrendous to you.
Poussin? 'The goal of art is delectation.'
--
Mickwick
M. J. Powell
<sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M. J. Powell
<harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>Any definition is probably going to be shot down here, but I'll offer
>something like "art is that which elicits non-functional mental or
>emotional responses through sensory perception".
Disgust?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Harvey V
Yes, I think so -- it could certainly be in the range of elicited
response.
Harvey V
> Harvey V <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.usage.english:
>
> [...]
>
>> Any definition is probably going to be shot down here, but I'll
>> offer something like "art is that which elicits non-functional
>> mental or emotional responses through sensory perception".
>
> I'm not happy with "non-functional". Tapping your foot to some
> music is a functional response (isn't it ?), but it is also a
> definitely a response to music as a work of art.
But I don't think that qualifies under the mental/emotional response
that I was trying to specify: tapping your foot is a physical
manifestation of the brain sensing the musical rhythm -- it's not the
response itself.
> I'm afraid that trying to define the kind of response art is
> supposed to elicit, we'd end up with something like "artistic".
I'm not sure of that -- I think the "mental/emotional response" thing
is somewhere in there. By this, I'm trying carefully to avoid defining
any required *type* of mental/emotional response: it's the fact that a
response is elicited that strikes me as central to issue.
Harvey V
> Anno Siegel wrote:
>>
>> Harvey V <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.usage.english:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Any definition is probably going to be shot down here, but I'll
>>> offer something like "art is that which elicits non-functional
>>> mental or emotional responses through sensory perception".
>>
>> I'm not happy with "non-functional". Tapping your foot to some
>> music is a functional response (isn't it ?), but it is also a
>> definitely a response to music as a work of art.
>
> Perhaps we could substitute "non-utilitarian"?
That's a better term -- more explicit; thanks.
As I've answered to Anno, though, I think a critical point is that the
responses that makes art "art" are related to thought and emotion,
rather than physical reaction. The mental/emotional response may well
have a physical manifestation -- like tapping your foot or dancing
around -- but that's the outward effect of the appreciation rather than
the appreciation itself.
I'd certainly not accept a definition of art which included the
eliciting of purely physical responses -- that is, those which are
apparently unrelated to thought or emotion, like the automatic
recoiling from a flame. That would mean that holding a flame towards a
sleeping person was art, which certainly doesn't work for me.
sand
wrote:
>
>I'd certainly not accept a definition of art which included the
>eliciting of purely physical responses -- that is, those which are
>apparently unrelated to thought or emotion, like the automatic
>recoiling from a flame. That would mean that holding a flame towards a
>sleeping person was art, which certainly doesn't work for me.
That depends upon circumstances. Towards a sleeping baby would
certainly evoke emotional and philosophical responses from me.
Jan Sand
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>M. J. Powell wrote:
>> Beer?
>
>I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
That's because you're in the wrong country to enjoy the good stuff.
Guinness of a sort is available where you are, `tis true, but it just
ain't the same.
Charles Riggs
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>>I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>
>Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
Were you thinking Linz would like a headache in the morning?
Linz
> In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
>> M. J. Powell wrote:
>>> Beer?
>>
>> I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>
> Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
Um, no. What about bitter, have you any good bitter?
sand
<chrigg...@eircom.net> wrote:
PICASSO
Picasso, when seen
At paintings, between,
Was requested about his vocation.
The question was asked
For reasons unmasked
To discover his base motivation.
"I make, I am told",
He said, voice quite bold,
"A series that never ceases
Of many objets
In various ways.
Accepted the sum, masterpieces."
"All that I do
In periods blue
Or monuments sharp and cubic
Get admired by all
On the floor or the wall
Whether subjects are bland or pubic."
"I never distress
That I might make a mess,"
He said in a voice deep and basso.
"I'm a genius well known,
No faults to be shown
As long as I sign it Picasso"
Jan Sand
M. J. Powell
<chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:39:21 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>
>>>I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>>
>>Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
>
>Were you thinking Linz would like a headache in the morning?
Not from good cider.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M. J. Powell
>M. J. Powell wrote:
>> In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
>>> M. J. Powell wrote:
>
>>>> Beer?
>>>
>>> I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>>
>> Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
>
>Um, no. What about bitter, have you any good bitter?
No bitter, sorry. Cider?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Linz
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:01:13 -0000, "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> M. J. Powell wrote:
>
>>> Beer?
>>
>> I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>
> That's because you're in the wrong country to enjoy the good stuff.
> Guinness of a sort is available where you are, `tis true, but it just
> ain't the same.
I do fully intend to try Guinness when I eventually get over to Ireland for
a break. Up till now I've not liked what I've tried, although I do like some
other stouts.
Linz
> In message <b32cml$2omt$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
>> M. J. Powell wrote:
>>> In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>>> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
>>>> M. J. Powell wrote:
>>
>>>>> Beer?
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>>>
>>> Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
>>
>> Um, no. What about bitter, have you any good bitter?
>
> No bitter, sorry. Cider?
Oh, go on then. Does it come with rat?
Padraig Breathnach
Although some say that Guinness in Ireland is different from that
elsewhere (and better) it might happen that you won't like it here
either. You would not be alone; you can count on me for solidarity.
Please work on the "eventually". We require an Irish boink.
PB
Charles Riggs
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <mp395vo8qaoud8cab...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
><chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:39:21 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>>
>>>>I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>>>
>>>Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
>>
>>Were you thinking Linz would like a headache in the morning?
>
>Not from good cider.
Then I can attest we don't have such stuff in Ireland.
M. J. Powell
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:08:50 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <mp395vo8qaoud8cab...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
>><chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:39:21 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>>><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>>>
>>>>>I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
>>>
>>>Were you thinking Linz would like a headache in the morning?
>>
>>Not from good cider.
>
>Then I can attest we don't have such stuff in Ireland.
Visit Herefordshire. Or even Somerset.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M. J. Powell
Sorry, I've just been told we're out of cider. But I did see a rat
around here a few minutes ago. Shall I chase it up for you?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Charles Riggs
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ra5c5vggd3nvt562t...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
><chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:08:50 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <mp395vo8qaoud8cab...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
>>><chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:39:21 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>>>><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <b2vo64$1fct$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>>>>
>>>>>>I don't mind if I do. Pint of mild, please.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
>>>>
>>>>Were you thinking Linz would like a headache in the morning?
>>>
>>>Not from good cider.
>>
>>Then I can attest we don't have such stuff in Ireland.
>
>Visit Herefordshire. Or even Somerset.
I'd like to, and not only for cidery reasons.
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom and
replace it with eir
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>I do fully intend to try Guinness when I eventually get over to Ireland for
>a break. Up till now I've not liked what I've tried, although I do like some
>other stouts.
Guinness is strange stuff. It varies from pub to pub and sometimes
from day to day, although that is less likely, in my experience. Some
say the best is to be had in Slattery's in Rathmines. They do a land
office business in it, which may be one reason why it is so good
there. If not Slattery's, I suspect it would be another of the Dublin
pubs.
Charles Riggs
Hopefully, with more that just you, me, and Mike attending next time,
not that the company and cheese weren't fine.
John Dean
Bitter?
Take my Mother-in-Law.
Please
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
M. J. Powell
<chr...@aircom.net> writes
It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Matti Lamprhey
>
> It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
> unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
I assume that your "least" should have been "most", Mike.
Yes, the 20th century barely brushed it with its wings.
Matti
M. J. Powell
<matti-...@totally-official.com> writes
Argh!
Mike
--
MJ.Powell
Skitt
> "Linz" wrote:
>> I do fully intend to try Guinness when I eventually get over to
>> Ireland for a break. Up till now I've not liked what I've tried,
>> although I do like some other stouts.
>
> Guinness is strange stuff. It varies from pub to pub and sometimes
> from day to day, although that is less likely, in my experience. Some
> say the best is to be had in Slattery's in Rathmines. They do a land
> office business in it, which may be one reason why it is so good
> there. If not Slattery's, I suspect it would be another of the Dublin
> pubs.
I have heard that variance is to be expected of European beers, stouts, and
ales. They do not adhere to the strict quality control criteria applicable
to those beverages produced in the USA, where a particular brand will always
taste the same. I'm not saying that it will taste great -- only the same,
time after time.
I have mentioned this before, incurred some wrath with it even, but Guinness
Stout is something I can't stomach unless I dilute it with an equal amount
of some lager. Then it becomes a pleasant dark beer that is quite enjoyable
to my taste buds. Nothing personal, Charles, m'kay?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Tony Cooper
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> "Linz" wrote:
>
>>> I do fully intend to try Guinness when I eventually get over to
>>> Ireland for a break. Up till now I've not liked what I've tried,
>>> although I do like some other stouts.
>>
>> Guinness is strange stuff. It varies from pub to pub and sometimes
>> from day to day, although that is less likely, in my experience. Some
>> say the best is to be had in Slattery's in Rathmines. They do a land
>> office business in it, which may be one reason why it is so good
>> there. If not Slattery's, I suspect it would be another of the Dublin
>> pubs.
>
>I have heard that variance is to be expected of European beers, stouts, and
>ales. They do not adhere to the strict quality control criteria applicable
>to those beverages produced in the USA, where a particular brand will always
>taste the same. I'm not saying that it will taste great -- only the same,
>time after time.
>
It's more often the pipes than it is a variance in the Guinness. Not
the Danny Boy pipes, but the pipes from the keg to the tap.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Robert Bannister
It's an acquired taste for sure. I didn't like until I visited the
Guinness brewery in London (Park Royal?). I then went to Dublin and
found it even better, but you can also get some dreadful stuff in
Ireland too, especially in small country pubs that don't serve that
much. It doesn't seem to travel well either, so the nearer you are to
the brewery the better. To my great surprise, canned Guinness (with the
widgets inside) is almost like the real thing, but bottled G. tastes
quite different.
--
Rob Bannister
Charles Riggs
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <vvne5vggkut2etm1g...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
><chr...@aircom.net> writes
>>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:23:11 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>>>Visit Herefordshire. Or even Somerset.
>>
>>I'd like to, and not only for cidery reasons.
>
>It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
>unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
It's Yorkshire I've been thinking about, but what do I know.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>It's Yorkshire I've been thinking about, but what do I know.
Movie review of the weekend: "Possession", with Gwyneth Paltrow.
Slow and ponderous movie with great scenes of the English countryside
including Whitby. Interesting shots of the interior of the British
Museum. Gwyneth Paltrow, who is an American, playing an English
professor. (AmE usage of word) Trevor Eve, who is English (last seen
playing in BBC series "Waking the Dead") playing an American. Jeremy
Northham, playing the same role he always plays with the same degree
of acting skills (0). Graham Crowden leaves the nursing home
("Waiting for God") and lives in a country estate. Some new American
actor who is entirely forgettable.
Recommendation: Mute the sound and watch the scenery.
Jacqui
> Movie review of the weekend: "Possession", with Gwyneth Paltrow.
> Slow and ponderous movie with great scenes of the English
> countryside including Whitby. Interesting shots of the interior
> of the British Museum. Gwyneth Paltrow, who is an American,
> playing an English professor. (AmE usage of word) Trevor Eve,
> who is English (last seen playing in BBC series "Waking the Dead")
> playing an American. Jeremy Northham, playing the same role he
> always plays with the same degree of acting skills (0). Graham
> Crowden leaves the nursing home ("Waiting for God") and lives in a
> country estate. Some new American actor who is entirely
> forgettable.
>
> Recommendation: Mute the sound and watch the scenery.
Pah. I've been waiting for an opportunity to see this over here (I love
the book), and now you're putting me off. Still, anything with Graham
Crowden in is worth watching, so I will still get around to it.
Anyway, it can't be as badly cast as either Highlander (Scottish
Spaniard from outer space, French Scot from outer space) or the Coppola
Dracula (English Transylvanian, Keanu Reeves attempting English).
Jac
M. J. Powell
>On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:30:49 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <vvne5vggkut2etm1g...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
>><chr...@aircom.net> writes
>>>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:23:11 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>
>>>>Visit Herefordshire. Or even Somerset.
>>>
>>>I'd like to, and not only for cidery reasons.
>>
>>It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
>>unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
>
>It's Yorkshire I've been thinking about, but what do I know.
Leeds, Bradford - great ugly cities. There's only one city in
Herefordshire and that's Hereford, but it's only a large town really.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Matti Lamprhey
> >"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
> >>unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
> >
> >It's Yorkshire I've been thinking about, but what do I know.
>
> Leeds, Bradford - great ugly cities. There's only one city in
> Herefordshire and that's Hereford, but it's only a large town really.
Hereford is an excellent example of what a city should be; I'd have
described Leeds and Bradford as a conurbation.
Matti
Tony Cooper
By all means, see it. The above is only my opinion, and your view may
be completely different. Remember, I am a person that has never paid
money to see a picture set in outer space, wasn't all that impressed
with "The Princess Bride", and probably will not get around to seeing
any of the Harry Potter movies.
What do I know? This may be the movie of the year for admirers of
Victorian costume dramas. (The movie is set in the present, but has
numerous flashbacks to the 1850s.)
If you do see it, tell me what you think of the male lead; the
forgettable American. He slightly resembles (in looks, but not
talent) Sean Bean. He manages, throughout the movie which is set over
several weeks, to maintain a three-day stubble of beard. My wife
thought he badly needed to shampoo his hair. He has an unusually wide
mouth. It is distractingly wide. There's a kissing scene that is
almost bizarre if you notice this. He could eat an apple and still
kiss Gwyneth at the same time.
R H Draney
news:Xns932B7B714D0...@163.1.2.7:
> Anyway, it can't be as badly cast as either Highlander (Scottish
> Spaniard from outer space, French Scot from outer space)
Didn't stay for the end, did you?...the former was "Scottish Egyptian
from outer space, pretending to be a Spaniard"....r
M. J. Powell
<matti-...@totally-official.com> writes
Yes, they're what spoils Yorkshire...
Leominster and Ludlow are lovely places. Just the right size. I'd like
to live in either, but preferably Leominster, I think.
Mike
-
M.J.Powell
Jacqui
> Jacqui wrote
>> Anyway, it can't be as badly cast as either Highlander (Scottish
>> Spaniard from outer space, French Scot from outer space)
>
> Didn't stay for the end, did you?...the former was "Scottish
> Egyptian from outer space, pretending to be a Spaniard"....r
I forgot the Egyptian bit. I like to forget that I've seen any of the
films, to be honest - the first bit of the first one, with the
Highlander actually being a Highlander, is pretty good. As soon as
wotzerface dies it all goes a bit crap.
Jac
R Fontana
> Remember, I am a person that has never paid
> money to see a picture set in outer space,
C**p, you really call movies "pictures"? I'm surprised.
> wasn't all that impressed
> with "The Princess Bride", and probably will not get around to seeing
> any of the Harry Potter movies.
See the Harry Potter movies.
Maria Conlon
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Remember, I am a person that has never paid
>> money to see a picture set in outer space,
>
> C**p, you really call movies "pictures"? I'm surprised.
What's wrong with that? Have you not heard of picture shows? I usually
say "movie," whether it's in the theater or on TV, but "picture[s]" is
certainly in my dialect.
(Something tells me this is a generational thing.)
Maria Conlon
R Fontana
Yep, but I don't think it's just generational. I'm surprised that you
and C**p both have "picture" in your dialect (if you're saying you
might occasionally use "picture" instead of "movie"), because you're
both relatively young! (Younger than my parents, though they were
members of the Post-Greatest Pre-Baby-Boom Generation, and I never
heard either of my parents use "picture", though perhaps they did so as
children.) I note that you and C**p have both spent significant amouts
of time in the Midwest, though in different dialectal regions.
I remember realizing that in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" the
"picture show" meant "movie" a long time after I was familiar with the
title of that film. "Picture" for movie I see, or saw, as an
old-fashioned term; it seems to be the term of choice for "movie" in
Prewar movies. "Motion picture" is still in use, but not in ordinary
speech. You often hear "motion picture" in trailers, for example.
Can a movie shown on TV be called a "picture"?
Also, does anyone still call a theatre performance "a curtain"?
Skitt
> Also, does anyone still call a theatre performance "a curtain"?
Did anyone ever call it that? Not within my earshot.
Maria Conlon
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Maria Conlon wrote:
>
>> R Fontana wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember, I am a person that has never paid
>>>> money to see a picture set in outer space,
>>>
>>> C**p, you really call movies "pictures"? I'm surprised.
>>
>> What's wrong with that? Have you not heard of picture shows? I
>> usually say "movie," whether it's in the theater or on TV, but
>> "picture[s]" is certainly in my dialect.
>>
>> (Something tells me this is a generational thing.)
>
> Yep, but I don't think it's just generational. I'm surprised that you
> and C**p both have "picture" in your dialect (if you're saying you
> might occasionally use "picture" instead of "movie"), because you're
> both relatively young! (Younger than my parents, though they were
> members of the Post-Greatest Pre-Baby-Boom Generation, and I never
> heard either of my parents use "picture", though perhaps they did so
> as children.) I note that you and C**p have both spent significant
> amouts of time in the Midwest, though in different dialectal regions.
I know you've mentioned your parents' ages at some point, but I don't
remember how old they are. My impression is that they are not much older
than me.
As for "picture" being a Midwest term for movie, I don't think so. I'll
stick with "generational."
>
> I remember realizing that in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" the
> "picture show" meant "movie" a long time after I was familiar with the
> title of that film. "Picture" for movie I see, or saw, as an
> old-fashioned term; it seems to be the term of choice for "movie" in
> Prewar movies. "Motion picture" is still in use, but not in ordinary
> speech. You often hear "motion picture" in trailers, for example.
And during the Oscar presentations: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts
and Sciences.
My guess: "Moving pictures" and "motion pictures" were used at roughly
the same time, with "moving" perhaps a little bit older. They both meant
that the pictures moved as opposed to being still. "Picture show" is
just a shortened version of "moving picture show." So is "movie."
"Movie" and "talkie" are very similar in that they are slang, more or
less, for the kind of films they were.
>
> Can a movie shown on TV be called a "picture"?
I don't know. Probably.
>
> Also, does anyone still call a theatre performance "a curtain"?
Never heard that.
Maria Conlon
R Fontana
> R Fontana wrote:
>
> > Also, does anyone still call a theatre performance "a curtain"?
>
> Did anyone ever call it that? Not within my earshot.
Hmm. I think you're right, and I just misinterpreted the usages I'm
thinking of.
M-W says:
4 ... b : the ascent or opening (as at the beginning of a play) of a
stage curtain; also : its descent or closing (as at the end of an act)
c : the final situation, line, or scene of an act or play d : the time
at which a theatrical performance begins
The closest Googleable example to the usage I have in mind is this one:
These two dancers, in fact -- the very fine Jacques Poulin-Denis and
Nadia Adame -- will soon perform with Mikhail Baryshnikov in a
benefit gala, as AXIS' company manager announced before Sunday afternoon's
curtain at the Alice Arts Theater.
[San Francisco Examiner 10/9/02]
But I think what they mean is "the start of the performance, thought of
as a clock time", since there are so many other unambiguous examples of
that usage. In other words, I was misinterpreting it as a synonym for
"show", the whole of the performance.
Linz
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@aircom.net> wrote in message
news:5b4g5vc7qm7c2ooal...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:30:49 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
> <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <vvne5vggkut2etm1g...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
> ><chr...@aircom.net> writes
> >>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:23:11 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>
> >>>Visit Herefordshire. Or even Somerset.
> >>
> >>I'd like to, and not only for cidery reasons.
> >
> >It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
> >unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
>
> It's Yorkshire I've been thinking about, but what do I know.
Oh, please, visit Yorkshire, too. We have lots of good beer!
Linz
"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jFED4eJp...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
A bit like York, then. A lovely city, York.
Linz
"Skitt" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:b38q3r$1ic4ac$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> > "Linz" wrote:
>
> >> I do fully intend to try Guinness when I eventually get over to
> >> Ireland for a break. Up till now I've not liked what I've tried,
> >> although I do like some other stouts.
> >
> > Guinness is strange stuff. It varies from pub to pub and sometimes
> > from day to day, although that is less likely, in my experience. Some
> > say the best is to be had in Slattery's in Rathmines. They do a land
> > office business in it, which may be one reason why it is so good
> > there. If not Slattery's, I suspect it would be another of the Dublin
> > pubs.
>
> I have heard that variance is to be expected of European beers, stouts,
and
> ales. They do not adhere to the strict quality control criteria
applicable
> to those beverages produced in the USA, where a particular brand will
> always taste the same. I'm not saying that it will taste great -- only
the
> same, time after time.
It's not so much the quality control as the water. The same beer made with
all the same ingredients but with different water tastes different.
M. J. Powell
<sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
Always wanted to visit York, but so far have only passed through on my
way to Newcastle.
Any more sightings of the Roman soldiers cut off at the knees?
Mike
>
>
--
M.J.Powell
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote
True, but do they have a different water supply for different batches? I
understand that the same brewery can produce beer with flavor that varies
from batch to batch.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
That's the very one I had in mind, Linz. From what I gather, it is the
second most civilized city in the country, and that other one has gone
considerably downhill in the past ten years. These factoids I've
gleaned from much careful reading of AUE over the years, so I'm
willing to bet my eye teeth on them.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Off the beer, off the fags. Sadly. Still, I hear they have a nice wall
worth seeing, over there, and the town's sorta old, if one likes
things like that.
M. J. Powell
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:41:05 -0000, "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles Riggs" <chr...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>>news:5b4g5vc7qm7c2ooal...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:30:49 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>>> <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In message <vvne5vggkut2etm1g...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
>>> ><chr...@aircom.net> writes
>>> >>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:23:11 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>>>
>>> >>>Visit Herefordshire. Or even Somerset.
>>> >>
>>> >>I'd like to, and not only for cidery reasons.
>>> >
>>> >It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
>>> >unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
>>>
>>> It's Yorkshire I've been thinking about, but what do I know.
>>
>>Oh, please, visit Yorkshire, too. We have lots of good beer!
>
>Off the beer, off the fags. Sadly. Still, I hear they have a nice wall
>worth seeing, over there, and the town's sorta old, if one likes
>things like that.
Well, I do. I like the massive wooden beams, the human scale windows
etc. There seems to be more humanity in them than in the monstrous
steel, concrete and glass structures of today.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Linz
"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vuAwy3D1...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
> In message <b350ka$79m$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
> >M. J. Powell wrote:
> >>>> Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
> >>>
> >>> Um, no. What about bitter, have you any good bitter?
> >>
> >> No bitter, sorry. Cider?
> >
> >Oh, go on then. Does it come with rat?
>
> Sorry, I've just been told we're out of cider. But I did see a rat
> around here a few minutes ago. Shall I chase it up for you?
Er, no, surely you have a cat do that kind of thing for you?
M. J. Powell
>
>"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:vuAwy3D1...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <b350ka$79m$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Linz
>> <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes
>> >M. J. Powell wrote:
>
>> >>>> Sorry, we're out of mild. Cider?
>> >>>
>> >>> Um, no. What about bitter, have you any good bitter?
>> >>
>> >> No bitter, sorry. Cider?
>> >
>> >Oh, go on then. Does it come with rat?
>>
>> Sorry, I've just been told we're out of cider. But I did see a rat
>> around here a few minutes ago. Shall I chase it up for you?
>
>Er, no, surely you have a cat do that kind of thing for you?
Oh, no. No cats. We want to keep the rats for the cider.
Mike
>
>
--
M.J.Powell
Charles Riggs
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <qptl5vcqqhpdjptgd...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
><chr...@aircom.net> writes
>>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:41:05 -0000, "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Charles Riggs" <chr...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>>>news:5b4g5vc7qm7c2ooal...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:30:49 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>>>> <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In message <vvne5vggkut2etm1g...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
>>>> ><chr...@aircom.net> writes
>>>> >>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:23:11 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
>>>>
>>>> >>>Visit Herefordshire. Or even Somerset.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I'd like to, and not only for cidery reasons.
>>>> >
>>>> >It has long been my opinion that Herefordshire is by far the least
>>>> >unspoiled of the English counties. That is, the most rural.
>>>>
>>>> It's Yorkshire I've been thinking about, but what do I know.
>>>
>>>Oh, please, visit Yorkshire, too. We have lots of good beer!
>>
>>Off the beer, off the fags. Sadly. Still, I hear they have a nice wall
>>worth seeing, over there, and the town's sorta old, if one likes
>>things like that.
>
>Well, I do. I like the massive wooden beams, the human scale windows
>etc. There seems to be more humanity in them than in the monstrous
>steel, concrete and glass structures of today.
For sure. I'd trade one cold Chrysler Building for just a section of
the wall surrounding lovely Dinkelsbühl. Piss on modernity.
Linz
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:od2c5vkd2i5br6427...@4ax.com...
> "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
> >I do fully intend to try Guinness when I eventually get over to Ireland
> >for a break. Up till now I've not liked what I've tried, although I do
> >like some other stouts.
> >
> Although some say that Guinness in Ireland is different from that
> elsewhere (and better) it might happen that you won't like it here
> either. You would not be alone; you can count on me for solidarity.
Which is why I won't actually buy a pint of my own. I'll taste someone
else's so I don't actually waste much.
> Please work on the "eventually". We require an Irish boink.
Summer might be good.
Padraig Breathnach
forward.
PB
frank green
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:11:31 GMT, frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Charles Riggs wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:06:10 GMT, frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>><my words, snipped>
> >>>
> >>>>Are you interested in pursuing a formal definition of "art"?
> >>>
> >>>Sure. Give it a go.
> >>>--
> >>>Charles Riggs
> >>>chriggs|at|eircom|dot|net
> >>
> >>You first. Venn?
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure I have the mental energy for this, frank. Not at this
> > moment, anyway. Any definition I could give would be wrong, for some
> > art, or for art in general, as some see it.
> >
> > What makes a creation a piece of art is a subjective thing, varying
> > from person to person, i.e. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
> > thought I'd be on safe ground saying that little about it, but I see
> > I'm already in trouble. Art need not be beautiful. Few would find John
> > Cage's music beautiful, but many would claim some of his compositions
> > are works of art. I find nothing beautiful about Picasso's distorted
> > depictions of woman, after his Rose Period, but I'd have to call them
> > art. Some certainly do, since any one of them fetches an obscenely
> > high price when auctioned.
> >
> > I could go on, but I see I'm beginning to ramble. I'm far from having
> > put my finger on what art is. Your turn.
>
> Either La Fontaine or Molière, or maybe both, said the purpose of art is
> to please. Many artists disagree with this idea completely, but it works
> for me, and of course what pleases me may be horrendous to you.
>
> --
> Rob Bannister
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, for some prefer deformity, and it
to call the ugly beautiful is contradictory. Taste is in the eye of the
beholder. Beauty is the attractive power of perfection, according to Ananda
K. Coomaraswamy, the greatest aesthete since Aristotle. His definition is a
formal (Venn diagram) one, the class being "attractive power," the subclass,
"of perfection." A.K.C. goes on to say that beauty does not admit of
degree, which I find I cannot fathom the meaning of. Nevertheless, his
definition works as a great starting point.
Art is a combination of craft and vision. The class is "combination," the
subclass, "craft and vision." Ideally, the greater the vision and the
greater the craft, the greater the art--and the ability to delight and
instruct, which is the classic answer to the purpose of art.
As for Picasso, I once saw an exhibit of his that blew me away. It was a
series of what must have been twenty or so works. The first one looked as
though it had been done by a Dutch master, the last by Picasso. If you
looked at the first and last, you wondered how he ever got to the last; but
it you followed the evolution one at a time from beginning to end, you could
see perfectly how he got to the last one. It was most delightful and
instructive.
sand
wrote:
>Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, for some prefer deformity, and it
>to call the ugly beautiful is contradictory. Taste is in the eye of the
>beholder. Beauty is the attractive power of perfection, according to Ananda
>K. Coomaraswamy, the greatest aesthete since Aristotle. His definition is a
>formal (Venn diagram) one, the class being "attractive power," the subclass,
>"of perfection." A.K.C. goes on to say that beauty does not admit of
>degree, which I find I cannot fathom the meaning of. Nevertheless, his
>definition works as a great starting point.
>Art is a combination of craft and vision. The class is "combination," the
>subclass, "craft and vision." Ideally, the greater the vision and the
>greater the craft, the greater the art--and the ability to delight and
>instruct, which is the classic answer to the purpose of art.
>As for Picasso, I once saw an exhibit of his that blew me away. It was a
>series of what must have been twenty or so works. The first one looked as
>though it had been done by a Dutch master, the last by Picasso. If you
>looked at the first and last, you wondered how he ever got to the last; but
>it you followed the evolution one at a time from beginning to end, you could
>see perfectly how he got to the last one. It was most delightful and
>instructive.
Whether or not beauty is in the eye of the beholder, insofar as I can
determine, art and beauty are not necessarily tied together. The
British artist Francis Bacon may produce art that appears beautiful to
some people but it does not seem to be the target of the artist. If
anything is outstanding in his work it is horror. And it is damned
good art. The work "Gangster Funeral" by Jack Levine has, as its
object, not beauty but corruption. It also is an outstanding piece.
The work of Grosz in depicting the corruption in pre-Hitler Germany
also was incisive for its social criticism not its conformity to
standards of beauty.
Jan Sand
Oliver Cromm
news:3kq56vg4pct92p8sb...@4ax.com:
> Whether or not beauty is in the eye of the beholder, insofar as I can
> determine, art and beauty are not necessarily tied together.
Recently on the radio, I heard a fine definition of someone knowledgeable
about music: he who can take his pill without the sugar coating.
Something which I already gave up explaining to most people. Most pop music
(in the widest sense), btw, is sugar coating without the pill.
--
Oliver Cromm
And among them the Count Rollant came in,
And Oliver, so proof and so gentil.
sand
>sand <jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:3kq56vg4pct92p8sb...@4ax.com:
>
>> Whether or not beauty is in the eye of the beholder, insofar as I can
>> determine, art and beauty are not necessarily tied together.
>
>Recently on the radio, I heard a fine definition of someone knowledgeable
>about music: he who can take his pill without the sugar coating.
>
>Something which I already gave up explaining to most people. Most pop music
>(in the widest sense), btw, is sugar coating without the pill.
As someone who does both two and three dimensional work in the art
field, plus poetry, I find it puzzling that people who are familiar
with many of the works in the field continually say that art is
somehow only involved with beauty. Of course much of art is beautiful,
but much is also repugnant. A great deal of it is skillful with a
wonderful understanding of materials and how to manipulate them to get
extraordinary effects and a good deal of wonderful work looks as if it
was assembled with chewing gum behind the artist's back. The point is
that art, like science, is an assault on ignorance and incapability
and is a demonstration of both the world outside the mind and the
worlds inside that would otherwise be invsible. It is a zoo of wild
ideas and exotic explorations and that is why it offends people who
are afraid to see how much we still don't know and how many things are
neglected by conventional thought.
Jan Sand
Robert Bannister
This seems to be hinting at some sort of Platonic ideal. The problem
here is, who decides what is and what is not Art?
> Art is a combination of craft and vision. The class is "combination," the
> subclass, "craft and vision." Ideally, the greater the vision and the
> greater the craft, the greater the art--and the ability to delight and
> instruct, which is the classic answer to the purpose of art.
This appears to contradict what you said earlier. If 'the ability to
delight... is the classic answer to the purpose of art', then you are
simply agreeing with me.
--
Rob Bannister