is it art yet?
Fiona Webster
Since you may not have been following the "Dada and seeking po"
thread (we never did find "po") -- and I wouldn't blame you --
let me explain that one of its sub-threads has been an examination
of the distinction between an object and a work of art. The
question being: at what point does an object become a work of
art? I gave an example of how focusing my attention a rust pattern
on a dumpster in a new way, such that I was able to imagine it
as "art," facilitated my finding it beautiful. Uche said that
under *no* circumstances would he ever be able to find a rust
pattern on a dumpster, to be beautiful.
Here's a thought experiment I propose. Go through the following
sequence and watch to see if there's a distinct step at which the
"artness" of the object suddenly increases. Another way of asking it:
at which point do you become able to perceive beauty in this object?
(The two points may be different, or may be the same.)
The object is a pattern of rust and peeling paint (multiple colors)
on the side of a metal dumpster. Imagine the dumpster as smelly
and generally repulsive, if you wish. Part of why I'm choosing a
dumpster is because we don't commonly associate beauty, or art,
with a dumpster. But the object is not the whole dumpster --
just a pattern on its side.
Step 1 -- The dumpster is in a parking lot you have to pass
through every day as you go to work. You pass close
by the dumpster, and you do see the rust pattern, daily.
Step 2 -- You round a corner in the city, and suddenly perceive
the dumpster, for the first time. The rust pattern is
clearly visible in the morning sun.
Step 3 -- Now we'll introduce another character: an artist. The
artist takes you to see the dumpster, points at the rust
pattern, and says, "Look at that! Isn't it beautiful?"
Step 4 -- Same scene as before, except now the artist takes a thick
black marker and draws a rectangular frame around a
specific portion of the rust pattern. (All subsequent
steps will refer to this framed portion of the pattern.)
Step 5 -- You are visiting the loft studio of an artist who does
metal sculptures. You notice, off to the side, not part
of any artwork, the cut-out rectangle of metal with the
rust pattern on it. You have no idea whether this is
a found object, or an artwork.
Step 6 -- You see the same cut-out rectangle of metal with the rust
pattern, hanging in an art gallery.
Step 7 -- You see a photograph of the same thing, hanging in an art
gallery.
Step 8 -- You see a hyperrealist painting, bringing out every detail
of the rust and peeling paint, hanging in an art gallery.
Step 9 -- You see an abstract painting of the same thing, in which
the colors, forms, and composition are the same,
but it's no longer evident that it's a painting of a rust
pattern on metal.
Step 10 -- You see an exquisitely beautiful painting (pick your
favorite period) in which a woman is holding a large book.
The pattern on the cover of the book is the same as in
the abstract painting from Step 9.
Was there a distinct point where you began to view the rust pattern
as art? Was there a distinct point where you were more able than
before, to find the rust pattern beautiful? Thoughts, comments?
--Fiona
Uche Ogbuji
In <5dqiq9$aac...@fi.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>Since you may not have been following the "Dada and seeking po"
>thread (we never did find "po")
But it was hanging right there throughout the thread!
>Here's a thought experiment I propose. Go through the following
>sequence and watch to see if there's a distinct step at which the
>"artness" of the object suddenly increases. Another way of asking it:
>at which point do you become able to perceive beauty in this object?
>(The two points may be different, or may be the same.)
Since I was the primary subject of the abbreviated version of this
experiment, and since this more elaborate version is likely your
attempt at the cooperative argument you desired, I shall go along.
> The object is a pattern of rust and peeling paint (multiple colors)
> on the side of a metal dumpster. Imagine the dumpster as smelly
> and generally repulsive, if you wish.
I am at least perceptive enough to disallow the contents or milieu of
the dumpster from prejudicing my view of its texture. Note that
I _have_ seen pos that I found beautiful.
> Part of why I'm choosing a
> dumpster is because we don't commonly associate beauty, or art,
> with a dumpster. But the object is not the whole dumpster --
> just a pattern on its side.
Agreed, as has always been agreed.
> Step 1 -- The dumpster is in a parking lot you have to pass
> through every day as you go to work. You pass close
> by the dumpster, and you do see the rust pattern, daily.
I'm sure no comment is necessary.
> Step 2 -- You round a corner in the city, and suddenly perceive
> the dumpster, for the first time. The rust pattern is
> clearly visible in the morning sun.
External agents can act upon an object to render it beautiful,
but I am very skeptical about such ability on the part of sun rays
upon dumpster rust.
> Step 3 -- Now we'll introduce another character: an artist. The
> artist takes you to see the dumpster, points at the rust
> pattern, and says, "Look at that! Isn't it beautiful?"
Indication is not enough to make the object art. This is precisely where I
depart from you and Vance, although in differing ways. You say that
once it has been called art, it becomes art, and Vance seems to imply
that the didactic purpose of the artist turns the object art (please correct
me if I don't represent you accurately, Vance.)
> Step 4 -- Same scene as before, except now the artist takes a thick
> black marker and draws a rectangular frame around a
> specific portion of the rust pattern. (All subsequent
> steps will refer to this framed portion of the pattern.)
This is simply more involved indication, see above.
> Step 5 -- You are visiting the loft studio of an artist who does
> metal sculptures. You notice, off to the side, not part
> of any artwork, the cut-out rectangle of metal with the
> rust pattern on it. You have no idea whether this is
> a found object, or an artwork.
This is actually where a different and more sophisticated artists joins.
At what point does the artifice of the artist turn object into art?
I don't accept that simply removing a portion of the object and
displaying it somewhere else is sufficient to turn it into art, I
find this merely a further degree of indication.
> Step 6 -- You see the same cut-out rectangle of metal with the rust
> pattern, hanging in an art gallery.
This is identical to step 5 as far as the art/object distinction is involved.
> Step 7 -- You see a photograph of the same thing, hanging in an art
> gallery.
You must be more specific here, but this is admittedly a hitch in traditional
art/object distinctions. Is it the degree of artifice (i.e. color filters, shutter
speed manipulation, etc.) that was introduced in the photography that turns
the result into art, or is it art merely by the fact that it is a representation
of the object?
I would solve this by considering a photograph the same as vision-at-a-distance,
and would thus equate it to the object being displayed except in so far as the
photographing process introduced artifice, which might be sufficient to turn it
art. But then again, none of this has converted the dumpster rust into art,
although a photograph of it might be.
Excellent point, Fiona, and worth a lot of thought.
> Step 8 -- You see a hyperrealist painting, bringing out every detail
> of the rust and peeling paint, hanging in an art gallery.
This is clearly the point at which almost all would agree that we
have a work of art: the hyperrealist painting is art, but the dumpster
pattern is still object.
> Step 9 -- You see an abstract painting of the same thing, in which
> the colors, forms, and composition are the same,
> but it's no longer evident that it's a painting of a rust
> pattern on metal.
ditto.
> Step 10 -- You see an exquisitely beautiful painting (pick your
> favorite period) in which a woman is holding a large book.
> The pattern on the cover of the book is the same as in
> the abstract painting from Step 9.
ditto.
>Was there a distinct point where you began to view the rust pattern
>as art?
I never viewed it at art throughout the exercise, as you'll note. Nor
did I ever view it as beautiful.
>Was there a distinct point where you were more able than
>before, to find the rust pattern beautiful?
no.
>Thoughts, comments?
It was a very well thought-out sequence, but it seems to have shown
that we have been arguing in entirely different domains, which I have
guessed and earlier suggested, and which might be the major cause
of your earlier frustrations.
bene vale
--Uche
Alison Chaiken
f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>Since you may not have been following the "Dada and seeking po"
>thread
Right you are.
> Uche said that
>under *no* circumstances would he ever be able to find a rust
>pattern on a dumpster, to be beautiful.
Reminds me of a question asked once by Ngaio Marsh:
Why is the red object on the forest floor beautiful when we think it's
a flower and ugly once we realize it's a candy wrapper?
[Counts as a book reference since Marsh is a writer.]
This subject is something of a running joke in our household. Once we
were refinishing the wooden handles of some steak knifes by sanding
and varnishing them. While the varnish was applied, we stuck the
blades into an empty Durkee potato stick container. I was struck by
how much the whole assembly looked like a formal flower arrangement as
the varnish was drying. We dubbed it "Death to Durkee" and discussed
whether we should leave it the way it was, an idea which was vetoed
because we would have had to buy new steak knives. Now any
accidentally attractive arrangement of objects is "another piece in
the 'Death to Durkee' series."
--
Alison Chaiken ali...@wsrcc.com
(510) 422-7129 [daytime] http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/
4th law of thermodynamics: money and information flow in opposite directions.
John Camp
Fiona sez:
>one of its sub-threads has been an examination
>of the distinction between an object and a work of art. The
>question being: at what point does an object become a work of
>art?
One of the basic necessary assumptions of art is that it is a means of
communication -- between the artist and the viewer, the artist and himself,
the artist and God, the artist and somebody -- and an unmanipulated object is
not an attempt at communication. It simply is. Nature, or anything else --
guns, snow-mobile treads, catsup packages -- may be beautiful without being
art.
You might argue that if one sees art in a not-obviously-artistic object, then
that person has begun manipulating it, if only in his mind. He's isolated it
from its environment. He's commmunicating with himself and has become the
artist. If he points out the rust stain to somebody else, who sees only a rust
stain that communicates nothing, then to that person, for whom the rust has
not been manipulated, it's not art.
Art is always an individual thing. High art is simply art that appeals to
people who have made a point of studying art. IMHO, or course.
JC
I would also argue that some animals -- notably cats -- are artistic; that is,
they do things with no apparent motive other than aesthetics...
moggin
jc...@mr.net (John Camp):
>One of the basic necessary assumptions of art is that it is a means of
>communication -- between the artist and the viewer, the artist and himself,
>the artist and God, the artist and somebody -- and an unmanipulated object is
>not an attempt at communication.
Basic, yes; necessary, no.
-- moggin
Fiona Webster
John Camp writes:
>You might argue that if one sees art in a not-obviously-artistic
>object, then that person has begun manipulating it, if only in his
>mind. He's isolated it from its environment. He's commmunicating with
>himself and has become the artist. If he points out the rust stain to
>somebody else, who sees only a rust stain that communicates nothing,
>then to that person, for whom the rust has not been manipulated, it's
>not art.
That's more or less where I stand, except that I do think the
communication needs to be at least between one person and another.
I also must admit that in the case of 2-dimensional art such as the
rust pattern, the manipulation step must involve a frame, a boundary:
So for me the rust pattern becomes art at the point at which the artist
takes the black marker and draws a frame around it. I was able to
perceive it as beautiful earlier than that -- at the point where I
see it as a "novel" object (the sunlight is not necessary to the
experience, but the perception of it for the first time, or as if
for the first time, is).
--Fiona
Fiona Webster
I wrote
>> Was there a distinct point where you began to view the rust pattern
>> as art?
Uche replied:
> I never viewed it as art throughout the exercise, as you'll note.
> Nor did I ever view it as beautiful.
>> Was there a distinct point where you were more able than
>> before, to find the rust pattern beautiful?
>
> no.
Can you explain, Uche? It can't be just that you object to
non-representational art, because I gave an example where the art
*was* representational (i.e., the cover of a book in a representational
painting). Given that the rust pattern is just a pattern of forms and
colors that you can imagine what you want into, why could you never
find it either beautiful, or art? Are you incapable of imagining a
pattern of forms and colors that you find beautiful? I don't think
you are, so I admit to being confused. (And if your answer has
something to do with the Romantic/Classical distinction you mentioned,
please explain how certain patterns are Romantic and other Classical,
or whatever...)
--Fiona
nebb...@concentric.net
On Tue, 11 Feb 97 19:54:49 GMT, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona
Webster) wrote:
>question being: at what point does an object become a work of
>art? I gave an example of how focusing my attention a rust pattern
>on a dumpster in a new way, such that I was able to imagine it
>as "art," facilitated my finding it beautiful. Uche said that
>under *no* circumstances would he ever be able to find a rust
>pattern on a dumpster, to be beautiful.
I can't resist diving into this one, as it is the kind of discussion I
love and can never find enough of. However, I find it a bit daunting
as well, because the range of issues is so immense here. I guess I'll
just pick a couple of points to jump in on and see what happens.
>Here's a thought experiment I propose. Go through the following
>sequence and watch to see if there's a distinct step at which the
>"artness" of the object suddenly increases. Another way of asking it:
>at which point do you become able to perceive beauty in this object?
>(The two points may be different, or may be the same.)
The two points are definitely different, and it probably helps to
decide which issue one wants to pursue, the nature of beauty or the
nature of art. There are definitely things that are beautiful that
are not art, and though there is considerable controversy in
aesthetics over the place of beauty, I think there is a pretty strong
consensus these days that an object need not be beautiful to be art.
Since this is rec.arts.books, I will say that one of the best books I
have read that deals with these issues is _Beyond the Brillo Box_, by
Arthur C. Danto. Wendy Steiner's _The Scandal Of Pleasure_, while
concerned more with the assault on freedom of expression in our
culture, also makes some points that bear on these issues, and is well
worth reading in any event.
Though it is a rather casual piece, and would need more work to really
stand against serious criticism, my own essay, "On Aesthetic
Judgement," at http://www.concentric.net/~nebbiolo, in the essays
section, also makes some points which I think are relevant here.
> Step 2 -- You round a corner in the city, and suddenly perceive
> the dumpster, for the first time. The rust pattern is
> clearly visible in the morning sun.
At this point, I might perceive it as beautiful, though I can't say
for sure without seeing this particular rust pattern. It seems to me
that some rust patterns might be beautiful and others not. It would
not, in any case, be art at this point, at least not imho.
> Step 4 -- Same scene as before, except now the artist takes a thick
> black marker and draws a rectangular frame around a
> specific portion of the rust pattern. (All subsequent
> steps will refer to this framed portion of the pattern.)
At this point, it might become art, since someone has made a conscious
decision regarding its presentation, perhaps not unlike Duchamp's
placing of a urinal in the museum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you like, but such things do happen --
not often, but they do happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uche Ogbuji
In <5du4c7$9jg...@fi.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>>> Was there a distinct point where you began to view the rust pattern
>>> as art?
>Uche replied:
>> I never viewed it as art throughout the exercise, as you'll note.
>> Nor did I ever view it as beautiful.
>>> Was there a distinct point where you were more able than
>>> before, to find the rust pattern beautiful?
>> no.
>Can you explain, Uche? It can't be just that you object to
>non-representational art, because I gave an example where the art
>*was* representational (i.e., the cover of a book in a representational
>painting). Given that the rust pattern is just a pattern of forms and
>colors that you can imagine what you want into, why could you never
>find it either beautiful, or art? Are you incapable of imagining a
>pattern of forms and colors that you find beautiful? I don't think
>you are, so I admit to being confused. (And if your answer has
>something to do with the Romantic/Classical distinction you mentioned,
>please explain how certain patterns are Romantic and other Classical,
>or whatever...)
My goodness! I mentioned that we were arguing in different domains, but
I had no idea. The thought experiment you stated bears little relevance
to the romantic/classic difference or the representational/abstract difference.
In your first post that started all this, you lumped it together with them, but
I simply made a few assumptions that I thought would clear up the matter.
I now understand that the misunderstanding is much deeper than that.
Here are various stabs at explanation.
I.
I think that a cockatoo is beautiful.
I think that a painting of a cockatoo is beautiful.
I think that a painting of a cockatoo is art.
I do not believe that the cockatoo is ever art.
II.
There is a difference between lay and technical definitions of art, as
I have mentioned, and this distorts the applicability of the ape-anecdote
to technical discussions on the matter.
I am, to be honest, not interested in lay usage here, because if critical
usage is arbitrary enough, lay usage is chaotic beyond rescue.
III.
The romantic/classical distinction occurs on many fronts (an example of
ambiguous critics' usage), but here's an incomplete, uncategorical
and informal view:
R respects the demonic process of creation: inspiration, epiphany,
sudden upending of perspective.
C respects reason and method throughout the creative process.
Even when supernatural entities are involved, they are audited
by the same rationality.
R considers the apprehension of art as a similarly inspirational
and demonic process.
C considers the apprehension of art as a kin response to the
apprehension of form in nature, governed by the same
rational process.
R The will of the artist imposes itself upon nature, and the
observer's subsequent exspectations based on nature.
C The will of the artist is entirely bound by nature, and any
attempt to subvert nature to the observer elicits an undesirable
rational disruption.
R This rational disruption is by no means undesirable. It is the
means by which humans strive to transcend the limitations
of nature, and reach the greatest heights.
C Minor rational disruption is acceptable as long as it is clearly
apprehensible (honest becomes a critical term here and
Escher, Bosch and George Herbert are good examples), and not
an attempt to undermine reason. Excessive or unmarked
Rational disruption is undesirable because it introduces a
discordance with nature for which the correction comes at
a cost. The greatest heights lie within nature, and can only
be achieved by (variously) alignment with, knowledge of,
or evolution towards the ultimate natural order.
IV.
Representational art, technically, does not just mean "a faithful
representation of the object." R Art is, lossely, artistic presentation
of elements that humans perceive in form.
Few people view dumpster rust in form, regardless of whether
or not they consider it beautiful, so a painting of dumpster rust
is not automatically representational.
I hope this helps somewhat.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <5du4s5$9jg...@fi.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>I also must admit that in the case of 2-dimensional art such as the
>rust pattern, the manipulation step must involve a frame, a boundary:
So you don't see the need for delimitation in 3D art? What about architecture,
or sculpture? If you do, where would the boundary be in "Fountain"? The
artists's studio? The entire museum? An imaginary cube surrounding the
urinal? If not, why is 2D art special?
vale
--Uche
A. Charles
Fiona said:
> >... in the case of 2-dimensional art such as the
> >rust pattern, the manipulation step must involve a frame, a boundary:
This is not actually true. I have in mind Mondrian's color-balancing
paintings, in which the balance-point from which the plane is suspended is
somewhere outside the canvas. The person looking at the painting
understands the painting to occupy the entire plane, those black lines
extending infinitely. It's just that only the part on the canvas is done
in paint.
Amy
Jeff Inman
f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>>> Was there a distinct point where you began to view the rust pattern
>>> as art?
>Uche replied:
>> I never viewed it as art throughout the exercise, as you'll note.
>> Nor did I ever view it as beautiful.
I could understand resisting allowing Fiona to call it "art", if you
want to insist that "art" has to be deliberately made. (Not everyone
agrees with that definition, but I could understand it.)
But how can you say you couldn't find it beautiful? You haven't
even seen the damn thing!
--
"It wasn't bad. He was in only a little above the knees and sinking
very slowly. As soon as he saw me he stopped hollering and relit his
pipe. Help, he said, simply and quietly."
Fiona Webster
Uche Ogbuji wrote some interesting stuff, but still failed to
answer the question(s) I posed:
>>Given that the rust pattern is just a pattern of forms and
>>colors that you can imagine what you want into, why could you never
>>find it either beautiful, or art? Are you incapable of imagining a
>>pattern of forms and colors that you find beautiful? I don't think
>>you are, so I admit to being confused.
I'll willingly forget the art part, if you're going to insist
on technical definitions or whatever, but what prevents it from
being beautiful?
--Fiona
Uche Ogbuji
In <5e034i$4...@tierra.santafe.edu>, j...@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>> I never viewed it as art throughout the exercise, as you'll note.
>But how can you say you couldn't find it beautiful? You haven't
>even seen the damn thing!
If you go back to the original post, Fiona was using dumpster rust
as a type: remember, we are not in physical contact.
She never claimed any exception from type for the dumpster rust
she used in her thought experiment.
Therefore, since I have seen enough dumpster rust to construct a type,
I _have_, in fact, "seen the damn thing".
I hope I don't need to explain to you that though it often introduces
error, this _is_ in large part, the way people communicate.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <5e0tck$a7g...@fi.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>Uche Ogbuji wrote some interesting stuff, but still failed to
>answer the question(s) I posed:
I assure you, Fiona, that your post did not pose the particular question
you do below: question 1 (see below) is new, and as for question 2,
your original post was consistent, question 2 is not.
>>>Given that the rust pattern is just a pattern of forms and
>>>colors that you can imagine what you want into,
let me mark this as the premise. Let me also note that I disagree
that dumpster rust is a "pattern of forms". Again, are we using
precise or vague meanings for "form"?
>>>why could you never find it either beautiful, or art?
This is question 1
>>>Are you incapable of imagining a pattern of forms and colors that
>>>you find beautiful? [...]
This is question 2, and inconsistent because the mentioned incapability
does _not_ follow from the premise.
>I'll willingly forget the art part, if you're going to insist
>on technical definitions or whatever, but what prevents it from
>being beautiful?
My personal preference, based on all experiences with dumpster
rust.
And this is when I need to make sure you are not playing a game with
me. You do realize that I can't say anything about any dumpster rust
you are particularly considering. What were you saying earlier about
the amount of information the mind must process?
Look: if I asked you "do you think guillotines are dangerous?" You
would, since you have no idea which particular guillotine I refer to,
most probably say "yes". I would be playing unworthy
games with you if I then say "wrong! I'm talking about a guillotine
made of rubber."
vale
--Uche
David J. Loftus
Fiona Webster (f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis) wrote:
: Since you may not have been following the "Dada and seeking po"
: art? I gave an example of how focusing my attention a rust pattern
: on a dumpster in a new way, such that I was able to imagine it
: as "art," facilitated my finding it beautiful. Uche said that
: under *no* circumstances would he ever be able to find a rust
: pattern on a dumpster, to be beautiful.
Somebody must not be understanding someone else. I have no problem
imagining such as thing as beautiful. Whether and when it can become a
work of art is an entirely different matter.
Many years ago -- late 60s or early 70s -- I recall a photography contest
in which the theme was pollution. The winning images were both gorgeous
and unsettling, even grotesque: a drowned cormorant on the sand, with
plastic six-pack holder wrapped around its neck; the sickly bright green
fluid pouring from a culvert into a lake; the unearthly burning red of a
sunset seen through air pollution.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: > Step 3 -- Now we'll introduce another character: an artist. The
: > artist takes you to see the dumpster, points at the rust
: > pattern, and says, "Look at that! Isn't it beautiful?"
: Indication is not enough to make the object art. This is precisely where I
: depart from you and Vance, although in differing ways. You say that
: once it has been called art, it becomes art, and Vance seems to imply
: that the didactic purpose of the artist turns the object art (please correct
: me if I don't represent you accurately, Vance.)
: > Step 4 -- Same scene as before, except now the artist takes a thick
: > black marker and draws a rectangular frame around a
: > specific portion of the rust pattern. (All subsequent
: > steps will refer to this framed portion of the pattern.)
: This is simply more involved indication, see above.
This would appear to invalidate all photography as an art form, except
where obvious manipulation is involved, such as artificial lighting or
darkroom trickery. The kid who sits at a computer screen and adjusts
images is, under this formulation, more of an artist than Ansel Adams or
Edward Weston.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
I'd like to pose a notion that seems to have been left out of this
discussion. Perhaps art is at least partially a SOCIALLY-DEFINED phenomenon?
The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
I don't say I believe this, I merely offer it to provoke further
thought. The notion implies that during her lifetime, Emily Dickinson
was NOT an artist. There was no difference, really between her hidden
scribblings and the stored private correspondence of hundreds of private
citizens in attics across the country. Dickinson BECAME an artist after
her death, when scholars, art lovers and society in general acknowledged
her work as art.
John Camp said art involves communication. That sort of gets to it,
except again, the artist's "message" can be beside the point. If the
artist intends, say, nihilism and despair, but an audience (or even one
wealthy buyer) sees rueful wit or even joy, then the piece may have
failed utterly as communication, but it is still a work of art.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) delineated:
... some interesting but rather (to my mind) artificial and arbitrary
distinctions between romantic and classical notions of art.
: The romantic/classical distinction occurs on many fronts (an example of
: ambiguous critics' usage), but here's an incomplete, uncategorical
: and informal view:
: R respects the demonic process of creation: inspiration, epiphany,
: sudden upending of perspective.
: C respects reason and method throughout the creative process.
: Even when supernatural entities are involved, they are audited
: by the same rationality.
That's pat. Except that romantic artists know very well that training,
discipline and craft shape the demonic inspiration, and classical artists
fully acknowledge supernatural sources (usually termed "God").
: R considers the apprehension of art as a similarly inspirational
: and demonic process.
: C considers the apprehension of art as a kin response to the
: apprehension of form in nature, governed by the same
: rational process.
I don't see a lot of difference between these either, except that the
romantic takes upon him- or herself the egotistic stature of equality
with nature.
: R The will of the artist imposes itself upon nature, and the
: observer's subsequent exspectations based on nature.
: C The will of the artist is entirely bound by nature, and any
: attempt to subvert nature to the observer elicits an undesirable
: rational disruption.
These are more interesting. I would think the R presumes too much, and
the C presumes too little; specifically, the R is indeed bound by nature
much more than he or she would acknowledge, and the C is subverting
nature even as he or she pretends otherwise.
David Loftus
moggin
dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus):
>I'd like to pose a notion that seems to have been left out of this
>discussion. Perhaps art is at least partially a SOCIALLY-DEFINED
>phenomenon?
>The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
>with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
>what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
>if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
>I don't say I believe this, I merely offer it to provoke further
>thought. The notion implies that during her lifetime, Emily Dickinson
>was NOT an artist. There was no difference, really between her hidden
>scribblings and the stored private correspondence of hundreds of private
>citizens in attics across the country. Dickinson BECAME an artist after
>her death, when scholars, art lovers and society in general acknowledged
>her work as art. [...]
The implications are stranger yet -- on the definition
you offer, Dickinson was an artist, and her poems were art,
on a half-dozen or so occasions, since that's how often
she was published during her life. And that's not all. As
a result of editing, the published versions of her poems
differed from her own. It would follow that her versions
(i.e., the poems we read today) weren't art, and she wasn't
an artist when she wrote them, since they went unread --
only the edited ones would qualify.
That's not the end of it. Under this definition, the
remaining poems weren't art while Dickinson was alive --
but a bunch of them suddenly turned into art about fifteen
years after she died, when they were published for the
first time. Again, however, they were published in edited
form, so the poems as Dickinson wrote them still weren't
art, although the edited versions _were_. At this point D.
was certainly an artist, even though her writing, as she
produced it, wasn't art.
The story has a happy ending: during the 20th century,
Dickinson's poems were published in the form she wrote
them -- on their date of publication, they became art, and
Dickinson became an artist, just as you say. Before then
only some of them were art (the ones which made it into
print), and only in their edited form, while Dickinson was
or wasn't an artist depending on what year or month you
pick.
-- moggin
Fiona Webster
Uche writes:
>I assure you, Fiona, that your post did not pose the particular
>question you do below
Oh, Uche, this is getting wearisome. I posed that question in my
follow-up posting to you. I quoted directly from the follow-up posting.
Since you replied to part of that posting, I know you read it.
>>I'll willingly forget the art part, if you're going to insist
>>on technical definitions or whatever, but what prevents it from
>>being beautiful?
>
>My personal preference, based on all experiences with dumpster rust.
Weird. I see you here as stubbornly refusing to imagine a pattern
that would be pleasing to your eye. What if I had used multicolored
lichens on a flat rock surface as my example? What if I had used
flower petals and spices scattered over an expanse of silk?
Are you sure you're not making a judgment based on what the object is
made out of?
But you see, that can't be it. Because if your objection were to what
the object is made out of, then you should have been able to start
finding it beautiful at the step in the sequence where it's no longer
identifiable as a rust pattern: the abstract painting.
So I give up. The way it looks from my side of this discussion,
you're just refusing outright to use your imagination.
>And this is when I need to make sure you are not playing a game with
>me. You do realize that I can't say anything about any dumpster rust
>you are particularly considering.
No, I'm not playing a game with you. Usually, I'm straightforward to
a fault.
>Look: if I asked you "do you think guillotines are dangerous?" You
>would, since you have no idea which particular guillotine I refer to,
>most probably say "yes". I would be playing unworthy
>games with you if I then say "wrong! I'm talking about a guillotine
>made of rubber."
A guillotine is by its very nature a dangerous object.
A pattern of colors and shapes on a flat surface (because that's all it
is, by the time it becomes an abstract painting), is not, by its very
nature, an unbeautiful object. How could it be?
And no, I'm not going to define pattern, color, shape, form, nature,
beauty, art, object, etc. etc. If the definition of a word such as
"form" means so much to you, then explain *why* already!
--not really exasperated,
just really puzzled that you're
being so withholding,
Fiona
P.S. By the way, I *would* be able to conclude that a painting of a
guillotine, any possible guillotine, is not dangerous. :-)
Jeff Inman
uc...@metronet.com (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>j...@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>>Uche Ogbuji:
>>>> I never viewed it as art throughout the exercise, as you'll note.
>>>> Nor did I ever view it as beautiful.
>Jeff Inman:
>>But how can you say you couldn't find it beautiful? You haven't
>>even seen the damn thing!
>
>If you go back to the original post, Fiona was using dumpster rust
>as a type: remember, we are not in physical contact.
The type, "art", you mean?
>She never claimed any exception from type for the dumpster rust
>she used in her thought experiment.
>
>Therefore, since I have seen enough dumpster rust to construct a type,
>I _have_, in fact, "seen the damn thing".
Well, so my question is pertinent then, after all, it seems to me.
As I said in part of my post that has been snipped, I can understand
your not wanting to allow "art" to include things that weren't "made"
by artists.
(I'm not sure how I personally feel about that. Basically, I agree
you, but I leave an allowance for certain kinds of "found objects" or
"automatically made" things, etc, which are brought to scrutiny only
by someone's "artistic" eye. But this is moot, for the question I was
asking you.)
You made two assertions: (1) that you wouldn't call a found thing
art. I've commented on that point, already.
(2) that this found thing couldn't possibly be beautiful. (This is
what I understand you to mean.) This is the thing I was asking you
about. Elsewhere, you argue that a bird can be beautiful without
being art. Okay, then. How about a rust stain?
>I hope I don't need to explain to you that though it often introduces
>error, this _is_ in large part, the way people communicate.
The notion of "error" might even be just such a type.
nebb...@concentric.net
On Sat, 15 Feb 97 00:26:53 GMT, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona
Webster) wrote:
>P.S. By the way, I *would* be able to conclude that a painting of a
>guillotine, any possible guillotine, is not dangerous. :-)
But *could* a painting of a guillotine be dangerous? To the extent
that art has power, does it not also carry the potential for danger?
In that case, the best art is also likely to be the most dangerous.
Nebbiolo
Uche Ogbuji
In <dloftE5...@netcom.com>, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
>: This is simply more involved indication, see above.
>This would appear to invalidate all photography as an art form, except
>where obvious manipulation is involved, such as artificial lighting or
>darkroom trickery. The kid who sits at a computer screen and adjusts
>images is, under this formulation, more of an artist than Ansel Adams or
>Edward Weston.
You seem to have ignored my later discussion of photography, or
rather, Fiona's bringing it up in the next step.
Yes, I did exclude much photography from art, but artifice need
not be confined to the darkroom.
And note that "more of an artists" does not mean the same thing as
"a better artist", and reflect on how the last sentence above is not
necessarily absurd.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
All such distinctions are ipso facto artificial and arbitrary, so you'd
have to think of a better put-down if that is what you intended.
But note the immediately following sentence.
>: The romantic/classical distinction occurs on many fronts (an example of
>: ambiguous critics' usage), but here's an incomplete, uncategorical
>: and informal view:
>: R respects the demonic process of creation: inspiration, epiphany,
>: sudden upending of perspective.
>: C respects reason and method throughout the creative process.
>: Even when supernatural entities are involved, they are audited
>: by the same rationality.
>That's pat.
Please expand.
>Except that romantic artists know very well that training,
>discipline and craft shape the demonic inspiration, and classical artists
>fully acknowledge supernatural sources (usually termed "God").
Are you talking Plato or Plotinus? If the former, I disagree strongly with
the above, and if the latter, note my statement about rational auditing.
As for your statement about Romantic artists, it sounds as much like
propaganda as my own statement, so we are at even straws, but I'd
be surprised if you truly find Shelley more disciplined than Spenser.
>: R considers the apprehension of art as a similarly inspirational
>: and demonic process.
>: C considers the apprehension of art as a kin response to the
>: apprehension of form in nature, governed by the same
>: rational process.
>I don't see a lot of difference between these either, except that the
>romantic takes upon him- or herself the egotistic stature of equality
>with nature.
Most of the differences are in the crucial subtleties. You managed
a rather admirable summary of the romanticists attitude.
>: R The will of the artist imposes itself upon nature, and the
>: observer's subsequent exspectations based on nature.
>: C The will of the artist is entirely bound by nature, and any
>: attempt to subvert nature to the observer elicits an undesirable
>: rational disruption.
>These are more interesting. I would think the R presumes too much, and
>the C presumes too little; specifically, the R is indeed bound by nature
>much more than he or she would acknowledge, and the C is subverting
>nature even as he or she pretends otherwise.
Aside:
Throughout this discourse, I have always admitted my classical bias. I'm
not at all sure a truly impartial criticism of the two is at all possible. The
dichotomy lies so fundamentally that most of us are either one or the
other, and incapable of detaching ourselves.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <5e2vsd$8t8...@fi.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>But you see, that can't be it. Because if your objection were to what
>the object is made out of, then you should have been able to start
>finding it beautiful at the step in the sequence where it's no longer
>identifiable as a rust pattern: the abstract painting.
>So I give up. The way it looks from my side of this discussion,
>you're just refusing outright to use your imagination.
That's okay, because I also give up on trying to explain that I
am using a type, and that within my type of dumpster rust,
I find no beauty. You seem to imply that this means that there
is no miraculous constellation of dumpster rust that might be
found beautiful, and I think that this conclusion is as fanciful as the
very exercise of arguing about dumpster rust that happens to
take on the shape of a Madonna.
>A guillotine is by its very nature a dangerous object.
Good. You are using a type. But you'll admit that if I introduced
a rubber guillotine, it would change the argument because it
was _not_ a dangerous object. This is exactly the sort of rational
generalization I was using with dumpster rust, and an exercise in
imagining beautiful dumpster rust is as disingenuous (don't react
excessively to this word: it's much more subtle than its popular
usage) as the introduction of the rubber guillutine, and I'm at a loss
as to why you can't understand this.
>A pattern of colors and shapes on a flat surface (because that's all it
>is, by the time it becomes an abstract painting), is not, by its very
>nature, an unbeautiful object. How could it be?
I never said it was. Lichens are an excellent counter-example.
(Might I presume you subscribe to National Geographic? Great
feature, I thought.)
>And no, I'm not going to define pattern, color, shape, form, nature,
>beauty, art, object, etc. etc. If the definition of a word such as
>"form" means so much to you, then explain *why* already!
Because it is _absolutely fundamental_ to art theory and history.
Many words such as "form", "art", and "type" have very distinct
technical meanings, and to be sure, I'm not interested in using
their everyday meanings in a thread about art criticism, because
it would be far too confusing.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
>discussion. Perhaps art is at least partially a SOCIALLY-DEFINED phenomenon?
>The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
>with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
>what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
>if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
Emphatically agreed, if only you would amend socially-defined to
socially-qualified, but this hasn't really been left out of the discussion:
This thread originated in another called "Dada and Seeking Po" (see DejaNews)
And there I was advocating this very idea. The quality of art is measured in
its social acceptance over many generations.
I think that art is a clear concept, coming from the latin ars, and implying
what we now call artifice. For this reason, I think it's clear that one couldn't
call a wild oak tree art, but one could call a cultivated bonsai tree art.
Now the fact that society tends to find the oak tree beautiful over many
generations doesn't make it art, but such long admiration for the bonsai tree,
which is art by definition, proves its quality.
>I don't say I believe this, I merely offer it to provoke further
>thought. The notion implies that during her lifetime, Emily Dickinson
>was NOT an artist.
She was an artist, as was every anonymous poet who _hasn't_
been discovered.
>There was no difference, really between her hidden
>scribblings and the stored private correspondence of hundreds of private
>citizens in attics across the country. Dickinson BECAME an artist after
>her death, when scholars, art lovers and society in general acknowledged
>her work as art.
I disagree. I think this contradicts the basic denotation of art.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <moggin-ya0235800...@news.mindspring.com>, mog...@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
[snip]
> That's not the end of it. Under this definition, the
>remaining poems weren't art while Dickinson was alive --
>but a bunch of them suddenly turned into art about fifteen
>years after she died, when they were published for the
>first time. Again, however, they were published in edited
>form, so the poems as Dickinson wrote them still weren't
>art, although the edited versions _were_. At this point D.
>was certainly an artist, even though her writing, as she
>produced it, wasn't art.
> The story has a happy ending: during the 20th century,
>Dickinson's poems were published in the form she wrote
>them -- on their date of publication, they became art, and
>Dickinson became an artist, just as you say. Before then
>only some of them were art (the ones which made it into
>print), and only in their edited form, while Dickinson was
>or wasn't an artist depending on what year or month you
>pick.
But mighthap this be not a delightful romp?
I'd like to christen it "The Dickinson Uncertainty Principle".
vale
--Uche
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Uche Ogbuji
In <5e2vm0$g...@tierra.santafe.edu>, j...@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>You made two assertions: (1) that you wouldn't call a found thing
>art. I've commented on that point, already.
Yes.
>(2) that this found thing couldn't possibly be beautiful.
By what earthly perversion of logic did you come about this?
"art" and "beautiful" are two seperate and entirely independent sets,
and I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything about "found" objects
being beautiful besides my type of dumpster rust.
>(This is what I understand you to mean.)
You made a wrong turn somewhere.
Statement 1:
>>I hope I don't need to explain to you that though it often introduces
>>error, this _is_ in large part, the way people communicate.
Statement 2:
>The notion of "error" might even be just such a type.
Statement 3:
Indeed it is, and this recurses directly back to statement 1. Isn't
communication strange? Isn't it amazing that people ever achieve
any of it? (uh-oh: "achievement", too is a type)
vale
--Uche
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: >This would appear to invalidate all photography as an art form, except
: >where obvious manipulation is involved, such as artificial lighting or
: >darkroom trickery. The kid who sits at a computer screen and adjusts
: >images is, under this formulation, more of an artist than Ansel Adams or
: >Edward Weston.
: You seem to have ignored my later discussion of photography, or
: rather, Fiona's bringing it up in the next step.
: Yes, I did exclude much photography from art, but artifice need
: not be confined to the darkroom.
Sorry I missed the discussion. Does that mean the photographer's eye --
his or her choices as to WHAT to shoot -- partly defines what is art?
: And note that "more of an artists" does not mean the same thing as
: "a better artist", and reflect on how the last sentence above is not
: necessarily absurd.
Oh yes, I was aware of the distinction; that's why I wrote it that way.
I'm not even certain WHICH sentence you are talking about, let alone
whether it might be absurd.
David Loftus
moggin
David J. Loftus:
>>I'd like to pose a notion that seems to have been left out of this
>>discussion. Perhaps art is at least partially a SOCIALLY-DEFINED
>>phenomenon?
>>The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
>>with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
>>what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
>>if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
Uche Ogbuji:
>Emphatically agreed, if only you would amend socially-defined to
>socially-qualified, but this hasn't really been left out of the discussion:
>This thread originated in another called "Dada and Seeking Po" (see DejaNews)
>And there I was advocating this very idea. The quality of art is measured in
>its social acceptance over many generations.
>I think that art is a clear concept, coming from the latin ars, and implying
>what we now call artifice. For this reason, I think it's clear that one
couldn't call a wild oak tree art, but one could call a cultivated bonsai
tree art. Now the fact that society tends to find the oak tree beautiful
over many
>generations doesn't make it art, but such long admiration for the bonsai tree,
>which is art by definition, proves its quality.
In D.C., the term is "traffic circles" -- up in MA they
say "roundabouts." Whatever you call them, you're driving
around one here. If "the quality of art is measured by its
social acceptance over many generations," then agreed, "long
admiration for the bonsai tree, which is art by definition,
proves its quality" -- because you're measuring "the quality
of art" by the length of time that it's admired.
David Loftus:
>>I don't say I believe this, I merely offer it to provoke further
>>thought. The notion implies that during her lifetime, Emily Dickinson
>>was NOT an artist.
Uche:
>She was an artist, as was every anonymous poet who _hasn't_
>been discovered.
Impossible under the notion of art we're discussing; as
David says, viewing art as basically social suggests that
Dickinson became an artist only when her poems entered the
_societas_, and not before. Thus, not during her life (with
the qualifications I already gave). The anonymous poets,
same thing -- until they're discovered, they aren't artists,
and their poems aren't art. That requires publication --
making public.
On the other hand, if you think that Dickinson _was_ an
artist, even during her lifetime, it follows that art is
not, at base, a social thing -- and if you believe that her
poems were good, even at the time she wrote them, then
"social acceptance over many generations" isn't a necessary
criterion.
David Loftus:
>>There was no difference, really between her hidden
>>scribblings and the stored private correspondence of hundreds of private
>>citizens in attics across the country. Dickinson BECAME an artist after
>>her death, when scholars, art lovers and society in general acknowledged
>>her work as art.
Uche:
>I disagree. I think this contradicts the basic denotation of art.
Which depends on how you define it; but as David said, he
isn't proposing a definition -- he's pointing out some of the
provocative conclusions that follow from thinking about art as
fundamentally social, in the sense he gives above. If you
disagree with his conclusions, you may well have been mistaken
when you offered your emphatic agreement to the premises he
drew them from.
-- moggin
moggin
mog...@mindspring.com (moggin):
>> The implications are stranger yet -- on the definition
>>you offer, Dickinson was an artist, and her poems were art,
>>on a half-dozen or so occasions, since that's how often
>>she was published during her life. And that's not all. As
>>a result of editing, the published versions of her poems
>>differed from her own. It would follow that her versions
>>(i.e., the poems we read today) weren't art, and she wasn't
>>an artist when she wrote them, since they went unread --
>>only the edited ones would qualify.
>> That's not the end of it. Under this definition, the
>>remaining poems weren't art while Dickinson was alive --
>>but a bunch of them suddenly turned into art about fifteen
>>years after she died, when they were published for the
>>first time. Again, however, they were published in edited
>>form, so the poems as Dickinson wrote them still weren't
>>art, although the edited versions _were_. At this point D.
>>was certainly an artist, even though her writing, as she
>>produced it, wasn't art.
>> The story has a happy ending: during the 20th century,
>>Dickinson's poems were published in the form she wrote
>>them -- on their date of publication, they became art, and
>>Dickinson became an artist, just as you say. Before then
>>only some of them were art (the ones which made it into
>>print), and only in their edited form, while Dickinson was
>>or wasn't an artist depending on what year or month you
>>pick.
Uche:
>But mighthap this be not a delightful romp?
I certainly enjoyed it -- not least because it plays
hell with a certain conception of art.
>I'd like to christen it "The Dickinson Uncertainty Principle".
Nice, but a mouthful -- can you think of a nickname?
-- moggin
Jeff Inman
uc...@metronet.com (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>j...@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>You made two assertions:
[...]
>>(2) that this found thing couldn't possibly be beautiful.
>By what earthly perversion of logic did you come about this?
>"art" and "beautiful" are two seperate and entirely independent sets,
>and I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything about "found" objects
>being beautiful besides my type of dumpster rust.
I was a fool to use the word "found" in my sentence. It is indeed
only dumpster rust that I want your opinion about, at this point. Let
me see if I have understood you. Are you saiing that you could
*never* find any instance of dumpster rust beautiful, no matter how
subtly flecked with decaying paint, no matter the intricate ordering
of crystalized oxides?
[in response to Fiona's proposed thought-experiment, about rust on a
dumpster:]
>>>Uche Ogbuji:
>>>> I never viewed it as art throughout the exercise, as you'll note.
>>>> Nor did I ever view it as beautiful.
I was rude, maybe, in my first communication about this. I said I
could understand your first assertion but not the second one. After
all, "you've never seen the damn thing". I hereby apologize for the
tone of that, as it has prevented me from actually getting an answer
from you, which is actually something I've gotten interested in.
Your response was that it (i.e. dumpster rust) was a type, and since
you've seen some dumpster rust in your day, you are perfectly well
capable of constructing a "type", in which the instances of the
experimental objects would be found. And so you had "seen the damn
thing", after all.
Let me ask my question again. I am totally amazed that you can
confidently state that you will never find dumpster rust beautiful.
But is that your assertion?
Jeff Inman
f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>P.S. By the way, I *would* be able to conclude that a painting of a
>guillotine, any possible guillotine, is not dangerous. :-)
What about a painting of a rubber guillotine, with lots of children
having fun putting their heads into it and emerging unscathed?
What about a painting of a guillotine on a sharpened metal blade,
which has been installed in place of the blade in an authentic
guillotine?
Just teasing.
Richard Harter
mog...@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
> In D.C., the term is "traffic circles" -- up in MA they
>say "roundabouts." Whatever you call them, you're driving
>around one here. If "the quality of art is measured by its
>social acceptance over many generations," then agreed, "long
>admiration for the bonsai tree, which is art by definition,
>proves its quality" -- because you're measuring "the quality
>of art" by the length of time that it's admired.
No, no, no. The English call them roundabouts; in MA they're
called rotaries. The English have this thing about putting a spot in
the middle of a wide spot in the road and calling it a roundabout - I
like to think of them as virtual roundabouts.
It is a symptom of the degeneracy and decay of our times that MA has
taken to putting up signs at rotaries which say that traffic in the
rotary has the right of way and *people are actually obeying them*!
This is appalling! The traditional and proper rule is that the oldest
and least valuable car has the right of way.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
I'm a primatologist specializing in homo sapiens.
Their lack of true intelligence simplifies my studies.
FIDO
Richard Harter writes:
No, no, no. The English call them roundabouts; in MA
they'recalled rotaries. The English have this thing about
putting a spot in the middle of a wide spot in the road
and calling it a roundabout - I like to think of them as
virtual roundabouts.
They are virtual roundabouts and by such name are known in
England, now that Spring is ... Its a notion that works.
FIDO
Fiona Webster
I wrote:
> And no, I'm not going to define pattern, color, shape, form, nature,
> beauty, art, object, etc. etc. If the definition of a word such as
> "form" means so much to you, then explain *why* already!
Uche replied:
> Because it is _absolutely fundamental_ to art theory and history.
> Many words such as "form", "art", and "type" have very distinct
> technical meanings, and to be sure, I'm not interested in using
> their everyday meanings in a thread about art criticism, because
> it would be far too confusing.
This thread is winding down, I take it, and I understand now that you
have a narrower experience of dumpster rust than I do. I've seen it in
patterns that very closely resemble lichen patterns on rock. ('Guess
you haven't been to Houston -- Humidity City USA. (-:)
But this last thing you say is worth commenting on, because I think it
runs counter to the spirit of this newsgroup. This is a place where
people of all different levels and specialties of education gather and
talk about books and ideas. I think that if a person on r.a.b. uses an
everyday word like "form" in a posting, they should be assumed to be
using the everyday meaning, and not challenged to define it. If someone
else then wants to use a *technical* meaning for that word, it's their
responsibility to explain that specific meaning so that the other person
can continue to follow the discussion. Somewhere in the process, those
two people (& others) can figure out how to communicate to each other
(as we did). But saying "I'm not interested in using everyday meanings"
is not very friendly -- it implies that a thread on art criticism
(or whatever the topic is) can only be for the cognoscenti.
I bring this up because in the so-called "poetry wars" we had a while
back, you kept using what appeared to be a technical meaning of the word
"poem," without explaining what that meaning was. Remember how I asked
you "But can't a child write a poem?" and you said, as an absolute
statement, "No -- a child cannot write a poem." I asked you then to
explain what you meant -- why a child couldn't at least write a *bad*
poem -- and you never did.
So anyway... a thought to consider...
--Fiona
Uche Ogbuji
>: not be confined to the darkroom.
>Sorry I missed the discussion. Does that mean the photographer's eye --
>his or her choices as to WHAT to shoot -- partly defines what is art?
I must admit that the answer to this is beyond me at the moment.
When Fiona brought it up, I sincerely applauded her because it is
a genuine wrinkle in my critical thought. I would like to think about
it some more.
The problem is that I do intuitively feel that some photography, even
amateur photography, is art, and yet there is little artifice in most
of it (not technological artifice, which is the basis of photography,
but "arte facio", skill in creation of the particular thing.
This is somewhat at odds with my general view of art, as requiring
artifice.
>: And note that "more of an artists" does not mean the same thing as
>: "a better artist", and reflect on how the last sentence above is not
>: necessarily absurd.
>Oh yes, I was aware of the distinction; that's why I wrote it that way.
>I'm not even certain WHICH sentence you are talking about, let alone
>whether it might be absurd.
I meant that the idea that sophomores hacking at Adobe Photoshop are
be artist the more than Ansel Adams or other such luminaries might not
be as absurd as it seems. I meant to suggest that they might be the more
artist, but this doesn't make them better artists.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
>say "roundabouts." Whatever you call them, you're driving
>around one here.
This is not truly analogous, as you yourself demonstrate below:
>>>I don't say I believe this, I merely offer it to provoke further
>>>thought. The notion implies that during her lifetime, Emily Dickinson
>>>was NOT an artist.
>>She was an artist, as was every anonymous poet who _hasn't_
>>been discovered.
> Impossible under the notion of art we're discussing; [...]
This shows that we are not discussing different terms, but truly
different concepts.
Something is art as soon as it was created through artifice, regardless
of who has seen it or how old it is.
The thing can be considered high-quality art once it has been proven
over generations.
I hope this clears things up. Now you see why I said Dickinson is an
artists regardless.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
> I certainly enjoyed it -- not least because it plays
>hell with a certain conception of art.
Interesting, but I don't know whence the enjoyment since
I haven't seen anyone in this group admit that this is their
conception of art.
>>I'd like to christen it "The Dickinson Uncertainty Principle".
> Nice, but a mouthful -- can you think of a nickname?
"DUPe", "DUPLe", or better yet, "DUPre".
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <5eb6dg$l...@tierra.santafe.edu>, j...@isleta.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
Jeff Inman:
[...] It is indeed
only dumpster rust that I want your opinion about, at this point. Let
me see if I have understood you. Are you saiing that you could
*never* find any instance of dumpster rust beautiful, no matter how
subtly flecked with decaying paint, no matter the intricate ordering
of crystalized oxides?
Uche Ogbuji, earlier:
[As Jeff Inman says, in response to Fiona's proposed thought-experiment,
about rust on a dumpster:]
I never viewed it as art throughout the exercise, as you'll note.
Nor did I ever view it as beautiful.
Jeff Inman:
I was rude, maybe, in my first communication about this. I said I
could understand your first assertion but not the second one. After
all, "you've never seen the damn thing". I hereby apologize for the
tone of that, as it has prevented me from actually getting an answer
from you, which is actually something I've gotten interested in.
=========================================================
Now, me:
Umm, there is no apology needed. To be honest, I didn't really find
your original post at all rude, and this misunderstanding runs deeper
than pique.
I did not say there is no conceivable dumpster rust I might find
beautiful. This is also what Fiona has extended my conclusion to
mean so let me take it upon myself to clarify:
This whole discussion came out of one with a different focus,
and in that one Fiona spoke about finding dumpster rust
_in general_ beautiful once she had redefined it as art.
Her thought experiment was an attempt to make me see dumpster
rust as art, and not primarily as beautiful. Since art was the focus,
and I hadn't even seen the particular dumpster rust that she never
claimed as specific, anyway, I used my _type_ of dumpster rust,
which is the very natural thing for humans to do in discussion,
as I have already, for some reason, had to explain.
After stating that I never found the rust art, I mentioned, as an
aside again, and with my _type_ in mind, that I never found
it beautiful, either (this because Fiona attempted a diversion
from the question by mentioning sunlight coming off the rust).
All of you have misinterpreted this to mean that I can't conceive
of dumpster rust which I would find beautiful, and this is, to me,
an amazing extrapolation.
Let me give another example.
If we were talking about whether one could call a Pinto a
sports car or not, and I by the way asked if you thought a Pinto
was safe, and you said "no", would it make sense for me to then
assume you couldn't conceive of a Pinto that could be safe
(eg. one with no petrol in it, girded with wrought iron, and
sitting in a padded room)?
This is the sort of extrapolation you and Fiona are applying to my
statement about dumpster rust.
>Let me ask my question again. I am totally amazed that you can
>confidently state that you will never find dumpster rust beautiful.
>But is that your assertion?
Of course not. I said I never found it beautiful through the thought
experiment, because my type of dumpster rust, and not any
extra-ordinary exception therefrom, is not beautiful to me.
How did this get so terribly embrangled?
vale
--Uche
Robert Tilden
An interesting thread.
I believe that art is a communication between an artist and others. I
think that a sunset may be beautiful, lichens on a rock may have a pleasing
pattern, and the dumpster out back may be rusting in an interesting way.
Until Fiona, or some other individual is able to take this 'raw' visual
information and frame it in some way meaningful to them (photograph the
sunset, paint the lichens, chop a chunk of particularly interesting rust out
of the dumpster) it isn't art.
When Fiona shares her 'vision' of particularly (to her) beautiful rust
patterns by cutting a chunk out and displaying it, or outlining the pattern
with a marker on the side of the dumpster, or taking her friends into the
alley to view the dumpster as a whole she is communicating -her- vision of
what constitutes a beautiful pattern to an audience. I believe this
communication is what we call "art".
-B
Uche Ogbuji
In <5ecr1g$8ug...@fi.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>> And no, I'm not going to define pattern, color, shape, form, nature,
>> beauty, art, object, etc. etc. If the definition of a word such as
>> "form" means so much to you, then explain *why* already!
>Uche replied:
>> Because it is _absolutely fundamental_ to art theory and history.
>> Many words such as "form", "art", and "type" have very distinct
>> technical meanings, and to be sure, I'm not interested in using
>> their everyday meanings in a thread about art criticism, because
>> it would be far too confusing.
>But this last thing you say is worth commenting on, because I think it
>runs counter to the spirit of this newsgroup. This is a place where
>people of all different levels and specialties of education gather and
>talk about books and ideas. I think that if a person on r.a.b. uses an
>everyday word like "form" in a posting, they should be assumed to be
>using the everyday meaning, and not challenged to define it. If someone
>else then wants to use a *technical* meaning for that word, it's their
>responsibility to explain that specific meaning so that the other person
>can continue to follow the discussion.
That's in your little perfect world. In reality, you choose your words,
and I choose mine, no matter what forum we inhabit. If you decide
not to use my terminology, you are not obliged to speak with me.
I stated above that if you chose the demotic meanings for those terms,
I will choose not to argue them with you. This is my prerogative, and
our being on r.a.b. has nothing to do with it.
You can leave the issue alone, if you wish, but don't presume to
tell me how to discourse.
Let me mention that I might not have been harsh if not for one
other matter in this post of yours that forces me to pick a
serious quarrel with you. It has to do with a certain statement
you baselessly claimed I made in the "poetry wars". I address it
in a new thread.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
>back, you kept using what appeared to be a technical meaning of the word
>"poem," without explaining what that meaning was. Remember how I asked
>you "But can't a child write a poem?" and you said, as an absolute
>statement, "No -- a child cannot write a poem." I asked you then to
>explain what you meant -- why a child couldn't at least write a *bad*
>poem -- and you never did.
I remember that thread. I was new to r.a.b. and it wasn't at all
as cordial a discussion as we've more recently had, until, that
is, you went and worked the above sleight-of-hand.
I don't know if you'll use "poor memory" as an excuse when
DejaNews is there for all to use, but you baldly misquoted me.
the closest thing that I could have said to the above was when
I said "I would definitely claim that no child is a poet."
You should know by now, considering how attentive I am to
words, that the two statements are _not_ the same. And even if
you thought they meant the same, this would be better no
excuse. The next time you place an attributed statement
in inverted commas, please be good enough to make sure it's
the exact quotation.
--Uche
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: I meant that the idea that sophomores hacking at Adobe Photoshop are
: be artist the more than Ansel Adams or other such luminaries might not
: be as absurd as it seems. I meant to suggest that they might be the more
: artist, but this doesn't make them better artists.
Oh well, I quite agree ... and I see nothing absurd or contradictory
about it.
However, since you believe that a sophomore hacking at Adobe Photoshop is
"more of an artist" than Adams, Weston, Strand, or even Robert Capa, I
would suggest that you have been caught in the web of your definitions --
because I certainly do not agree.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
o...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>:
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: Something is art as soon as it was created through artifice, regardless
: of who has seen it or how old it is.
This resembles the old philosophical debate about the tree falling in the
forest, or some of the discussions I've had on the net about the nature
of truth. What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing. Time and social acceptance
(or rather, neglect) will tell.
: The thing can be considered high-quality art once it has been proven
: over generations.
It is not "proven" over time, by others; under your definition, it is
art at the moment of creation, now and forever, or it isn't. Whether
anyone else notices ornot. There is nothing to prove.
Which is why I offered the provocative notion that art -- like truth and
beauty -- may be partly a social value. It cannot fully define itself.
And Emily Dickinson was not an artist during her lifetime.
: I hope this clears things up. Now you see why I said Dickinson is an
: artists regardless.
I'm afraid I don't. Although I might like to think so myself, personally.
David Loftus
Fiona Webster
Uche writes:
> Let me mention that I might not have been harsh if not for one
> other matter in this post of yours that forces me to pick a
> serious quarrel with you. It has to do with a certain statement
> you baselessly claimed I made in the "poetry wars". I address it
> in a new thread.
I just looked up the thread in Deja News, and you are right, Uche.
I stand corrected. You did not say that a child can never write
a poem. This is what you said:
> I would definitely claim that no child is a poet.
> I think we have all come to indulge children too
> much these days. There are some things that
> require education, training and experience to
> accomplish. Poetry is one of them.
Didn't Goethe write some fairly sophisticated poetry as a young child?
--at any rate, sorry I misquoted you,
'didn't mean any offense,
Fiona
moggin
moggin:
>> In D.C., the term is "traffic circles" -- up in MA they
>>say "roundabouts." Whatever you call them, you're driving
>>around one here.
Uche:
>This is not truly analogous, as you yourself demonstrate below:
It applies to what you said above (although it's not
above anymore). Your idea that "long admiration for the
bonsai tree, which is art by definition, proves its quality"
reflects merely your decision to measure "the quality of
art" by "its social acceptance over many generations."
David Loftus:
[...]
>>>>The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
>>>>with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
>>>>what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
>>>>if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
>>>>I don't say I believe this, I merely offer it to provoke further
>>>>thought. The notion implies that during her lifetime, Emily Dickinson
>>>>was NOT an artist.
Uche:
>>>She was an artist, as was every anonymous poet who _hasn't_
>>>been discovered.
moggin:
>> Impossible under the notion of art we're discussing; as
>>David says, viewing art as basically social suggests that
>>Dickinson became an artist only when her poems entered the
>>_societas_, and not before. Thus, not during her life (with
>>the qualifications I already gave). The anonymous poets,
>>same thing -- until they're discovered, they aren't artists,
>>and their poems aren't art. That requires publication --
>>making public.
>> On the other hand, if you think that Dickinson _was_ an
>>artist, even during her lifetime, it follows that art is
>>not, at base, a social thing -- and if you believe that her
>>poems were good, even at the time she wrote them, then
>>"social acceptance over many generations" isn't a necessary
>>criterion.
Uche:
>This shows that we are not discussing different terms, but truly
>different concepts.
We're discussing the concept that David offered -- the
one you emphatically agreed with. (Or we were, anyway.)
Uche:
>Something is art as soon as it was created through artifice, regardless
>of who has seen it or how old it is.
Perhaps so -- but you're no longer agreeing with what
David suggested. If you state that art is defined as the
product of artifice, "regardless of who has seen it," then
you're abandoning the idea that it's a "socially defined
phenomenon," or a matter of "social consensus."
Uche:
>The thing can be considered high-quality art once it has been proven
>over generations.
We know that it _can_ be, since that's a common way
of thinking. Whether it _must_ or _should_ is much less
certain.
David Loftus:
>>>>There was no difference, really between her hidden
>>>>scribblings and the stored private correspondence of hundreds of private
>>>>citizens in attics across the country. Dickinson BECAME an artist after
>>>>her death, when scholars, art lovers and society in general acknowledged
>>>>her work as art.
Uche:
>>>I disagree. I think this contradicts the basic denotation of art.
moggin:
>> Which depends on how you define it; but as David said, he
>>isn't proposing a definition -- he's pointing out some of the
>>provocative conclusions that follow from thinking about art as
>>fundamentally social, in the sense he gives above. If you
>>disagree with his conclusions, you may well have been mistaken
>>when you offered your emphatic agreement to the premises he
>>drew them from.
Uche:
>I hope this clears things up. Now you see why I said Dickinson is an
>artists regardless.
Not a clue.
-- moggin
moggin
Uche:
>>>But mighthap this be not a delightful romp?
moggin:
>> I certainly enjoyed it -- not least because it plays
>>hell with a certain conception of art.
Uche:
>Interesting, but I don't know whence the enjoyment since
>I haven't seen anyone in this group admit that this is their
>conception of art.
No? Seems that it's been popping up all around; why,
even...well, never mind. If no one will 'fess up to it,
the reductio did its job. As an aside, my appreciation of
the train crash doesn't require the coaches to be filled
with passengers.
-- moggin
Uche Ogbuji
I have no idea what this last paragraph is supposed to mean, or from
where it is reasoned, particularly as it directly contradicts your own
paragraph right above it.
Uche Ogbuji
>even...well, never mind. If no one will 'fess up to it,
>the reductio did its job. As an aside, my appreciation of
>the train crash doesn't require the coaches to be filled
>with passengers.
Like I said, go to DejaNews. It seems you've been beating
a straw man to a pulp. Nothing wrong with this, of course,
I do it myself when it amuses me.
vale
--Uche
*
*
Uche Ogbuji
>>This shows that we are not discussing different terms, but truly
>>different concepts.
> We're discussing the concept that David offered -- the
>one you emphatically agreed with. (Or we were, anyway.)
I'm sorry. I think you're confused. I just re-checked DejaNews to
be sure, and I suggest you do the same.
Either you completely misread me, or you too have found a way
to miss or ignore the very simple distinction I make.
>>Something is art as soon as it was created through artifice, regardless
>>of who has seen it or how old it is.
> Perhaps so -- but you're no longer agreeing with what
>David suggested. If you state that art is defined as the
>product of artifice, "regardless of who has seen it," then
>you're abandoning the idea that it's a "socially defined
>phenomenon," or a matter of "social consensus."
Wow. Go back to DejaNews, please.
>>The thing can be considered high-quality art once it has been proven
>>over generations.
> We know that it _can_ be, since that's a common way
>of thinking. Whether it _must_ or _should_ is much less
>certain.
Of course.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
>: of who has seen it or how old it is.
>This resembles the old philosophical debate about the tree falling in the
>forest,
How? The tree has no observers. The artificial creation has at least one
observer.
>What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
>proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
>definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
"Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
and probably all of us.
I am open to lexicographical correction in this. I am not as versed
here as I am in poetry.
>Time and social acceptance (or rather, neglect) will tell.
>: The thing can be considered high-quality art once it has been proven
>: over generations.
>It is not "proven" over time, by others; under your definition,
This is getting silly. I didn't say it is proven art over time, I said
it's _quality_ is proven over time. You insist on ignoring what I
made this quite clear.
>it is art at the moment of creation, now and forever, or it isn't.
Yes. But not necessarily art of quality. Do you understand this?
>Whether anyone else notices ornot. There is nothing to prove.
Huh?
vale
--Uche
moggin
Uche:
>>>This shows that we are not discussing different terms, but truly
>>>different concepts.
moggin:
>> We're discussing the concept that David offered -- the
>>one you emphatically agreed with. (Or we were, anyway.)
Uche:
>I'm sorry. I think you're confused. I just re-checked DejaNews to
>be sure, and I suggest you do the same. Either you completely
>misread me, or you too have found a way to miss or ignore the very
>simple distinction I make.
I just double-checked, and I didn't see any confusion --
It's possible we're misunderstanding each other, as can happen
in any conversation; but until and unless you point out where
I've misconstrued your meaning, I stand by what I've said. If
you feel that it's not worth the time and trouble to explain
yourself, I certainly understand, and I won't insist. But I'm
clear on the distinction you want to draw, and I don't think
it resolves any of the difficulties I've noted.
Uche:
>>>Something is art as soon as it was created through artifice, regardless
>>>of who has seen it or how old it is.
moggin:
>> Perhaps so -- but you're no longer agreeing with what
>>David suggested. If you state that art is defined as the
>>product of artifice, "regardless of who has seen it," then
>>you're abandoning the idea that it's a "socially defined
>>phenomenon," or a matter of "social consensus."
Uche:
>Wow. Go back to DejaNews, please.
Been there, done that.
-- moggin
Uche Ogbuji
In <5edjce$e1k...@fi.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) writes:
>I just looked up the thread in Deja News, and you are right, Uche.
>I stand corrected. You did not say that a child can never write
>a poem. This is what you said:
>> I would definitely claim that no child is a poet.
>> I think we have all come to indulge children too
>> much these days. There are some things that
>> require education, training and experience to
>> accomplish. Poetry is one of them.
>Didn't Goethe write some fairly sophisticated poetry as a young child?
Since you reprised the thread in DejaNews, you perhaps remember
what I was arguing as the usage of "poet", and I hope you'd understand
that writing a clutch of poems, even fairly sophisticated ones, does
not suffice, just as a childe's accomplishment of several sophisticated
trials does not make him a knight.
Carelessness with titles is one of the uglier products of the industrial
revolution. The fact that "poet" has been afflicted by this is an utter
tragedy.
moggin
David J. Loftus:
>>What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
>>proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
>>definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
Uche Ogbuji
>"Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
>roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
>and probably all of us.
Is this 'misfortune' anything more than an artifact of
your classicism? (Thanks for bringing back that chestnut,
by the way -- the old dichotomies are the best dichotomies.)
-- moggin
Uche Ogbuji
>>be sure, and I suggest you do the same. Either you completely
>>misread me, or you too have found a way to miss or ignore the very
>>simple distinction I make.
> I just double-checked, and I didn't see any confusion --
>It's possible we're misunderstanding each other, as can happen
>in any conversation; but until and unless you point out where
>I've misconstrued your meaning, I stand by what I've said. If
>you feel that it's not worth the time and trouble to explain
>yourself, I certainly understand, and I won't insist. But I'm
>clear on the distinction you want to draw, and I don't think
>it resolves any of the difficulties I've noted.
Not worth the time and trouble? What bloody time and trouble?
DejaNews is but a web-page away.
Merde! This is the second time in as many days that I've had
to quote from DejaNews to shew exactly what it is I said:
*** Message-Id 5ea2ak$q...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com ***
[snip]
>The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
>with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
>what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
>if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
Emphatically agreed, if only you would amend socially-defined to
socially-qualified, but this hasn't really been left out of the discussion:
This thread originated in another called "Dada and Seeking po"; (see DejaNews)
And there I was advocating this very idea. The quality of art is measured in
its social acceptance over many generations.
[snip]
*** End quoted message ***
Do you still claim to miss the distinction I was making? What two words
come after "Emphatically agreed,"? What is the English semantic function
of the construction these words introduces? Is my last quoted sentence not
exactly what I've been saying all along?
I'm sorry, but it still seems you were confused. I hope this helps.
vale
--Uche
Will&Jane Duquette
ogbuji@ (Uche Ogbuji) wrote:
>Since you reprised the thread in DejaNews, you perhaps remember
>what I was arguing as the usage of "poet", and I hope you'd understand
>that writing a clutch of poems, even fairly sophisticated ones, does
>not suffice, just as a childe's accomplishment of several sophisticated
>trials does not make him a knight.
>Carelessness with titles is one of the uglier products of the industrial
>revolution. The fact that "poet" has been afflicted by this is an utter
>tragedy.
You know, once upon a time "gentleman" or "gentlewoman" was
simply a description of a class of people, those of "gentle" birth.
The term had little to do with behavior. Now, of course, it has
everything to do with behavior (so far as it has any meaning
at all). Its original meaning has been quite spoiled.
Once upon a time, it seems to me, "poet" was simply a
description of a person who wrote poems. I admit I haven't been
following this thread too closely, but you seem to be arguing that
"poet" has a higher, more esoteric meaning. To me, this seems
to be an abuse of the language. If I wrote poems from time to
time, I'd be a poet, just as I'm currently a dishwasher, a
diaper-changer, and a house-cleaner. I spend relatively little
of my day on these activities, granted; by profession, I
develop software.
Is this the distinction you're making, i.e., amateur vs.
professional?
--
Will Duquette | It's amazing what you can
duqu...@cogent.net | do with the right tools.
http://www.cogent.net/~duquette | -- Me
moggin
Uche:
>>>>What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
>>>>proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
>>>>definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
>>>"Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
>>>roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
>>>and probably all of us.
moggin:
>> Is this 'misfortune' anything more than an artifact of
>>your classicism? (Thanks for bringing back that chestnut,
>>by the way -- the old dichotomies are the best dichotomies.)
Uche:
>No more than your own existence (or mine) is an artifact
>of your own (or my own) vanity.
>Are you trying to redefine "misfortune" as an absolute, or
>are you just asking a pointless question?
Let's try it this way: what exactly is the misfortune
you're speaking of? In other words, what in the above do
you consider unfortunate? Is it just that calling a madman
an artist offends your sensibilities, or something more?
-- moggin
moggin
Uche:
>>>I'm sorry. I think you're confused. I just re-checked DejaNews to
>>>be sure, and I suggest you do the same. Either you completely
>>>misread me, or you too have found a way to miss or ignore the very
>>>simple distinction I make.
moggin:
>> I just double-checked, and I didn't see any confusion --
>>It's possible we're misunderstanding each other, as can happen
>>in any conversation; but until and unless you point out where
>>I've misconstrued your meaning, I stand by what I've said. If
>>you feel that it's not worth the time and trouble to explain
>>yourself, I certainly understand, and I won't insist. But I'm
>>clear on the distinction you want to draw, and I don't think
>>it resolves any of the difficulties I've noted.
Uche:
>Not worth the time and trouble? What bloody time and trouble?
>DejaNews is but a web-page away.
You've misunderstood -- I didn't say that it was too much
time and trouble to look at DejaNews. I told you that I had
already double-checked, and that I found no signs of confusion
-- not on my part, anyhow. Then I suggested that you should
explain where you thought I misconstrued you -- but I conceded
that you might not find it worth the effort to make yourself
plain.
>Merde! This is the second time in as many days that I've had
>to quote from DejaNews to shew exactly what it is I said:
I know what you said. All you had to do, if you found it
worthwhile, was to explain where you believe I misunderstood
you. Personally, I think I understood you perfectly well; but
then I would, wouldn't I?
Uche:
>*** Message-Id 5ea2ak$q...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com ***
[David:]
>>The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
>>with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
>>what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
>>if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
[Uche:]
>Emphatically agreed, if only you would amend socially-defined to
>socially-qualified, but this hasn't really been left out of the discussion:
>This thread originated in another called "Dada and Seeking po"; (see DejaNews)
>And there I was advocating this very idea. The quality of art is measured in
>its social acceptance over many generations.
[...]
>*** End quoted message ***
Uche:
>Do you still claim to miss the distinction I was making? What two words
>come after "Emphatically agreed,"? What is the English semantic function
>of the construction these words introduces? Is my last quoted sentence not
>exactly what I've been saying all along?
>I'm sorry, but it still seems you were confused. I hope this helps.
The confusion continues to be yours: you thought I said it
was too much trouble to check DejaNews, and I don't know why,
but you also believe I claimed to miss your distinction, when I
said explicitly that I was clear about it. Small matters, of
course, but since you're speaking about them, you might as well
be accurate. Now back to business.
As matters stand, you want to say that art is something
"created through artifice, regardless of who has seen it or how
old it is" -- but you distinguish the definition of art from
criteria for artistic quality, which you see as social. And if
that's your view, fine; I just want to add a couple of notes.
The distinction is perfectly clear, but it doesn't rescue
you from the roundabout when you define artistic quality as
generations of social acceptance, and then "prove" the quality
of a bonsai tree by observing that it's been admired over a
long period of time. Furthermore, David was speaking not only
of the quality of art, but also of its definition. (That's
clear if you look at his post in its entirety.) The best term
for your agreement would have been "partial." Specifically,
you agreed with the banal suggestion that what gets counted as
good art is a matter of social consensus -- but as it turns
out, given what you've said since, you emphatically _disagree_
that a social process determines what counts as art, in the
first place -- otherwise you would be unable to contend that a
a thing can be art no matter "who has seen it or how old it
is."
-- moggin
P.S. In this context, the distinction between "society
defines art" and "society decides what qualifies as art" is
trivial -- if perchance you intended "socially qualified" to
mean that evaluating art is a social process, it's not hard
to see where the confusion began.
Uche Ogbuji
>>>proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
>>>definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
>>"Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
>>roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
>>and probably all of us.
> Is this 'misfortune' anything more than an artifact of
>your classicism? (Thanks for bringing back that chestnut,
>by the way -- the old dichotomies are the best dichotomies.)
No more than your own existence (or mine) is an artifact
of your own (or my own) vanity.
Are you trying to redefine "misfortune" as an absolute, or
are you just asking a pointless question?
vale
Uche Ogbuji
In <5efpgo$k...@cyclops.dsphere.net>, duqu...@cogent.net (Will&Jane Duquette) writes:
>>Since you reprised the thread in DejaNews, you perhaps remember
>>what I was arguing as the usage of "poet", and I hope you'd understand
>>that writing a clutch of poems, even fairly sophisticated ones, does
>>not suffice, just as a childe's accomplishment of several sophisticated
>>trials does not make him a knight.
>>Carelessness with titles is one of the uglier products of the industrial
>>revolution. The fact that "poet" has been afflicted by this is an utter
>>tragedy.
>You know, once upon a time "gentleman" or "gentlewoman" was
>simply a description of a class of people, those of "gentle" birth.
And the connection?
>The term had little to do with behavior.
Nor had it anything to do with accomplishment or standards.
>Now, of course, it has everything to do with behavior [...]
Supposedly.
>Its original meaning has been quite spoiled.
Words change all the time: titles that have a significant bearing
on society cause, by friction, much more damage when they are
"spoiled".
I wouldn't give a damn about the changing of the word if it were not
the particular cause and unmistakable clothing of the corruption
of the profession.
>Once upon a time, it seems to me, "poet" was simply a
>description of a person who wrote poems.
Wrong.
>[...]you seem to be arguing that "poet" has a higher, more esoteric meaning.
"higher" and "more esoteric" are meaningless to the argument.
>To me, this seems to be an abuse of the language.
A pretty strong claim to be supported with no shred of argument.
>If I wrote poems from time to time, I'd be a poet, just as I'm currently
>a dishwasher, a diaper-changer, and a house-cleaner. I spend relatively
>little of my day on these activities, granted; by profession, I develop software.
Perhaps you thought the above is an argument for your claim, but I
can see no logic by which it supports your conclusion. What if I were
to cite your use of "abuse" as an abuse of language (okay, discourse)?
>Is this the distinction you're making, i.e., amateur vs. professional?
No, because most of those who claim to be poets do not even seem
to be amateurs. Perhaps the distinction between "pretender" and
"professional".
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <moggin-ya0235800...@news.mindspring.com>, mog...@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>>Are you trying to redefine "misfortune" as an absolute, or
>>are you just asking a pointless question?
> Let's try it this way: what exactly is the misfortune
>you're speaking of? In other words, what in the above do
>you consider unfortunate? Is it just that calling a madman
>an artist offends your sensibilities, or something more?
There is more to it than that, but even if this were all,
It would be certainly enough for me to characterise it as
a misfortune.
Remember that the idea of "misfortune" is not necessarily
very strong. It could, in fact be applied to something as
inconsequential as an "it would have been nice if..."
vale
--Uche
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: In <dloftE5...@netcom.com>, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: >: Something is art as soon as it was created through artifice, regardless
: >: of who has seen it or how old it is.
: >This resembles the old philosophical debate about the tree falling in the
: >forest,
: How? The tree has no observers. The artificial creation has at least one
: observer.
Who? The artist him/herself? Then, if Fiona calls a sample of dumpster
rust art (or adds a scratch or frame to it to include her labor), then it
is not only beautiful but art, yes?
: >What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
: >proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
: >definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
: "Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
: roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
: and probably all of us.
And whatever scribble the lunatic deems to be art . . . is art.
David Loftus
Uche Ogbuji
> The confusion continues to be yours: you thought I said it
>was too much trouble to check DejaNews, and I don't know why,
>but you also believe I claimed to miss your distinction, when I
>said explicitly that I was clear about it.
You certainly were not.
> As matters stand, you want to say that art is something
>"created through artifice, regardless of who has seen it or how
>old it is" -- but you distinguish the definition of art from
>criteria for artistic quality, which you see as social. And if
>that's your view, fine; I just want to add a couple of notes.
> The distinction is perfectly clear, but it doesn't rescue
>you from the roundabout when you define artistic quality as
>generations of social acceptance, and then "prove" the quality
>of a bonsai tree by observing that it's been admired over a
>long period of time.
You only ever accomplished this by ignoring the substitution which
you now claim to have had in mind all along. Your analogy to
Emily Dickinson is meaningless otherwise.
>The best term for your agreement would have been "partial."
I find it hard to believe, but this part seems to point out that you
in fact do not know how the "if only" clause operates semantically.
I emphatically agreed with y, if only it is amended as x.
That means that if x amendment is not applied, I _do not_ agree
with y at all. This is more precise that your suggested vague use of
"partially agree".
>Specifically, you agreed with the banal suggestion that what gets
>counted as good art is a matter of social consensus
Nope. I did not say that. Do not put words in my mouth.
"social consensus" is another beast altogether.
>-- but as it turns out, given what you've said since, you emphatically
>_disagree_ that a social process determines what counts as art, in the
>first place[...]
yes, and if you follow the modus ponens, you'd realize this doesn't
contradict the construction in question.
> P.S. In this context, the distinction between "society
>defines art" and "society decides what qualifies as art" is
>trivial
Nonsense. I see that in addition to putting words in my mouth,
you are imposing your own qualifications upon me. I'll have
neither, thank you.
>if perchance you intended "socially qualified" to
>mean that evaluating art is a social process, it's not hard
>to see where the confusion began.
This is partially true, and completely irrelevant and beside the
point.
vale
--Uche
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: >: The thing can be considered high-quality art once it has been proven
: >: over generations.
: >It is not "proven" over time, by others; under your definition,
: This is getting silly. I didn't say it is proven art over time, I said
: it's _quality_ is proven over time. You insist on ignoring what I
: made this quite clear.
Whether it is art or high quality art appears moot, to me; the point is
that whatever is "proven" occurs not through some mysterious
transformation over time, like fermentation, but because the creation is
exposed to humans who recognize and acknowledge its status as art -- or
high quality art.
That's why I invoked the tree falling in the forest: as a physical
event, of course it makes a sound; but as a philosophical phenomenon, of
significance to humans, it does not.
Your reasoning carries the implication that art or its relative quality
is measured against some sort of Platonic ideal, from a God's eye view.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: In <dloftE5...@netcom.com>, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: >: I meant that the idea that sophomores hacking at Adobe Photoshop are
: >: be artist the more than Ansel Adams or other such luminaries might not
: >: be as absurd as it seems. I meant to suggest that they might be the more
: >: artist, but this doesn't make them better artists.
: >Oh well, I quite agree ... and I see nothing absurd or contradictory
: >about it.
: >However, since you believe that a sophomore hacking at Adobe Photoshop is
: >"more of an artist" than Adams, Weston, Strand, or even Robert Capa, I
: >would suggest that you have been caught in the web of your definitions --
: >because I certainly do not agree.
: I have no idea what this last paragraph is supposed to mean, or from
: where it is reasoned, particularly as it directly contradicts your own
: paragraph right above it.
What it means is that I disagree with your formulation which makes the
hackers more of an artist than the photographers with their practiced eye
and unique points of view. I agree that there is no inherent
contradiction between being more of an artist and not creating better
art; to me, the designation "more of an artist" is rather meaningless,
however.
Your formulation seems to imply that the quality of the art depends on
the extent to which the artist intervenes in nature, the extent to which
she manipulates material and ideas; but this overlooks the role of the
artist's eye, mental conception, and choices -- all factors which are
especially critical in the case of a photographer like Ansel Adams.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
o...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>
<moggin-ya0235800...@news.mindspring.com> <5efc0a$10...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com> <moggin-ya0235800...@news.mindspring.com> <5eftte$1n...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>:
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: >The discussion has centered around artists and art mostly in isolation,
: >with only occasional reference to an outside viewer. Let me suggest that
: >what the artist does or intends is worthless without at least one viewer,
: >if not a social consensus that what is being pursued and created is art.
: Emphatically agreed, if only you would amend socially-defined to
: socially-qualified, but this hasn't really been left out of the discussion:
: This thread originated in another called "Dada and Seeking po"; (see DejaNews)
: And there I was advocating this very idea. The quality of art is measured in
: its social acceptance over many generations.
: [snip]
: *** End quoted message ***
: Do you still claim to miss the distinction I was making? What two words
: come after "Emphatically agreed,"? What is the English semantic function
: of the construction these words introduces? Is my last quoted sentence not
: exactly what I've been saying all along?
Not exactly. You did also say, along the way, that art is art whether or
not anyone sees it, or no matter who sees it. That formed the basis for
your disagreeing with my suggestion that one could say Emily Dickinson
was not an artist (or more precisely, her poems did not constitute
great art) during her lifetime -- and, I would presume, you would
disagree that she and her poetry could not have been designated art if
those poems had moldered away in a trunk.
To invoke once again the tree in the forest, if a person writes a sonnet
and no one else sees it, is she a poet? Is it art?
David Loftus
moggin
David Loftus:
>
>: >What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
>: >proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
>: >definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
Uche:
>: "Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
>: roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
>: and probably all of us.
David:
>And whatever scribble the lunatic deems to be art . . . is art.
I understand that Motherwell strongly preferred the
term "doodling" for his own work, as well as that of Miro
and others he admired. While in a different field, that
lunatic Holderlin made a few interesting scribbles of his
own. I suppose some might call that a misfortune.
-- moggin
moggin
moggin:
[...]
>> As matters stand, you want to say that art is something
>>"created through artifice, regardless of who has seen it or how
>>old it is" -- but you distinguish the definition of art from
>>criteria for artistic quality, which you see as social. And if
>>that's your view, fine; I just want to add a couple of notes.
>> The distinction is perfectly clear, but it doesn't rescue
>>you from the roundabout when you define artistic quality as
>>generations of social acceptance, and then "prove" the quality
>>of a bonsai tree by observing that it's been admired over a
>>long period of time.
Uche:
>You only ever accomplished this by ignoring the substitution which
>you now claim to have had in mind all along. Your analogy to
>Emily Dickinson is meaningless otherwise.
What accomplishment do you mean? Your reasoning happens
to be circular. It would still be circular if Dickinson had
never lived. I've pointed that out several times now; you're
free to reply, or not, exactly as you please. So far you've
chosen the latter, which is fine -- do be sure and tell me if
you change your mind.
moggin:
>>The best term for your agreement would have been "partial."
Uche:
>I find it hard to believe, but this part seems to point out that you
>in fact do not know how the "if only" clause operates semantically.
>I emphatically agreed with y, if only it is amended as x.
>That means that if x amendment is not applied, I _do not_ agree
>with y at all. This is more precise that your suggested vague use of
>"partially agree".
I have to say, Uche, that your editing is getting very
selective -- you're now erasing individual sentences. And I
begin to see a pattern in what you remove. Yesterday, when
quoting David's earlier post, you left out his remark that
"The notion implies that during her lifetime, Emily
Dickinson was NOT an artist," while here you neatly excise
my point that "David was speaking not only of the quality of
art, but also of its definition." Looks as though you're
doing your level best to forget about that, particular idea.
It's true that your agreement was conditional, but the
condition was mild: you wanted to replace "socially-defined"
with "socially-qualified" -- as I already noted, there is,
in this context, only a trivial distinction between stating
that society defines art, and saying that society decides
what qualifies as "art" -- your amendment was of no moment.
Since then, however, you've said that you think of art
as defined by artifice, "regardless of who has seen it or
how old it is." Obviously your disagreement with the idea
David offered goes deep -- to merit your approval, it would
have to be reversed. So what you were saying, if I go by
your subsequent explanation, was, "I emphatically agree, if
only you amend your statement to say the opposite of what
it presently does." Now that, I have to agree, would be an
amendment and then some.
The simplest course, however, would have been to say
that you agreed in part. Again relying on what you've said
since, you accepted the idea that the value of art depends
on social consensus (although you deny this below), but you
rejected the idea that society decides what _constitutes_
art, to begin with -- at least that's how I understand what
you've been saying. You'll correct me if I have it wrong.
moggin:
>>Specifically, you agreed with the banal suggestion that what gets
>>counted as good art is a matter of social consensus
Uche:
>Nope. I did not say that. Do not put words in my mouth.
How could I possibly, when it's filled to overflowing?
Uche:
>"social consensus" is another beast altogether.
Are you seriously arguing that "social consensus" and
"social acceptance over many generations" are two wholly
different critters?
-- moggin
moggin
Uche:
>>>Are you trying to redefine "misfortune" as an absolute, or
>>>are you just asking a pointless question?
moggin:
>> Let's try it this way: what exactly is the misfortune
>>you're speaking of? In other words, what in the above do
>>you consider unfortunate? Is it just that calling a madman
>>an artist offends your sensibilities, or something more?
Uche:
>There is more to it than that, but even if this were all,
>It would be certainly enough for me to characterise it as
>a misfortune.
>Remember that the idea of "misfortune" is not necessarily
>very strong. It could, in fact be applied to something as
>inconsequential as an "it would have been nice if..."
Of course. I'm not disputing your right to the word.
I'm simply asking whether it reflects anything more than the
offense you take at the thought that the term "artist" can
be applied to a lunatic -- and thus far the answer seems to
be no.
-- moggin
Uche Ogbuji
>: come after "Emphatically agreed,"? What is the English semantic function
>: of the construction these words introduces? Is my last quoted sentence not
>: exactly what I've been saying all along?
>Not exactly. You did also say, along the way, that art is art whether or
>not anyone sees it, or no matter who sees it.
Yes. I don't understand how this contradicts anything. That which is
art is so independent of its quality. This is the essence of the distinction
I'm making.
>That formed the basis for
>your disagreeing with my suggestion that one could say Emily Dickinson
>was not an artist (or more precisely, her poems did not constitute
>great art) during her lifetime -- and, I would presume, you would
>disagree that she and her poetry could not have been designated art if
>those poems had moldered away in a trunk.
Her poems, for the billionth time, are art the moment she made them, and
this status never expires.
>To invoke once again the tree in the forest, if a person writes a sonnet
>and no one else sees it, is she a poet? Is it art?
Please excuse me if I admit finding this a silly question, but I'll play along
anyway. Yes it is art. You haven't provided enough information to
determine whether she is a poet.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
>: >: over generations.
>: >It is not "proven" over time, by others; under your definition,
>: This is getting silly. I didn't say it is proven art over time, I said
>: it's _quality_ is proven over time. You insist on ignoring what I
>: made this quite clear.
>Whether it is art or high quality art appears moot, to me;
This distinction is the entire basis of this discussion. If it is moot
to you, then why didn't you make it clear so we could argue this
rather than all the other issues that merely go in circles without
our agreement in this onematter?
>the point is
>that whatever is "proven" occurs not through some mysterious
>transformation over time, like fermentation, but because the creation is
>exposed to humans who recognize and acknowledge its status as art -- or
>high quality art.
The acknowledgement, in my position, proves it art of quality, not
its status of art. I aver that it is art regardless of ano human interaction
besides that of the creator.
I think I finally understand where the problem has lain.
Would it be helpful if I were to take the word "art" out of "high-quality
art"? I can't think right now of any one word that encompasses all the
latter phrase does, but I'm open to suggestions.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
>: >: be artist the more than Ansel Adams or other such luminaries might not
>: >: be as absurd as it seems. I meant to suggest that they might be the more
>: >: artist, but this doesn't make them better artists.
>: >Oh well, I quite agree ... and I see nothing absurd or contradictory
>: >about it.
>: >However, since you believe that a sophomore hacking at Adobe Photoshop is
>: >"more of an artist" than Adams, Weston, Strand, or even Robert Capa, I
>: >would suggest that you have been caught in the web of your definitions --
>: >because I certainly do not agree.
>: I have no idea what this last paragraph is supposed to mean, or from
>: where it is reasoned, particularly as it directly contradicts your own
>: paragraph right above it.
>What it means is that I disagree with your formulation which makes the
>hackers more of an artist than the photographers with their practiced eye
>and unique points of view. I agree that there is no inherent
>contradiction between being more of an artist and not creating better
>art; to me, the designation "more of an artist" is rather meaningless,
>however.
No. Remember the etymology of "art"? "more of an artist" means
exactly what you say below: the "the extent to which the artist
intervenes in nature", but this is _NOT_ the quality of art.
>Your formulation seems to imply that the quality of the art depends on
>the extent to which the artist intervenes in nature, the extent to which
>she manipulates material and ideas;
This is _not_ the quality of art. This is the degree of art(ifice).
>but this overlooks the role of the
>artist's eye, mental conception, and choices -- all factors which are
>especially critical in the case of a photographer like Ansel Adams.
Which skills are what make them better artists even when they are
artists to a lower degree.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
The remainder of this post of yours, which neither illumined your
invisible logic nor pinned any statement of mine to the silly
straw man you constructed out of Emily Dickinson, but which
did accuse me of insincerely addressing your points, is a good
signal that you have nothing left to say; and in turn, I have nothing
left to say to you on the matter.
If you ever decide to argue the distinctions I have made,
I'll be here, otherwise
vale
--Uche
moggin
Uche:
>The remainder of this post of yours, which neither illumined your
>invisible logic nor pinned any statement of mine to the silly
>straw man you constructed out of Emily Dickinson, but which
>did accuse me of insincerely addressing your points, is a good
>signal that you have nothing left to say; and in turn, I have nothing
>left to say to you on the matter.
It's not plain to me that you had anything to say, in
the first place. I can't speak for David, but my points
about Emily Dickinson weren't aimed at you. In fact, I was
surprised to see you come along and pin yourself to his
argument. Now you want to un-pin yourself, and that's fine
-- we can pretend that the whole thing never happened. By
this time we're just arguing over your sentences, anyway.
That's not to suggest your sentences are anything less than
fascinating, as well as fun for the whole family; still,
we were talking about art, as I recall, and I'm sure you'll
agree that's the more interesting topic.
-- moggin
Uche Ogbuji
>: >: of who has seen it or how old it is.
>: >This resembles the old philosophical debate about the tree falling in the
>: >forest,
>: How? The tree has no observers. The artificial creation has at least one
>: observer.
>Who? The artist him/herself? Then, if Fiona calls a sample of dumpster
>rust art (or adds a scratch or frame to it to include her labor), then it
>is not only beautiful but art, yes?
No, I'm not sure how you get this conclusion, as Fiona did not create the
dumpster rust.
As for beauty, I've never disputed that it is beautiful to her. As I have
said before, "art" and "beauty" are separate, independent sets. Beauty
is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
>: >What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
>: >proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
>: >definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
>: "Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
>: roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
>: and probably all of us.
>And whatever scribble the lunatic deems to be art . . . is art.
Indeed, the lunatic doesn't even need to deem it art for it to qualify.
vale
--Uche
SPBurris
In article <5efpgo$k...@cyclops.dsphere.net>, duqu...@cogent.net
(Will&Jane Duquette) wrote:
> Once upon a time, it seems to me, "poet" was simply a
> description of a person who wrote poems. I admit I haven't been
> following this thread too closely, but you seem to be arguing that
> "poet" has a higher, more esoteric meaning. To me, this seems
> to be an abuse of the language
I suppose it just depends on what you mean by "once upon a time". There
can be no doubt that the original use of the Greek "poietes" was
restricted to those who had (or made claims to) what we would call a
"professional" standing as poet.
This does not necessarily mean that people like Sophocles were making a
living at writing -- in fact, your typical Athenian writer would be a
"gentleman" (well-to-do landholder) who had the leisure to write. Nor
does it mean that a poet couldn't do lots of other things -- one thinks of
the great statesman, Solon, who was as well known for his poetry as for
his establishment of the Athenian constitution.
The point is merely this: the ancient use of the term "poet" cannot be
divorced from the equally ancient tendency to dwell upon the authority of
sources. I.e., the Greeks would typically conceive of a class of people
whose authority in poetry would be widely acknowledged. These people were
called "poets".
In so far as the Greek term is concerned, then, there _is_ a "higher"
meaning to the term "poet". Of course, whether this is still valid is up
in the air at this point. Just thought I'd drop a line. Thanks.
--
SPBurris at Cornell University
Greek, Latin and bagpipes!
Douglas Clark
Thomas Chatterton.
--
Douglas Clark voice: +44 1225 427104
69 Hillcrest Drive, mailto: D.G.D...@bath.ac.uk
Bath, Somerset, BA2 1HD, UK Benjamin Press: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc
Will&Jane Duquette
sp...@cornell.edu (SPBurris) wrote:
>In article <5efpgo$k...@cyclops.dsphere.net>, duqu...@cogent.net
>(Will&Jane Duquette) wrote:
>> Once upon a time, it seems to me, "poet" was simply a
>> description of a person who wrote poems. I admit I haven't been
>> following this thread too closely, but you seem to be arguing that
>> "poet" has a higher, more esoteric meaning. To me, this seems
>> to be an abuse of the language
<snip>
>The point is merely this: the ancient use of the term "poet" cannot be
>divorced from the equally ancient tendency to dwell upon the authority of
>sources. I.e., the Greeks would typically conceive of a class of people
>whose authority in poetry would be widely acknowledged. These people were
>called "poets".
>In so far as the Greek term is concerned, then, there _is_ a "higher"
>meaning to the term "poet". Of course, whether this is still valid is up
>in the air at this point. Just thought I'd drop a line. Thanks.
Ah. So, just as one who engages in sports or physical activity from
time to time is not necessarily an athelete, someone who writes
poetry from time to time isn't necessarily a poet--is that what you're
saying? That is to say, "poet" in ancient times implied a
fairly high level of competence.
OK, I can accept that.
Will&Jane Duquette
ogbuji@ (Uche Ogbuji) wrote
>I wrote:
>>Once upon a time, it seems to me, "poet" was simply a
>>description of a person who wrote poems.
>Wrong.
May I just say that SPBurris' response to my assertion was
considerably more helpful than your bald statement that I'm
wrong.
>>To me, this seems to be an abuse of the language.
>A pretty strong claim to be supported with no shred of argument.
Not at all. To me, if to no one else, the phrase "this seems to be"
implies a lack of certainty. Perhaps I was asking for
enlightenment rather than arguing with you?
>>If I wrote poems from time to time, I'd be a poet, just as I'm currently
>>a dishwasher, a diaper-changer, and a house-cleaner. I spend relatively
>>little of my day on these activities, granted; by profession, I develop software.
>Perhaps you thought the above is an argument for your claim, but I
>can see no logic by which it supports your conclusion.
If the term "poet" denotes "someone who writes poems", then there's
nothing wrong with my logic. If, as you assert, and as SPBurris
explained to me, "poet" denotes rather more than that, then I
must agree with you.
SPBurris has persuaded me that, in ancient times anyway, the term
"poet" implied a high degree of competence.
The reason I jumped into this discussion is that I thought I
saw a collision between technical usage and common usage.
(By technical usage, I mean usage pertaining to a particular
discipline, such as literatary analysis or computer science.)
It's an error, of course, to insist that a word have its common
meaning in a discipline that uses it with a finer shade of
meaning...but it's equally an error (and a more arrogant
one, IMNSHO) to insist that the only correct meaning of a
word is the technical meaning.
I'm not accusing you of that, by the way.
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: >: >This resembles the old philosophical debate about the tree falling in the
: >: >forest,
: >: How? The tree has no observers. The artificial creation has at least one
: >: observer.
: >Who? The artist him/herself? Then, if Fiona calls a sample of dumpster
: >rust art (or adds a scratch or frame to it to include her labor), then it
: >is not only beautiful but art, yes?
: No, I'm not sure how you get this conclusion, as Fiona did not create the
: dumpster rust.
No, she did not. That's why I added the suggestion that she mix in her
labor by scratching the rust, or framing it (variations on the thought
experiment she posed at the start of this thread). Michelangelo did not
create the marble he worked, nor did Jackson Pollack the oils and canvases.
: As for beauty, I've never disputed that it is beautiful to her. As I have
: said before, "art" and "beauty" are separate, independent sets. Beauty
: is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
This point was not in dispute. You may drop it.
: >: >What prevents a lifelong inmate of an insane asylum from
: >: >proclaiming himself an artist, and his scribblings as art, under your
: >: >definition? (The same for truth.) Nothing.
: >: "Artist" is not usually used as a title, and its most respectable
: >: roots in usage unfortunately constrain us to allow your lunatic,
: >: and probably all of us.
: >And whatever scribble the lunatic deems to be art . . . is art.
: Indeed, the lunatic doesn't even need to deem it art for it to qualify.
That would seem to indicate that an infant may be capable of creating art
. . . maybe even a poem?
David Loftus
Uche Ogbuji
In <5eqm7f$6...@cyclops.dsphere.net>, duqu...@cogent.net (Will&Jane Duquette) writes:
>Ah. So, just as one who engages in sports or physical activity from
>time to time is not necessarily an athelete, someone who writes
>poetry from time to time isn't necessarily a poet--is that what you're
>saying? That is to say, "poet" in ancient times implied a
>fairly high level of competence.
Close, but not quite. "Competence" can be broadly defined so as to
include anyone who ever uttered a word. Pre-industrial usage
generally reserved "poet" for one whose competence is accepted
by peer poets: a recursive definition that generally terminates at
some mythical or actual universally respected archetype for the
particular era: Homer, Petrarca, etc.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <5eqndj$6...@cyclops.dsphere.net>, duqu...@cogent.net (Will&Jane Duquette) writes:
>>>Once upon a time, it seems to me, "poet" was simply a
>>>description of a person who wrote poems.
>>Wrong.
>May I just say that SPBurris' response to my assertion was
>considerably more helpful than your bald statement that I'm
>wrong.
>>>To me, this seems to be an abuse of the language.
>>A pretty strong claim to be supported with no shred of argument.
>Not at all. To me, if to no one else, the phrase "this seems to be"
>implies a lack of certainty. Perhaps I was asking for
>enlightenment rather than arguing with you?
Please excuse me. I was responding as to a bare refutation of the
position, and thus laconically asking for more information that supported
the reputation. I didn't apprehend that you were requesting more information.
I'll note that "SPBurris'" response was as excellent and comprehensive
a response as I would have been likely to provide in any case, so we can
both be glad he decided to contribute.
But I'll be a bit more forthcoming:
>>>If I wrote poems from time to time, I'd be a poet, just as I'm currently
>>>a dishwasher, a diaper-changer, and a house-cleaner. I spend relatively
>>>little of my day on these activities, granted; by profession, I develop software.
I do contend that "poet" is more than "one who writes poems" (and Fiona
will tell you that I also insist on a definition of "poem" that many these days
have abandoned). SPBurris cinched the Greek case, and I'll add that the
latin "poeta" and "vates" (the latter meaning "prophet", but often being
used of a religious poet) had similar privileged connotations.
This is similar to the idea that a priest is not merely "one who preaches".
The idea of a poet continued thus through the renaissance, where even
such stalwarts as Jonson (see the other post for a good quote) and Sydney
considered "poet" a serious title not to be lightly assumed.
Robert Graves takes an idiosyncratic approach to the office of a poet
in his brilliant lectures "The Crowning Privilege" where he discusses
the cognate development of poetic office through the Celtic bard and
Nordic scop. I recommend this work, even if one must take some of
his details cum magno grano salis.
>SPBurris has persuaded me that, in ancient times anyway, the term
>"poet" implied a high degree of competence.
I'm glad of this.
>The reason I jumped into this discussion is that I thought I
>saw a collision between technical usage and common usage.
>[snip]
1) As I told Fiona, when discussing such topics, I prefer to stick to technical
usage, as it is usually more coherent than common usage ("form" is a good
sample word)
2) Even once we are constrained to technical usage, I am very concerned
that these days a "poet" is used of anyone who writes or says anything
that anyone else must conceivably consider "deep". This debasement of
the qualifications of the title without a corresponding lowering of the
authority thereto acceded (think of what a powerful compliment it still
is to be called "a poet") is to my mind responsible for much of the
poverty of modern poetry.
vale
--Uche
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: In <dloftE5...@netcom.com>, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: >: Do you still claim to miss the distinction I was making? What two words
: >: come after "Emphatically agreed,"? What is the English semantic function
: >: of the construction these words introduces? Is my last quoted sentence not
: >: exactly what I've been saying all along?
: >Not exactly. You did also say, along the way, that art is art whether or
: >not anyone sees it, or no matter who sees it.
: Yes. I don't understand how this contradicts anything. That which is
: art is so independent of its quality. This is the essence of the
: distinction I'm making.
The distinction you WERE making above was between art that is socially
defined and art that is socially qualified. You accepted the latter, but
not the former. That's why I brought up the tree -- because you said art
becomes great over time (which process has to include the judgments of
human beings), but on the other hand its status as art is self-defined.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: >To invoke once again the tree in the forest, if a person writes a sonnet
: >and no one else sees it, is she a poet? Is it art?
: Please excuse me if I admit finding this a silly question, but I'll play
: along anyway. Yes it is art. You haven't provided enough information to
: determine whether she is a poet.
Your responses appear horridly inconsistent to me.
On the one hand, you suggest that if a person creates a piece and calls
it art, that settles the matter -- it is art, whether or not anyone else
sees it and agrees. In other words, the tree falling in the forest does
make a sound even if no one is there to hear it. (And, incidentally,
under this formulation, Fiona's dumpster rust, with a frame and an
artful scratch added, is art.)
But on the other hand, you tell me I need to provide "information"
(evidence) to establish the artist's credentials. You reserve to
yourself (or to SOMEONE other than the artist) the right or at least the
ability to judge the person's work and status. In other words, art and
the artist are not solely self-defined -- and the falling tree does not
make a sound unless someone was there to hear it.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: >the point is
: >that whatever is "proven" occurs not through some mysterious
: >transformation over time, like fermentation, but because the creation is
: >exposed to humans who recognize and acknowledge its status as art -- or
: >high quality art.
: The acknowledgement, in my position, proves it art of quality, not
: its status of art. I aver that it is art regardless of ano human
: interaction besides that of the creator.
Then you have to agree that Fiona's dumpster rust is art, at least if she
adds a scratch and a frame to it.
David Loftus
Uche Ogbuji
In <dloftE6...@netcom.com>, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
>: >To invoke once again the tree in the forest, if a person writes a sonnet
>: >and no one else sees it, is she a poet? Is it art?
>: Please excuse me if I admit finding this a silly question, but I'll play
>: along anyway. Yes it is art. You haven't provided enough information to
>: determine whether she is a poet.
>Your responses appear horridly inconsistent to me.
Only because you are imposing your usage on me, even though I have
taken great pains to explain mine.
>On the one hand, you suggest that if a person creates a piece and calls
>it art, that settles the matter -- it is art, whether or not anyone else
>sees it and agrees.
Yes.
>In other words, the tree falling in the forest does make a sound even
>if no one is there to hear it.
This is silly, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the issue. It seems
you're also imposing your own phenomenology upon me. I want none
of it.
>(And, incidentally, under this formulation, Fiona's dumpster rust,
>with a frame and an artful scratch added, is art.)
I disagree. Have we not discussed the degree of artifice required
to make a thing art? Have you decided to ignore this discussion?
Was it not in English? I don't claim that any definite line can be
drawn, but I feel that tradition helps us if we are ever required
at gunpoint to partition things.
>But on the other hand, you tell me I need to provide "information"
>(evidence) to establish the artist's credentials.
"artist" and "poet" are different things. Is this too difficult for you?
Did you also ignore the post where I mentioned that "poet" is a title
with far more traditional privilege than "artist"?
>You reserve to yourself (or to SOMEONE other than the artist)
>the right or at least the ability to judge the person's work and status.
In the case of _poets_, I leave it to the traditional process, at least until
such superseding process comes along that can demonstrably produce
decent poets. In the case of "artist", "work" is self-explanatory and
intrinsic. "Status" is ambiguous.
>In other words, art and the artist are not solely self-defined -- and
>the falling tree does not make a sound unless someone was there to
>hear it.
These are your words, and I had nothing to do with them. I hope this
post of yours, even if we ignore that you have misrepresented me,
is not your example of consistent logic.
vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
>: dumpster rust.
>No, she did not. That's why I added the suggestion that she mix in her
>labor by scratching the rust, or framing it
This does add artifice, but not enough, in my judgement, and I think as
tradition holds, to turn it art.
>: As for beauty, I've never disputed that it is beautiful to her. As I have
>: said before, "art" and "beauty" are separate, independent sets. Beauty
>: is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
>This point was not in dispute. You may drop it.
You are the one who keeps bringing beauty up as it follows inevitably
from art.
>: >And whatever scribble the lunatic deems to be art . . . is art.
>: Indeed, the lunatic doesn't even need to deem it art for it to qualify.
>That would seem to indicate that an infant may be capable of creating art
>.. . . maybe even a poem?
Art, perhaps, but not a poem (about as likely as untrained monkeys typing
Shakespeare). But an infant being a poet is another matter, which, if you
read my post on the issue, would understand as distinct from "writing poems".
The way you've been going, the next thing you'll say is-- aha! In law, an
infant is but one who cannot represent himself in court [or something like
that], so...
--Uche
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Uche Ogbuji
No, I don't. I said "regardless of any interaction _besides that of the
creator_" I've added emphasis to show you exactly _where_ it can be
disqualified as art.
I'm getting tired of this...
vale
--Uche
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
b201560
is she a poet ?
Uche Ogbuji
In <5ev8n6$1n...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, ogbuji@ (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>>On the one hand, you suggest that if a person creates a piece and calls
>>it art, that settles the matter -- it is art, whether or not anyone else
>>sees it and agrees.
>Yes.
Let me be very careful here, as I've been pelted by quibbles for less:
I said "yes" because of the way you phrased this: "created a piece".
This to me connotes a high degree of artifice, but if you are considering
scratching the side of a dumpster and gluing a frame to it as "creating
a piece" (farfetched, but possible), then I would have to change the
above from "yes" to "maybe".
vale
--Uche
Fiona Webster
Uche writes:
>2) Even once we are constrained to technical usage, I am very concerned
>that these days a "poet" is used of anyone who writes or says anything
>that anyone else must conceivably consider "deep". This debasement of
>the qualifications of the title without a corresponding lowering of the
>authority thereto acceded (think of what a powerful compliment it still
>is to be called "a poet") is to my mind responsible for much of the
>poverty of modern poetry.
Can you flesh out your argument a little more, Uche? How does the
application of a title to a group of people whose abilities at a given
activity range widely from nil to superlative, cause the quality curve
for that activity to shift in a downward direction?
This is what you seem to be saying: because it's easy to be called
a poet, people don't work so hard at writing poetry as they used to.
But is it really true that people write poetry in order to be called
poets, and then stop improving their abilities, once they gain the
cherished title?
--Fiona
Uche Ogbuji
Uche:
>>2) Even once we are constrained to technical usage, I am very concerned
>>that these days a "poet" is used of anyone who writes or says anything
>>that anyone else must conceivably consider "deep". This debasement of
>>the qualifications of the title without a corresponding lowering of the
>>authority thereto acceded (think of what a powerful compliment it still
>>is to be called "a poet") is to my mind responsible for much of the
>>poverty of modern poetry.
Fiona:
>Can you flesh out your argument a little more, Uche? How does the
>application of a title to a group of people whose abilities at a given
>activity range widely from nil to superlative, cause the quality curve
>for that activity to shift in a downward direction?
This is not applicable to a general case, as I'm careful to point out, so
please do not generalize my view, as you do above.
In the particular case of a poet, There have always been members
of almost every human society who have had a triple function: They
provide a compelling basis of speech that gives the inevitable
variation of human language a graceful curve, and thus allow the
second function, which is to record and bring close the history,
and custom of the tribe, and at the same time, to suggest refinements
and additions to language that respect the former functions.
Amazingly, this statement is consistent over divers cultures and
eras. I could go on about this office as it relates to Igbo or
Yoruba, or Chinese culture, but I've chosen in these threads
to treat Western history, which is probably more familiar here.
From the author(s) of Gilgamesh to the one or several Homer(s),
to Ovid, to Petrarca, history and literature have recorded a strong
tradition of such office as held by individuals whose talent with and
long study of their language has enshrined their approbation among
peers and those to come. The actual "taking of a title" is rather
unimportant: Petrarca chose to hold a solemn ceremony in which he
proclaimed his laureation, this _after_ he had written volumes of
carefully crafted Latin and Italian poetry such as would even then
might have earned him the title of "poet" even in those days;
others never even bothered whatsoever with the title.
The important matter is the idea that such important office as
inspires and keeps culture is only acquired after long discipline
(in every sense of this word). Post-industrial habit has brought
many to call themselves "poet" by no greater virtue than their
desire to be such a stalwart. This would not be too much of
a problem, after all, words do change, if there wasn't so much
evidence that people then felt they had no further need for
traditional poetic study and discipline, and in their natural inability
to produce any writing that most intelligent and educated people
could themselves produce, ensured their irrelevance to society.
But there lies the problem: if those who are called poets by their
own vanity are so clearly irrelevant to the populace, then so
becomes poetry itself.
>But is it really true that people write poetry in order to be called
>poets, and then stop improving their abilities, once they gain the
>cherished title?
The lack of improvement is less imprtant, to my eyes, than the lack of
poetic ability in the first place.
vale
--Uche
Douglas Clark
This argument was all thrashed out last year. My attitude has been that
you cant call yourself a poet until you are recognised as such by
recognised poets. Fred Beake is more lenient saying that if you call
yourself a poet he will accept it. It is an area that is open for
debate as Uche and Fiona are enjoying.
Uche Ogbuji
In <E6AwEp.F...@bath.ac.uk>, exx...@bath.ac.uk (Douglas Clark) writes:
>This argument was all thrashed out last year. My attitude has been that
>you cant call yourself a poet until you are recognised as such by
>recognised poets.
Very concisely stated, and this is exactly my view. My long way around
was prompted by Fiona's asking as if I had to justify the idea that a poet
bore any special status.
But then, given your excellent home page, I'm not surprised.
>Fred Beake is more lenient saying that if you call
>yourself a poet he will accept it.
Which is not exactly Fiona's position. Hers seems to be that if
you write what might be considered a poem, you are a poet.
It's generous, and, as you say, lenient, but I don't think great
poetry comes from being cossetted.
>It is an area that is open for debate as Uche and Fiona are enjoying.
Mr. Nikolayev sent me a huge archive of a thread from a year ago.
I'll check if this is the same one you refer to, since, if it is, I might
bring down Dejanews looking it up. I'm curious to see the elder
debate.
vale
--Uche
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: In <dloftE6...@netcom.com>, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: >: No, I'm not sure how you get this conclusion, as Fiona did not create the
: >: dumpster rust.
: >No, she did not. That's why I added the suggestion that she mix in her
: >labor by scratching the rust, or framing it
: This does add artifice, but not enough, in my judgement, and I think as
: tradition holds, to turn it art.
Ah. Then your judgment plays a role in establishing not only the level
of quality, but its mere status as art! Therefore, you are saying the
tree does not make a sound when it falls in the forest if no one is there
to hear.
But this contradicts your claim that the creator defines a work as art
regardless of whether anyone else sees it and agrees. You keep inserting
your own values and judgment into the equation.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: In <dloftE6...@netcom.com>, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: >: >the point is
: >: >that whatever is "proven" occurs not through some mysterious
: >: >transformation over time, like fermentation, but because the creation is
: >: >exposed to humans who recognize and acknowledge its status as art -- or
: >: >high quality art.
: >: The acknowledgement, in my position, proves it art of quality, not
: >: its status of art. I aver that it is art regardless of ano human
: >: interaction besides that of the creator.
: >Then you have to agree that Fiona's dumpster rust is art, at least if she
: >adds a scratch and a frame to it.
: No, I don't. I said "regardless of any interaction _besides that of the
: creator_" I've added emphasis to show you exactly _where_ it can be
: disqualified as art.
How can it possible be an "acknowledgement" of quality if there is no
interaction besides that with the creator? This is a contradiction in terms.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: In <5ev8n6$1n...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, ogbuji@ (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
: >>On the one hand, you suggest that if a person creates a piece and calls
: >>it art, that settles the matter -- it is art, whether or not anyone else
: >>sees it and agrees.
: >Yes.
: Let me be very careful here, as I've been pelted by quibbles for less:
: I said "yes" because of the way you phrased this: "created a piece".
: This to me connotes a high degree of artifice, but if you are considering
: scratching the side of a dumpster and gluing a frame to it as "creating
: a piece" (farfetched, but possible), then I would have to change the
: above from "yes" to "maybe".
Actually, you have also said no to this question.
Hence, my guess that you do not know what you are talking about.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Uche Ogbuji (ogbuji@) wrote:
: >Your responses appear horridly inconsistent to me.
: Only because you are imposing your usage on me, even though I have
: taken great pains to explain mine.
You may have, but your "great pains" have not succeeded in clearing up
inconsistencies which have been evident not only to me.
: >On the one hand, you suggest that if a person creates a piece and calls
: >it art, that settles the matter -- it is art, whether or not anyone else
: >sees it and agrees.
: Yes.
Okay.
: >In other words, the tree falling in the forest does make a sound even
: >if no one is there to hear it.
: This is silly, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the issue. It seems
: you're also imposing your own phenomenology upon me. I want none
: of it.
Not at all. You are apparently failing to grasp the analogy (as
well as being blind to the contradictions in your own case), which is not a
complex one. I'll try to make it as simple as I can.
One: You agree that a creator defines a work of art. (Therefore, no one
else -- including you -- can interfere in that process, and therefore
Fiona's dumpster rust, perhaps even without the scratch and the frame,
is art, because she says so.)
Two: You aver that "the passage of time" establishes the high quality of
a work of art. However, you bracket the role of the many human beings other
than the artist in determining that high quality. You will not admit to
the socially subjective aspect, the INHERENTLY social and subjective
aspect, of the process. If Emily Dickinson's poems stayed in the trunk
for millenia, they would never become great art, because no other humans
could certify the fact.
: >(And, incidentally, under this formulation, Fiona's dumpster rust,
: >with a frame and an artful scratch added, is art.)
: I disagree. Have we not discussed the degree of artifice required
: to make a thing art? Have you decided to ignore this discussion?
As I recall, Fiona offered a series of levels of artifice, and you
rejected them all, which doesn't make for much of a discussion.
: >But on the other hand, you tell me I need to provide "information"
: >(evidence) to establish the artist's credentials.
: "artist" and "poet" are different things. Is this too difficult for you?
Instead of making "me" the subject, why don't you just stick to the
arguments themselves?
: Did you also ignore the post where I mentioned that "poet" is a title
: with far more traditional privilege than "artist"?
I really couldn't care less. The point here is that you appear utterly
blind to the fact that neither poets nor artists can be defined, or at
least acknowledged, in a vacuum, the way you act as if they could.
: >You reserve to yourself (or to SOMEONE other than the artist)
: >the right or at least the ability to judge the person's work and status.
: In the case of _poets_, I leave it to the traditional process, at least until
: such superseding process comes along that can demonstrably produce
: decent poets. In the case of "artist", "work" is self-explanatory and
: intrinsic. "Status" is ambiguous.
The "traditional process," as I have tried repeatedly to suggest,
involves other plain old human beings, not an ideal scale of Platonic
values. People have to see it and like it, period, or it is not art, let
alone "high quality" art.
: >In other words, art and the artist are not solely self-defined -- and
: >the falling tree does not make a sound unless someone was there to
: >hear it.
: These are your words, and I had nothing to do with them. I hope this
: post of yours, even if we ignore that you have misrepresented me,
: is not your example of consistent logic.
I am sorry, but it is. It's not my fault if you can't understand it.
moggin at least seems to be able to follow my train of thought.
David Loftus