"Art" is useless, and should be discarded.
Mike Lattis
I propose we all omit the word "art" from our vocabularies. You see,
a word only has meaning when both the sender and receiver agree on its
definition, and the discussions in this group are proof positive that
there is no agreement, no consensus, (hence, no MEANING!) when it
comes to "art." Furthermore, there will NEVER BE any agreement, or
consensus. So dump it. The processes will continue (sans the burdon
of the world's most utterly useless word). And don't worry, it's
okay. We'll all be fine.
over,
michael l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lattis
lume...@udel.edu
...was layered and...foul...and--and what the HELL is THAT?!...ugh...
Katy Odell
Mike Lattis <Lume...@udel.edu> wrote:
>I propose we all omit the word "art" from our vocabularies. You see,
>a word only has meaning when both the sender and receiver agree on its
>definition, and the discussions in this group are proof positive that
>there is no agreement, no consensus, (hence, no MEANING!) when it
>comes to "art." Furthermore, there will NEVER BE any agreement, or
>consensus. So dump it.
OK, but what DO we say? I mean, will we still mouth off in this
newsgroup?
What are we talking about, then?
>The processes will continue (sans the burdon
>of the world's most utterly useless word).
I thought the most useless word was "empowerment." But then, I'm just
bitter and annoyed with my women's studies class.
-katy
Paul Gatke
Katy Odell <bog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I propose TTFKAA (the thing formerly known as art). (I'll copyright
this if it is culturally/liguistically acceptable and perhaps license
its usage especially in new editions of OED).
P
G*rd*n
Mike Lattis <Lume...@udel.edu> wrote:
| >>I propose we all omit the word "art" from our vocabularies. You see,
| >>a word only has meaning when both the sender and receiver agree on its
| >>definition, and the discussions in this group are proof positive that
| >>there is no agreement, no consensus, (hence, no MEANING!) when it
| >>comes to "art." Furthermore, there will NEVER BE any agreement, or
| >>consensus. So dump it.
Katy Odell <bog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| >OK, but what DO we say? I mean, will we still mouth off in this
| >newsgroup?
| >What are we talking about, then?
Mike Lattis <Lume...@udel.edu> wrote:
| >>The processes will continue (sans the burdon
| >>of the world's most utterly useless word).
Katy Odell <bog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| >I thought the most useless word was "empowerment." But then, I'm just
| >bitter and annoyed with my women's studies class.
pa...@panix.com (Paul Gatke):
| I propose TTFKAA (the thing formerly known as art). (I'll copyright
| this if it is culturally/liguistically acceptable and perhaps license
| its usage especially in new editions of OED).
We need a hitherto-unused symbol. How about [@]?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Douglas Ring
Paul Gatke wrote:
>
> Katy Odell <bog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Mike Lattis <Lume...@udel.edu> wrote:
> >>I propose we all omit the word "art" from our vocabularies. You see,
> >>a word only has meaning when both the sender and receiver agree on its
> >>definition, and the discussions in this group are proof positive that
> >>there is no agreement, no consensus, (hence, no MEANING!) when it
> >>comes to "art." Furthermore, there will NEVER BE any agreement, or
> >>consensus. So dump it.
>
> >newsgroup?
> >What are we talking about, then?
>
> >>of the world's most utterly useless word).
>
> >bitter and annoyed with my women's studies class.
>
> I propose TTFKAA (the thing formerly known as art). (I'll copyright
> this if it is culturally/liguistically acceptable and perhaps license
> its usage especially in new editions of OED).
>
I think Mike is correct. But I think we should discard all of the other
words which we use but do not agree on the meanings....'course that
means we must all stop talking and writing....
wsparker
Mike Lattis wrote:
>
> I propose we all omit the word "art" from our vocabularies. You see,
> a word only has meaning when both the sender and receiver agree on its
> definition, and the discussions in this group are proof positive that
> there is no agreement, no consensus, (hence, no MEANING!) when it
> comes to "art."
Are you considering that most all the trouble is caused by placing
_valuation_ on art? When that value or quality is perceived to be below
a certain point someone comes along and calls it "not art."
So, the same can be said of other things, like say a "person." when can
you cay another human being is no longer a person? When they crack under
pressure of adversity and start homicidal behaviors?
You will have a tough time convincing reasonable people that they have
totally lost their personhood.
Also, the OTHER cause of the problem is that there are people who will
NEVER let go of OLD ideas. E.g. the ones who can't see Duchamp's
"Fountain" as a legitimate piece with massive art historical
significance. It was a fundemental building block of modernism.
> Furthermore, there will NEVER BE any agreement, or
> consensus. So dump it. The processes will continue (sans the burdon
> of the world's most utterly useless word).
There's plenty of agreement within your own camp! It is just that here
in this nsgrp you get members of both camps (one very small and
self-protective) residing in close quarters!
We have the vast majority of modernists and postmodernists on the one
side and the "whatevers" on the other side keeping the "disagreement"
going!
Insted of a plan to banish a mere word, how about another plan here like
this one:
People should ask eachother what they think draw them out get them to
actually discuss?
It will be impossible to discuss anything since there's no
responsibility for what one has said. For example; on numerous occasions
good points are made to a posting and the original poster just walks
away! As if they weren't curious enough to even -read- the response!
David Harleyson
In article <32B667...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net says...
>It will be impossible to discuss anything since there's no
>responsibility for what one has said. For example; on numerous occasions
>good points are made to a posting and the original poster just walks
>away! As if they weren't curious enough to even -read- the response!
That's often the result of so many people using up their free
introductory time to AOL, Compuserve, etc. D.H.
Ehud Tal
wsparker wrote:
>
> Mike Lattis wrote:
> >
> > I propose we all omit the word "art" from our vocabularies. You see,
> > a word only has meaning when both the sender and receiver agree on its
> > definition, and the discussions in this group are proof positive that
> > there is no agreement, no consensus, (hence, no MEANING!) when it
> > comes to "art."
>
> Are you considering that most all the trouble is caused by placing
> _valuation_ on art? When that value or quality is perceived to be below
> a certain point someone comes along and calls it "not art."
it is not about value, but about the nature of things. when a person has
a low IQ, he *is* "not smart", just as the case is when so-called-art
does not meet certain conditions for being called that. the conditions
i'm talking about are not "if the artist says so", but rather "if the
viewer feels so". i don't feel a bloody thing about a blank canvas,
laods of crap or urinals being put in the museums and art history books
instead of EYE-pleasing (not necesseraly morally-pleasing!), serious
art. well, i do feel something. i think its nausea.
> So, the same can be said of other things, like say a "person." when can
> you cay another human being is no longer a person? When they crack under
> pressure of adversity and start homicidal behaviors?
>
> You will have a tough time convincing reasonable people that they have
> totally lost their personhood.
>
I will indeed. ad yet i find the work of convincing people some things
should be concidered art more laborious than convincing them, lets say,
an idiot can not be called smart! the ones who are trying to change the
nature of art by changing the definition of the "useless" word - art,
are the ones your example is actually referring to!
> Also, the OTHER cause of the problem is that there are people who will
> NEVER let go of OLD ideas.
"out with the old, in with the new!" though sometimes justified, this
statement is sometimes (as in this case) used in a nihilistic tone,
which despises all "OLD". as the case was with another revolution which
occured in the beginning of our century: the Bolsheviks eliminated from
their history all "decadent" remnants of OLD cultures and beliefs. This
resulted in narrow-minded cultural monotonousness. in the name of the
NEW, all was eliminated. Such is the case with YOUR "art". there is
place for NEW "perceptions", but none for OLD ones, such as the
ridiculous demand that there be AESTHETIC VALUE to art!
> E.g. the ones who can't see Duchamp's
> "Fountain" as a legitimate piece with massive art historical
> significance. It was a fundemental building block of modernism.
It is indeed of massive art historical significance. just like the
destruction of Rome and the beginning medieval era is of massive
historical significance to the history of philosophy. both will be
remembered as the starting points for ages of regression, stupidity,
narrow-midedness and, yes, DOGMATIC THINKING. for whereas us "OTHERS"
are willing to see where the borders to art lay, YOU continue to hold
your position, that "all IS art, if we just say so!", no questions
asked!
>
> > Furthermore, there will NEVER BE any agreement, or
> > consensus. So dump it. The processes will continue (sans the burdon
> > of the world's most utterly useless word).
>
> There's plenty of agreement within your own camp! It is just that here
> in this nsgrp you get members of both camps (one very small and
> self-protective) residing in close quarters!
>
> We have the vast majority of modernists and postmodernists on the one
> side and the "whatevers" on the other side keeping the "disagreement"
> going!
>
"we have the vast majority of church-led masses who claim the world is
as flat as a plate, just BECAUSE on one side, and the "whatevers" on the
other side keeping the question as to the nature of the world open to
discussion."
or:
"we have on one hand the dogma claiming all is art, and on the other
hand a bothering critic telling us to question ourselves"
Isaac Newton said about his innovative physical theories: "If I have
seen to great distance, it was only because I was standing on the
shoulders of giants". By shutting out all OLD ideas, you just lose.
shutting out OLD ideas also becomes shutting out new ideas which are
based on the old ones.
Your "NEW" ideas are actually one 80 year old idea that art MAY be more
than art. well, it can't. the proof is in galleries and museums. what is
made as art will always stay that, whereas what is only called "art",
will eventually fail the test of time, and more importantly: the test of
truth.
The test of time and truth showed us that the world is a sphere, and
that the earth is not the center of the universe. even the pope admitted
to that. why can't you admit a bloody urinal is simply a failed
experiment. and all experiments that followed are merely whether other
non-art could be, accidentally or deliberatly, regarded as art. this
futile chase for a definition is the reason most people today hate all
art, thinking it is all intellectual bullshitting and random splashes of
color worth millions.
the minority in this case, are YOU. we "whatever"s on the other hand,
know the urinal simply isn't art. the fact that your side is creating
all the babble, doesn't make the BS true. i don't care you have been at
it for 80 years, so it must be true. us "whatevers" have been at it for
5000 years, and will go on without needing one spoken word, not even
'art'.
Unicorn
In article <592tt3$8...@belize.it.earthlink.net>, bog...@earthlink.net says...
>
>Mike Lattis <Lume...@udel.edu> wrote:
>>I propose we all omit the word "art" from our vocabularies.
>
>newsgroup?
>What are we talking about, then?
Let's not say "art", let's just wink a "we know what we are talking about, but
aren't going to get into a silly argument over what it means" sort of wink and
leave it at that. Simple, if completely pointless addition to this thread.
>I thought the most useless word was "empowerment." But then, I'm just
>bitter and annoyed with my women's studies class.
I don't understand that word, but then I'm a man.
You can tell I'm bored can't you.
Stephen King
--
Email : uni...@eskimo.com
PGP : lyons king <uni...@eskimo.com>
Web : http://www.eskimo.com/~unicorn
FTP : ftp.eskimo.com/u/u/unicorn
--
wsparker
Ehud Tal wrote:
>
> wsparker wrote:
> >
> > Are you considering that most all the trouble is caused by placing
> > _valuation_ on art? When that value or quality is perceived to be below
> > a certain point someone comes along and calls it "not art."
>
> it is not about value, but about the nature of things. the conditions
> i'm talking about are not "if the artist says so", but rather "if the
> viewer feels so".
Well that doesn't help much. I need to know more about the viewer. I
must be indebted to the feelings of the viewer.
> i don't feel a bloody thing about a blank canvas,
> laods of crap or urinals being put in the museums and art history books
> instead of EYE-pleasing (not necesseraly morally-pleasing!), serious
> art. well, i do feel something. i think its nausea.
That tells us about something about your preferences; it doesn't help
clarify the issue.
> I will indeed. ad yet i find the work of convincing people some things
> should be concidered art more laborious than convincing them, lets say,
> an idiot can not be called smart!
I think you are gonna have a tough time convincing the educated that
Duchamp's "Fountain" is not art. Not only has his work generated a
tremendous discourse and a whole mueseum wing is devoted to his massive
work and Modernism itself would be impossible without it, blah,blah,
blah... .
So you say his work is partially good or all bad? And yet you owe a
considerable debt to him because he ushered in modernism.
I hope you are not about to say, "if the whole world devoted a wing to
jumping off a cliff..." yeah right. I hope you will not get too bizzare
for me. Like an evangelist or something, making simplistic analogies,
attempting to mask the inherent complexities.
> > Also, the OTHER cause of the problem is that there are people who will
> > NEVER let go of OLD ideas.
>
> "out with the old, in with the new!" though sometimes justified, this
> statement is sometimes (as in this case) used in a nihilistic tone,
> which despises all "OLD".
I beg your pardon, but you seemed to have missed my point. The concept
of "originality" is gone from artmaking. Therefore a pillar of modernism
has crumbled. The rest of the edifice is in very bad shape too. What do
you think of that?
No one of significance is eliminating the old ideas. It is a matter of
trying to cope with their bankruptcy. It is important to know the
condition of modernism.
What are you proposing again? Do you subscribe to modernism? Or do you
pick and choose among it?
>
> > E.g. the ones who can't see Duchamp's
> > "Fountain" as a legitimate piece with massive art historical
> > significance. It was a fundemental building block of modernism.
>
> It is indeed of massive art historical significance. just like the
> destruction of Rome and the beginning medieval era is of massive
> historical significance to the history of philosophy.
Well, at last we agree!
> for whereas us "OTHERS"
> are willing to see where the borders to art lay, YOU continue to hold
> your position, that "all IS art, if we just say so!", no questions
> asked!
I believe that appears to be an oversimplification! You are making me
think you are going to have to moderate a bit.
I'd like to ask you something. What do you think of aboriginal art in
Central Africa? Or art of other native peoples? Will you get in there
and pick and choose what of their objects and rituals are really art and
what is not?
>
> Your "NEW" ideas are actually one 80 year old idea that art MAY be more
> than art. well, it can't. the proof is in galleries and museums. what is
> made as art will always stay that, whereas what is only called "art",
> will eventually fail the test of time, and more importantly: the test of
> truth.
No, not quite but thanks for trying, my "new" ideas have to do with the
question of the state of modernism.
You might begin to to scare me here, bringing "T, T, Truth" into the
discussion!
>
> The test of time and truth showed us that the world is a sphere, and
> that the earth is not the center of the universe. even the pope admitted
> to that. why can't you admit a bloody urinal is simply a failed
> experiment.
Please, tell me what you think the experiment was exactly and how and
why you think it failed.
>
> the minority in this case, are YOU. we "whatever"s on the other hand,
> know the urinal simply isn't art. the fact that your side is creating
> all the babble, doesn't make the BS true.
My side? What side am I on again? You are starting to appear to be an
uninformed person. Apparently you don't know what I think. You may
appear to be spouting off assuming you know what I think.
Interestingly, there are no questions from you here asking me to clarify
what I think.
> i don't care you have been at
> it for 80 years, so it must be true. us "whatevers" have been at it for
> 5000 years, and will go on without needing one spoken word, not even
> 'art'.
Though intriguing, this is another cryptic statement.
People who want limits on things are generally those who are frustrated
with how complicated things are and can't handle it. So they start
making things up like arbitrary criteria, or references to
simplificatory analogies, or bringing occult words into the argument
like "truth."
G*rd*n
| ...
Ehud Tal <bbb...@geocities.com>:
| it is not about value, but about the nature of things. when a person has
| a low IQ, he *is* "not smart",
Not so; all you know from people having a low score on
IQ tests is that they don't do well on IQ tests. "IQ"
is not a faculty; it is a dubious construction in one
of less exact sciences.
| just as the case is when so-called-art
| does not meet certain conditions for being called that. the conditions
| i'm talking about are not "if the artist says so", but rather "if the
| viewer feels so". ....
But there isn't any _the_ viewer. There are many viewers,
taken either individually or _en_masse_. If the former,
anything _a_ viewer says is art, by your definition, is art,
so the artist has a fairly easy task of making art; he can
(as someone imagined not long ago) portray a bag of garbage
as art -- he's a viewer. If you go for the community of
viewers, then you're talking about majority rule, with all
of the pitfalls of that position. (See Komar & Melamid's
majority-rule art if you need a demonstration.)
Bruce Attah
> I think you are gonna have a tough time convincing the educated that
> Duchamp's "Fountain" is not art.
I'm educated, and I am already convinced that Duchamp's "Fountain" is not
art, so I guess Ehud Tal will have a tough time convincing me.
> Not only has his work generated a
> tremendous discourse and a whole mueseum wing is devoted to his massive
> work and Modernism itself would be impossible without it, blah,blah,
> blah... .
"blah, blah, blah". You have perfectly characterised the discourse of
which you speak.
> So you say his work is partially good or all bad? And yet you owe a
> considerable debt to him because he ushered in modernism.
No-one owes a debt to Duchamp, except perhaps those who make a living by
writing sententious nonsense about him.
> I'd like to ask you something. What do you think of aboriginal art in
> Central Africa? Or art of other native peoples? Will you get in there
> and pick and choose what of their objects and rituals are really art and
> what is not?
"Native peoples"? Where did you get that stupid phrase? Everyone is
native to where they are born. As to the art of Central Africa, there's
not much of it, and still less is any good. Why not West or Southern
Africa?
> ... my "new" ideas have to do with the
> question of the state of modernism.
The state of modernism is that it died 80 years ago, and some people still
haven't recognized that fact, even though Duchamp's antics sounded its
death-knell loud and clear.
> You might begin to to scare me here, bringing "T, T, Truth" into the
> discussion!
And you are the sort that is scared by the notion of truth, aren't you?
> People who want limits on things are generally those who are frustrated
> with how complicated things are and can't handle it. So they start
> making things up like arbitrary criteria, or references to
> simplificatory analogies, or bringing occult words into the argument
> like "truth."
There we go! What did I say? "Truth" is occult! If that is so, why do
you bother to say anything at all, let alone engage in any sort of
argument with anyone? If the truth is occult, their opinions can no more
be shown to be true or false than yours -- and even the assertion I have
just made is unverifiable.
May I suggest that you wake up out of your pomo-nihilist-fantasist stupor
and acknowledge that there is a REAL world, and in that world, some
assertions are TRUE, and some are FALSE?
wsparker
> > Duchamp's "Fountain" is not art.
>
Welcome baaack!
. .
>
> "blah, blah, blah". You have perfectly characterised the discourse of
> which you speak.
You make good rhetorical use of the ambiguity of the expression.
Yes of course, actually I am thinking about doing a FAQ, since I am
getting weary of restatement.
>
>
> > So you say his work is partially good or all bad? And yet you owe a
> > considerable debt to him because he ushered in modernism.
>
> No-one owes a debt to Duchamp, except perhaps those who make a living by
> writing sententious nonsense about him.
Do you have a website or FAQ? You say "no one owes a debt to Duchamp."
You said you were educated, where?
>
> "Native peoples"? Where did you get that stupid phrase?
How very unfair you are! it means the same as "aboriginal." Daniel
Webster concurs. Though you may disagree with the American dictionary if
you wish.
> As to the art of Central Africa, there's
> not much of it, and still less is any good. Why not West or Southern
> Africa?
Is their art better there? How do you know, what are the criteria you
are using?
>
>
> The state of modernism is that it died 80 years ago, and some people still
> haven't recognized that fact, even though Duchamp's antics sounded its
> death-knell loud and clear.
Though his antics insured it would take 80 years until its *last* dying
breath!
>
> And you are the sort that is scared by the notion of truth, aren't you?
You don't know anything about me.
Nevertheless when E.T. infers I'll know the "truth" someday about
"Fountain" He must think he's studying with a higher power!
****Anyone who refers to "truth" in the context of a discussion about
culture these days is highly questionable.****
>
> > People who want limits on things are generally those who are frustrated
> > with how complicated things are and can't handle it. So they start
> > making things up like arbitrary criteria, or references to
> > simplificatory analogies, or bringing occult words into the argument
> > like "truth."
>
> There we go! What did I say? "Truth" is occult! If that is so, why do
> you bother to say anything at all, let alone engage in any sort of
> argument with anyone? If the truth is occult, their opinions can no more
> be shown to be true or false than yours -- and even the assertion I have
> just made is unverifiable.
It is in the context! In formal logic the word has a firm definition.
In a court of law it isn't as steady since eye-witness accounts are
based upon perception which even in the case of recounting facts is
highly questionable. Now we have another level, that of aesthetics, and
I suspect you claim like E.T. to be able to apply the word as if it were
formal logic!
Unfortunately for you, all we really have in aesthetics is consensus.
Though I still don't know what your group's "criteria" are for good vs.
bad art. If there are no criteria, then what about describing some
methodology, or whatever... . A separate posting would be good.
>
> May I suggest that you wake up out of your pomo-nihilist-fantasist stupor
> and acknowledge that there is a REAL world, and in that world, some
> assertions are TRUE, and some are FALSE?
You should be more polite! Name calling doesn't get beyond the jingling
bells.
This is how you were to sum up your intentions, "there is a REAL world,
and in that world, some assertions are TRUE, and some are FALSE,"
right... so? Some are true some are false sure, yes so... . "'Fountain'
is not art," yes... right, that's your opinion, you people all agree.
What are you saying that is new?
I hope Ehud will make the effort to answer the question I have asked of
him in the above posting.
wsparker
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> But there isn't any _the_ viewer. There are many viewers,
> taken either individually or _en_masse_. If the former,
> anything _a_ viewer says is art, by your definition, is art,
> so the artist has a fairly easy task of making art; he can
> (as someone imagined not long ago) portray a bag of garbage
> as art -- he's a viewer.
> If you go for the community of
> viewers, then you're talking about majority rule, with all
> of the pitfalls of that position. (See Komar & Melamid's
> majority-rule art if you need a demonstration.)
>
I need to know more about the pitfalls. In the end I think it *is* a
matter of consensus.
These guys here in this nsgrp want you to discard the work of all
scholars and thinkers who disagree with their definition of art!
I remember this little anecdote way back in school where this guy just
lands in this small town and sees some stuff on a gallery wall and leans
over to ask somebody close by, "Is this art?" The guy next to him says,
"I don't know, I'm not from around here either!"
jim
mean,Mr.W.S.Parker, and unfortunate that some "speak with forked tounge"
around issues ill thought out and intellectualy vacant, although
somewhat passionatly.
Shabtai Tal
> Do you have a website or FAQ? You say "no one owes a debt to Duchamp."
my website, to which you are invited to write essays (any opinion), is
"Focus on Art":
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
I started it three weeks ago, so it's still small.
> Is their art better there? How do you know, what are the criteria you
> are using?
May I ask what criteria there is in judging when one schpritz or schmier
is better than another?
Which 'readymade' is better, and shows greater talent?
Is any judgment made when deciding on which piece of junk will be put
where in the museum?
By what values?
> Though his antics insured it would take 80 years until its *last* dying
> breath!
What exactly makes art after ww1 modernist?
The entire establishment of art in europe, including its avant-garde -
modernism, was destroyed. This is like saying the americans are actually
europeans, just because they were in the beginning. American-centered
and oriented art, after ww1 cannot be called modernism for this reason.
another reason is that they did not make modern art, but rather a
different kind of activity. could you honestly say there is enough
similarity between the urinal and futurism, vorticism, cubism or any
other modernist movement, to say it is part of it? this wasn't modernism
for the simple fact modernism is art.
> Nevertheless when E.T. infers I'll know the "truth" someday about
> "Fountain" He must think he's studying with a higher power!
No force major here. Only perspective, and common sense, combined with
honesty, and some help from old friends: Plato, Aristotle, Kant and
other "OLD", old-world stuff.
> ****Anyone who refers to "truth" in the context of a discussion about
> culture these days is highly questionable.****
The key term here is "these days". Definitions (like of the word "art")
have to rely on the nature of their subject. When a definition is
changed (like in the case of the urinal being defined as "art"), it can
no longer stand. This is why your definition of art (which includes
urinals and silent music), is simply false, and this is not a matter of
opinion, becase it is based on the nature (or T..T..Truth) of the object
defined.
>
> > > People who want limits on things are generally those who are frustrated
> > > with how complicated things are and can't handle it. So they start
> > > making things up like arbitrary criteria, or references to
> > > simplificatory analogies, or bringing occult words into the argument
> > > like "truth."
>
If this is not pure nihilism i don't know what is. Pyrhonistic, aren't
we?
> It is in the context! In formal logic the word has a firm definition.
> In a court of law it isn't as steady since eye-witness accounts are
> based upon perception which even in the case of recounting facts is
> highly questionable. Now we have another level, that of aesthetics, and
> I suspect you claim like E.T. to be able to apply the word as if it were
> formal logic!
The whitnesses I bring to strengthen my argument (that urinals are not
art etc.), are merely the common people (who don't count because they
live in trailer-parks), and the history of art. Whereas you are always
on the safe side, since your whitnesses are also the judge and jury (You
are trying to prove a urinal is art, by asking the opinion, or using the
definitions, or adopting the philosophy of Duchamp and yourself). in
other words, (this is good a time as any to appologize for my stupid
english), Your arguments are "it is art because i say so" and "what i
say is true, according to the defendant". What i am trying to do here is
logically present your argument, and yet i am failing. This is because
your argument has no connection with reality. The reality of things is
that some things are art, and they do not become that simply by being
called so.
>
> Though I still don't know what your group's "criteria" are for good vs.
> bad art. If there are no criteria, then what about describing some
> methodology, or whatever... . A separate posting would be good.
>
Done. See "Clarification" (which was written to answer some other
threads as well)
> This is how you were to sum up your intentions, "there is a REAL world,
> and in that world, some assertions are TRUE, and some are FALSE,"
> right... so? Some are true some are false sure, yes so... . "'Fountain'
> is not art," yes... right, that's your opinion, you people all agree.
> What are you saying that is new?
And what are you saying that is profound, prooved?
>
> I hope Ehud will make the effort to answer the question I have asked of
> him in the above posting.
Again, see "Clarification"
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
AARD1VARK
I vote for <<TTFKAA>> rather than the symbol "{@}"
<<TTFKAA>> already has plenty of symbolism.
wsparker
Shabtai Tal wrote:
>
> > Do you have a website or FAQ? You say "no one owes a debt to Duchamp."
>
> my website, to which you are invited to write essays (any opinion), is
> "Focus on Art":
I wasn't asking you guys about YOUR website. I was asking Bruce, whom I
respect for his ability to *write clearly and concisely;* though I may
not agree with what he says.
I went to your website and found the contents obscurantist, confused,
rambling, self-conscious, ill-informed, and feigning scholarly import
while being replete with absurd claims, and outrageous assumptions.
> I started it three weeks ago, so it's still small.
Whatever its size, I personally cannot deal with the extremity of your
writing problems.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > But there isn't any _the_ viewer. There are many viewers,
| > taken either individually or _en_masse_. If the former,
| > anything _a_ viewer says is art, by your definition, is art,
| > so the artist has a fairly easy task of making art; he can
| > (as someone imagined not long ago) portray a bag of garbage
| > as art -- he's a viewer.
|
| > If you go for the community of
| > viewers, then you're talking about majority rule, with all
| > of the pitfalls of that position. (See Komar & Melamid's
| > majority-rule art if you need a demonstration.)
| I need to know more about the pitfalls. In the end I think it *is* a
| matter of consensus. ...
Check out http://www.diacenter.org/km/homepage.html --
tell them I sent you.
Ehud Tal
This is all very nice and friendly. I will make efforts to improve the
quality of the essays I publish on my site.
This does not, however, answer any of my questions in my last posting in
this thread (written under the name Shabtai Tal).
Non of my other questions, in 'clarification' thread have been answered
either. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
Please stick to the point of the postings, not to the petty grammer
mistakes and overall style. It is already clear that superficiality is
one of your "kind"'s strong points.
Ehud Tal
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> | ...
>
> Ehud Tal <bbb...@geocities.com>:
> | it is not about value, but about the nature of things. when a person has
> | a low IQ, he *is* "not smart",
>
> IQ tests is that they don't do well on IQ tests. "IQ"
> is not a faculty; it is a dubious construction in one
> of less exact sciences.
>
Petty petty petty. OK, I'll say it differently:
When a fruit is "rotten", it *is* "not ripe" or "decomposed".
When a ripe fruit is referred to as "rotten", it is a false accusation
or claim. I guess you knew that.
> | just as the case is when so-called-art
> | does not meet certain conditions for being called that. the conditions
> | i'm talking about are not "if the artist says so", but rather "if the
> | viewer feels so". ....
>
> But there isn't any _the_ viewer. There are many viewers,
> taken either individually or _en_masse_. If the former,
> anything _a_ viewer says is art, by your definition, is art,
I said "feels" not "says". I am referring to the observed qualities and
characteristics of art, not to anyone's _personal_definition_ of it.
> so the artist has a fairly easy task of making art; he can
> (as someone imagined not long ago) portray a bag of garbage
> as art -- he's a viewer.
This has also been done, remember? we were talking about a certain
toilette fixture?
>If you go for the community of
> viewers, then you're talking about majority rule, with all
> of the pitfalls of that position. (See Komar & Melamid's
> majority-rule art if you need a demonstration.)
>
Not majority rule. This, again, has nothing to do with imposing a
(shared)_personal_ view or definition of "art" on a minority which holds
a different view. Such coercion is what the Duchampians and followers
are practicing.
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot