rationale for modern art
Dilettante
totally abstract art has been finally achieved. ...by 1910 Picasso
and Braque were inventing cubist images without the help of objects, a
development generally termed 'synthetic cubism.' ...in the later
phase (analytic cubism) the artist realizes his complete freedom to
create autonomously, emancipated from the tyranny imposed both by the
object and the limitations of visual sensations. ....the main
difference between between early cubist freedom and contemporary
freedom in art, as found in such movements as neodada, pop, and
'happenings,' is that the stimulus for the artist has shifted. The
avant garde artist ...is not concerned with objects as things which
are to be formally analyzed--the object itself is not the stiumlus.
Instead, he is spurred by the life of the culture itself, and the
values (or lack of them) which it supports. Images of objects and the
world are used as signs, and in some cases as symbols, to comment upon
the ethos of our society. The pop artist or the neo-dadist will use
such cultural images in the same way as a cubist would use the varied
aspects of an object. He will draw them from many sources, often far
removed in origin and unrelated in time, and create his art by means
of painting, collage or construction, in any combination. Or he may
take a familiar object, such as a nation's flag, and render it
strangely unfamiliar by breaking it up and superimposing part upon
part, creating both optical illusion and dadaesque oddity."
This passage from the book, Form, Space, and Vision, by Graham Collier
Dilettante
Thur
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.03121...@posting.google.com...
> which are to be formally analyzed--the object itself is not the stiumlus..
More is the pity.
This is such a break from what has been known as art, that I still
think that the word has been hijacked.
I was thinking of those afore mentioned landscapes which become
a mere physical and cold vision, to be used for some artist's experiment
with shapes and colours.
Those landscapes, lovingly used and interpreted by previous painters
existed both as a rendition of natural beauty and the artists vision of
the scene. Experiments with shapes and colours were not allowed
to intrude over the beautiful vision.
Two world wars have emptied the bowl of life, it would seem.
Thur
Erik A. Mattila
SUSPECT BOOK ALERT! Gee, Dill, I thought everyone knew that Analytic
Cubism PRECEDED Synthetic Cubism. But reading Collier's remarks, one
wonders whatever happened to Clement Greenberg? You know, "art for
art's sake" as the objective of the artist's inquiry? (one could argue
that anything any artist has ever done at any time, ultimately,
addressed the cultural sphere.
Erik
Dilettante
great post. almost like something I would have done.
Dilettante
Chris
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:11kEb.5824$526....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> Two world wars have emptied the bowl of life, it would seem.
The world wars were more a symptom than a cause, I think. The problem lay in
the rapid progress in science & technology and the subsequent urbanization
and industrialization that moved most of western society far away from a
scale one could comprehend.
OTOH, I don't see the future as bleak for the arts. It's moving away from
its hidey-hole of abstraction and self involvement, or at least putting it's
head up over the parapet (even if that does bring to mind the conclusion to
the movie "All Quiet on the Western Front"), and realizing that the worst of
the social dislocation is over. Western society is adapting to technology
and urbanization. Part of that process is coming back to terms with what it
means to be human, and a desire to have that part of life brought back to
the foreground. I think the next decade or two should be a pretty exciting
time for artists that have a strong focus in that direction (and the skills
to bring it off), rather than an academic (modern or otherwise) approach -
who are probably doomed to a lpurgatory of decorating life insurance
buildings.....
Chris
Thur
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:pbDEb.21290$CK3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Thur
Dilettante
not the fault of the book but my own typo, which I inserted, not
having proper square brackets on this keyboard. And of course you
thought nothing of the kind.
But reading Collier's remarks, one
> wonders whatever happened to Clement Greenberg? You know, "art for
> art's sake" as the objective of the artist's inquiry? (one could argue
> that anything any artist has ever done at any time, ultimately,
> addressed the cultural sphere.
One could argue that but not convincingly unless one reasons it out,
which some of us still cannot do.
Erik A. Mattila
What's to reason? It's a truism...art IS culture, period. But please
argue against that. I'm all ears.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Dilettante wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3FE207...@oco.net>...
>
> argue against that. I'm all ears.
>
is not simply culture, and, of course, the reverse doesn't hold.
A persian carpet can be appreciated by somebody with no knowledge of
Persian culture. Aesthetics transcends culture even if it may start of
rooted in it.
--
In the world today all culture, all literature and art belong to
definite classes and are geared to definite political lines. There is
in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above
classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics.
Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian
revolutionary cause; they are, as Lenin said, cogs and wheels in the
whole revolutionary machine.
"Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art" (May 1942), Selected
Works, Vol. III, p. 86 - Mao Tse-Tung
Mani Deli
>"From Cubism, one of the key movements of this century, much of our
>totally abstract art has been finally achieved.
Abstract art is the oldest art form and has been used in decoration
for eons.
>...by 1910 Picasso
>and Braque were inventing cubist images without the help of objects, a
>development generally termed 'synthetic cubism.' ...in the later
>phase (analytic cubism) the artist realizes his complete freedom to
>create autonomously, emancipated from the tyranny imposed both by the
>object and the limitations of visual sensations.
Cubism is schmiery design done partially in axonometric perspective.
The ancient Chinese did this for about 2000 years, without the
schmiers while using better color.
> ....the main
>difference between between early cubist freedom and contemporary
>freedom in art, as found in such movements as neodada, pop, and
>'happenings,' is that the stimulus for the artist has shifted. The
>avant garde artist ...is not concerned with objects as things which
>are to be formally analyzed--the object itself is not the stiumlus.
The talk is!
>Instead, he is spurred by the life of the culture itself, and the
>values (or lack of them) which it supports.
Artspeak. Means nothing.
> Images of objects and the
>world are used as signs, and in some cases as symbols, to comment upon
>the ethos of our society.
and sometimes not.
> The pop artist or the neo-dadist will use
>such cultural images in the same way as a cubist would use the varied
>aspects of an object. He will draw them from many sources, often far
>removed in origin and unrelated in time, and create his art by means
>of painting, collage or construction, in any combination.
Check out old patch quilts.
> Or he may
>take a familiar object, such as a nation's flag, and render it
>strangely unfamiliar by breaking it up and superimposing part upon
>part, creating both optical illusion and dadaesque oddity."
Surrealism is takes real objects and combines them in unrealistic
ways. Nothing really new either.
>This passage from the book, Form, Space, and Vision, by Graham Collier
>
>Dilettante
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservative." -John Stuart Mill
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dilettante
>
> >"From Cubism, one of the key movements of this century, much of our
> >totally abstract art has been finally achieved.
>
> Abstract art is the oldest art form and has been used in decoration
> for eons.
True, but he is speaking of acceptable formal art in advanced Western
societies in the modern era. If what you are saying were really
applicable then, an artist could have done zig zag lines on canvas in
1750 and had it accepted by the Vatican.
> Cubism is schmiery design done partially in axonometric perspective.
> The ancient Chinese did this for about 2000 years, without the
> schmiers while using better color.
Do you mean the German word for grease, schmiere? How does this apply
to the painting technique?
Can you provide illustrations for axonometric technique? You have not
proved it so far vis-a-vis the cubists, but the ancient Egyptians used
something similar to good effect. Which Chinese pieces used it? All
the more reason to continue to practice it, but I would like to see a
clearer explanation of axonometry.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>>
>> >"From Cubism, one of the key movements of this century, much of our
>> >totally abstract art has been finally achieved.
>>
>> Abstract art is the oldest art form and has been used in decoration
>> for eons.
>
>True, but he is speaking of acceptable formal art in advanced Western
>societies in the modern era.
He's speaking about Modern Academic abstraction the only kind allowed
into museums. Art Nouveau and Deco are totally accepted.
> If what you are saying were really
>applicable then, an artist could have done zig zag lines on canvas in
>1750 and had it accepted by the Vatican.
They did the zig-zag lines all over the place along with curved ones.
>> Cubism is schmiery design done partially in axonometric perspective.
>> The ancient Chinese did this for about 2000 years, without the
>> schmiers while using better color.
>
>Do you mean the German word for grease, schmiere? How does this apply
>to the painting technique?
Its the German word for smear.
>Can you provide illustrations for axonometric technique? You have not
>proved it so far vis-a-vis the cubists, but the ancient Egyptians used
>something similar to good effect. Which Chinese pieces used it? All
>the more reason to continue to practice it, but I would like to see a
>clearer explanation of axonometry.
Do your own research. Its stuff you should have learned in art school.
G*rd*n
> > argue against that. I'm all ears.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> Really? Art certainly is part of culture, and important part, but it
> is not simply culture, and, of course, the reverse doesn't hold.
>
> A persian carpet can be appreciated by somebody with no knowledge of
> Persian culture. Aesthetics transcends culture even if it may start of
> rooted in it.
Something transcends culture, but I wouldn't say "aesthetics",
which is, after all, a rhetoric of inquiry and as such bound
to be closely attached to a particular culture. Some feeling,
some experience, rather. But one can't say exactly what it
is without getting in trouble with, oh, that transom. Again.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Dilettante
> >to the painting technique?
>
> Its the German word for smear.
Then why are you applying it to modern cubist painting?
>
>
> >Can you provide illustrations for axonometric technique? You have not
> >proved it so far vis-a-vis the cubists, but the ancient Egyptians used
> >something similar to good effect. Which Chinese pieces used it? All
> >the more reason to continue to practice it, but I would like to see a
> >clearer explanation of axonometry.
>
> Do your own research. Its stuff you should have learned in art school.
It's also the stuff you should have learned to back up on newsgroups
like this. I am loathe to go on wild goose chases based upon your
rabid exaggerations, especially considering your record for hyperbole
in the past. In fact cubism is not axonometric or is a superior form
of it. Axonometric drawings are quite bore and only show two side and
the top. Cubism shows much more.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >
>> >Do you mean the German word for grease, schmiere? How does this apply
>> >to the painting technique?
>>
>> Its the German word for smear.
>
>Then why are you applying it to modern cubist painting?
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Can you provide illustrations for axonometric technique? You have not
>> >proved it so far vis-a-vis the cubists, but the ancient Egyptians used
>> >something similar to good effect. Which Chinese pieces used it? All
>> >the more reason to continue to practice it, but I would like to see a
>> >clearer explanation of axonometry.
>>
Do your own research. Its stuff you should have learned in art school.
>
>It's also the stuff you should have learned to back up on newsgroups
>like this. I am loathe to go on wild goose chases based upon your
>, rabid exaggerations
Right, stick to Nocolaides that way you can avoid "rabid
exaggerations," and anything technical.
>especially considering your record for hyperbole
>in the past.
All the books I mentioned are just hyperbole.
>In fact cubism is not axonometric or is a superior form
>of it. Axonometric drawings are quite bore and only show two side and
>the top. Cubism shows much more.
Stay bored.
And don't forget to repeat Nicolaides' famous art school hyperbole
"THE SOONER YOU MAKE YOUR FIRST FIVE THOUSAND MISTAKES THE
SOONER YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CORRECT THEM. And do tell us what number
mistake you are presently working on and perhaps grace us with a copy
on the net so we can see your progress.
No skill no art!
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3FE5B4B...@oco.net>...
> > > What's to reason? It's a truism...art IS culture, period. But please
> > > argue against that. I'm all ears.
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> > Really? Art certainly is part of culture, and important part, but it
> > is not simply culture, and, of course, the reverse doesn't hold.
> >
> > A persian carpet can be appreciated by somebody with no knowledge of
> > Persian culture. Aesthetics transcends culture even if it may start of
> > rooted in it.
>
>
> Something transcends culture, but I wouldn't say "aesthetics",
> which is, after all, a rhetoric of inquiry and as such bound
> to be closely attached to a particular culture. Some feeling,
> some experience, rather. But one can't say exactly what it
> is without getting in trouble with, oh, that transom. Again.
>
'rhetorics' do you imagine there are and what is a 'rhetoric of
inquiry'?
What, of the several dozen meanings, transom are you worried about
getting in trouble with? How do you get into trouble with a crossbeam,
for example?
What leads you to wish to disagree with my point that aesthetics
transcents culture - since I give a particular example of it doing
just that! To argue that it is limited by culture is to suggest that
perception is limited by culture which is obvious nonsense. Perception
may be informed and enriched by culture, any and all cultures, in
relation to the perception of a feral child, for example, but it is
not limited by it.
G*rd*n
>>>> argue against that. I'm all ears.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
>>> Really? Art certainly is part of culture, and important part, but it
>>> is not simply culture, and, of course, the reverse doesn't hold.
>>>
>>> A persian carpet can be appreciated by somebody with no knowledge of
>>> Persian culture. Aesthetics transcends culture even if it may start of
>>> rooted in it.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> Something transcends culture, but I wouldn't say "aesthetics",
>> which is, after all, a rhetoric of inquiry and as such bound
>> to be closely attached to a particular culture. Some feeling,
>> some experience, rather. But one can't say exactly what it
>> is without getting in trouble with, oh, that transom. Again.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> What makes you think that aesthetics is 'a rhetoric'? What other
> 'rhetorics' do you imagine there are and what is a 'rhetoric of
> inquiry'?
Okay, aesthetics is anything you want it too be -- the care
and keeping of mechanical purple alligators, perhaps. But
when I was a boy, back when people still trudged through
Aristotle, it was the rhetorical inquiry into the nature of
beauty. I imagine they had something similar in China --
theories about what was beautiful and what wasn't. A different
thing from the feeling, the intuition, of beauty, which even
insects may enjoy for all we know. (It is for them, after
all, that flowers bloom and perfuse the air, and not us.)
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> What, of the several dozen meanings, transom are you worried about
> getting in trouble with? How do you get into trouble with a crossbeam,
> for example?
Frankie climbed down from the transom,
She didn't want to see no more;
Rootie-toot-toot, three times she did shoot
Right through that hardwood door.
He was her man,
But he done her wrong, so wrong.
After that she was in a lot of trouble. She was neither in the
room, nor out of it. Hence, the sheriff must lock her up:
I'm sorry as I can be,
But I got to go down to the river
And throw away your key
thus restoring the order of things.
In my case, the door and the transom thereof are between the
_profanum_, the hallway where rhetorics and guns are employed,
and the inner sanctum where, as we know, delightful things
might take place, but where we cannot enter if Kafka's gods
have locked the door and we cannot fit through the transom,
but only look.
Je voyais l'or, et ne pus boire!
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> What leads you to wish to disagree with my point that aesthetics
> transcents culture - since I give a particular example of it doing
> just that! To argue that it is limited by culture is to suggest that
> perception is limited by culture which is obvious nonsense. Perception
> may be informed and enriched by culture, any and all cultures, in
> relation to the perception of a feral child, for example, but it is
> not limited by it.
What I just said. Feral children may enjoy beauty, but they
will be hard put to discuss it or even identify it.
By the way, you're barking up the wrong tree with respect to
Eric's question. Culture is by definition the stuff people
do besides eat, sleep, kill each other, and so forth. Ergo,
art is culture. The sort of aesthetical feelings you seem
to be talking about are quite possible without it.
Dilettante
Every one of your responses is a non-response. You don't connect on a
single point. You failed to back up your axonometric statement
regarding cubism, or to address the sections in Nicolaides about
shading. It is as if your purpose is only to quarrel then when the
facts outrun you, you retreat into sarcasm. You are like a
dissatisfied woman trying to start an argument with her boyfriend just
for the sake arguing.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
>Every one of your responses is a non-response. You don't connect on a
>single point. You failed to back up your axonometric statement
>regarding cubism, or to address the sections in Nicolaides about
>shading.
They are almost useless. You want to learn about shading get a
computer 3d program or a book on perspective. (- a non-response- only
to quarrel-and a retreat into sarcasm)
You failed to look up what axonometric drawing is.
>It is as if your purpose is only to quarrel then when the
>facts outrun you, you retreat into sarcasm. You are like a
>dissatisfied woman trying to start an argument with her boyfriend just
>for the sake arguing.
>
>Dilettante
I'm sure that to a modern art fundamentalist like you an example of
what I wrote is just:
- a non-response
- only to quarrel
-and a retreat into sarcasm (nobody else here ever uses sarcasms)
I wrote the following {non-response.) Perhaps you didn't read it.
Most design principals are totally useless for practical application.
A complete design course could probably be described in ten pages if
they were written in clear English. In modern art academies the
instructors rattle on endlessly about design because they can't teach
the craft. Most of what they say is pure double talk
you wrote:
> All books do have blind spots,
>and I would not be averse to considering another drawing text,
>especially, as you mention, one that did cover perspective, shading,
>and geometry. Do you have a recommendation?
>
Yes, learn plane and solid geometry. . All the Loomis books. These
contain no BS information. Check out the "Famous Artists course," Most
art libraries don't have it as its considered blaspheme. Also books on
artist perspective that get technical. There are many.
For abstract design I recommend books on oriental art and decoration.
For Modern style abstraction look at books on Indian Tantra art
Persian rugs, porcelain. Look at towels, bed sheets patch quilts and
book covers. Ask yourself whether you have learned the competence
necessary to produce similar work.
For starters I always recommend books on cartooning. They teach the
basics of form (not the technical aspect) and drawing from imagination
for beginners.
The book I especially recommend is "How to draw comics the marvel
way." This is not really an instruction book. Its value is that it
summarizes what an artist needs to learn. Take a look at page 10. When
you can do all that is necessary to complete that drawing, you are
some steps beyond a beginner and will have the competence to create
any subject matter you prefer and be able to do what most so-called
artists can't do.
I also recommend that you become an art library inmate. Here you can
find all the latest along with the alternatives to modern art
teaching. You can decide which directions you want to take. A good art
library has yearly illustration books, technical books, old books on
design and a full magazine collection.
I recommend that you flap through all the books on all artists on the
shelves, no matter what the name, containing reproductions and decide
what you like. The art library and at present the net is the best
alternative to much of the useless baloney and slanted art history you
are expected to waste time on in art school.
I personalty found that the art library filled in many holes left by
even my good art teachers. Art school was mostly holes.
Peter H.M. Brooks
philosophy of theory of taste, or of the perception of the beautiful
in nature and art' or 'The science which treats the conditions of
sensuous perception'.
It is indeed different from the qualia that are studied.
Still, I see that you do retreat from your original claims.
>
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> > What, of the several dozen meanings, transom are you worried about
> > getting in trouble with? How do you get into trouble with a crossbeam,
> > for example?
>
>
> Frankie climbed down from the transom,
> She didn't want to see no more;
> Rootie-toot-toot, three times she did shoot
> Right through that hardwood door.
>
So you mean a transom-window. Or, rather, you wanted to refer to a
poem.
>
> In my case, the door and the transom thereof are between the
> _profanum_, the hallway where rhetorics and guns are employed,
> and the inner sanctum where, as we know, delightful things
> might take place, but where we cannot enter if Kafka's gods
> have locked the door and we cannot fit through the transom,
> but only look.
>
You aren't poor Teddy, perchance. He has a problem with that sort of
word-salad.
You appear to be saying that you are too portly to fit through a
metaphorical transom window - a confused and mixed metaphor to say the
least!
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> > What leads you to wish to disagree with my point that aesthetics
> > transcents culture - since I give a particular example of it doing
> > just that! To argue that it is limited by culture is to suggest that
> > perception is limited by culture which is obvious nonsense. Perception
> > may be informed and enriched by culture, any and all cultures, in
> > relation to the perception of a feral child, for example, but it is
> > not limited by it.
>
>
> What I just said. Feral children may enjoy beauty, but they
> will be hard put to discuss it or even identify it.
>
That is not what you just said. You are still confusing aesthetics
with its subject matter.
>
> By the way, you're barking up the wrong tree with respect to
> Eric's question. Culture is by definition the stuff people
> do besides eat, sleep, kill each other, and so forth.
>
No it isn't. It has many definitions, for example (from the OED), 'The
cultivating or development (of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.);
improvement or refinement by education and training.'.
>
> Ergo,
> art is culture. The sort of aesthetical feelings you seem
> to be talking about are quite possible without it.
>
Since you are wrong about the definition your claim doesn't follow.
Again you, here explicitly, confuse aesthetics with qualia.
Dilettante
>
> They are almost useless. You want to learn about shading get a
> computer 3d program or a book on perspective. (- a non-response- only
> to quarrel-and a retreat into sarcasm)
But Nicolaides does address the subject in at least two chapters.
>
> You failed to look up what axonometric drawing is.
Wrong again. But the fact that I did look it up will not dissuade you
from another round of quarrelling.
You have failed to define axonometric drawing (I know what the
technical definition is) and to prove that that is what cubism is. You
cannot, so you circle back around and try to slow the discussion down
here instead of going forward.
>
> >It is as if your purpose is only to quarrel then when the
> >facts outrun you, you retreat into sarcasm. You are like a
> >dissatisfied woman trying to start an argument with her boyfriend just
> >for the sake arguing.
> >
>
> >Dilettante
>
> I'm sure that to a modern art fundamentalist like you an example of
> what I wrote is just:
> - a non-response
Yes, your responses my rebuttal to your comments on Nicolaides were
precisely that.
> - only to quarrel
Which appears to be your main purpose in life and on this ng.
> -and a retreat into sarcasm (nobody else here ever uses sarcasms)
Yes, also that.
>
> I wrote the following {non-response.) Perhaps you didn't read it.
Yes, I did read it twice, and it also contains many ludicrous
mistakes. For example--advising people to learn Western abstraction
from studying oriental abstraction, when the two are utterly different
in concept and purpose.
>
> Most design principals are totally useless for practical application.
> A complete design course could probably be described in ten pages if
> they were written in clear English. In modern art academies the
> instructors rattle on endlessly about design because they can't teach
> the craft. Most of what they say is pure double talk
>
> you wrote:
> > All books do have blind spots,
> >and I would not be averse to considering another drawing text,
> >especially, as you mention, one that did cover perspective, shading,
> >and geometry. Do you have a recommendation?
No need repeat your points here.
> >
> Yes, learn plane and solid geometry. . ...
D.
G*rd*n
>>>>>> What's to reason? It's a truism...art IS culture, period. But please
>>>>>> argue against that. I'm all ears.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
>>>>> Really? Art certainly is part of culture, and important part, but it
>>>>> is not simply culture, and, of course, the reverse doesn't hold.
>>>>>
>>>>> A persian carpet can be appreciated by somebody with no knowledge of
>>>>> Persian culture. Aesthetics transcends culture even if it may start of
>>>>> rooted in it.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>>>> Something transcends culture, but I wouldn't say "aesthetics",
>>>> which is, after all, a rhetoric of inquiry and as such bound
>>>> to be closely attached to a particular culture. Some feeling,
>>>> some experience, rather. But one can't say exactly what it
>>>> is without getting in trouble with, oh, that transom. Again.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
>>> What makes you think that aesthetics is 'a rhetoric'? What other
>>> 'rhetorics' do you imagine there are and what is a 'rhetoric of
>>> inquiry'?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> Okay, aesthetics is anything you want it too be -- the care
>> and keeping of mechanical purple alligators, perhaps. But
>> when I was a boy, back when people still trudged through
>> Aristotle, it was the rhetorical inquiry into the nature of
>> beauty. I imagine they had something similar in China --
>> theories about what was beautiful and what wasn't. A different
>> thing from the feeling, the intuition, of beauty, which even
>> insects may enjoy for all we know. (It is for them, after
>> all, that flowers bloom and perfuse the air, and not us.)
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> According to the OED, and my understanding, aesthetics is 'The
> philosophy of theory of taste, or of the perception of the beautiful
> in nature and art' or 'The science which treats the conditions of
> sensuous perception'.
>
> It is indeed different from the qualia that are studied.
>
> Still, I see that you do retreat from your original claims.
As I said, I recognize your right and freedom to use a word,
or any other sign, in any way you please.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
>>> What, of the several dozen meanings, transom are you worried about
>>> getting in trouble with? How do you get into trouble with a crossbeam,
>>> for example?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> Frankie climbed down from the transom,
>> She didn't want to see no more;
>> Rootie-toot-toot, three times she did shoot
>> Right through that hardwood door.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> So you mean a transom-window. Or, rather, you wanted to refer to a
> poem.
I was speaking metaphorically.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> In my case, the door and the transom thereof are between the
>> _profanum_, the hallway where rhetorics and guns are employed,
>> and the inner sanctum where, as we know, delightful things
>> might take place, but where we cannot enter if Kafka's gods
>> have locked the door and we cannot fit through the transom,
>> but only look.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> You aren't poor Teddy, perchance. He has a problem with that sort of
> word-salad.
>
> You appear to be saying that you are too portly to fit through a
> metaphorical transom window - a confused and mixed metaphor to say the
> least!
It would not be much trouble to demonstrate the total
syntactic and semantic coherence of my previous paragraph.
Perhaps, though, I should not have dragged in poor Kafka on
top of all that baggage, but made him wait for the next bus.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
>>> What leads you to wish to disagree with my point that aesthetics
>>> transcents culture - since I give a particular example of it doing
>>> just that! To argue that it is limited by culture is to suggest that
>>> perception is limited by culture which is obvious nonsense. Perception
>>> may be informed and enriched by culture, any and all cultures, in
>>> relation to the perception of a feral child, for example, but it is
>>> not limited by it.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> What I just said. Feral children may enjoy beauty, but they
>> will be hard put to discuss it or even identify it.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> That is not what you just said. You are still confusing aesthetics
> with its subject matter.
In the sentence you are commenting on, I did just the
opposite, as it happens.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> By the way, you're barking up the wrong tree with respect to
>> Eric's question. Culture is by definition the stuff people
>> do besides eat, sleep, kill each other, and so forth.
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> No it isn't. It has many definitions, for example (from the OED), 'The
> cultivating or development (of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.);
> improvement or refinement by education and training.'.
Just as you can use a word to use anything you want, so Eric
can use a word to mean anything he wants. Clearly, he was
using culture in the anthropological sense. If you want to
engage his challenge, you will have to go onto his rhetorical
ground; but I suggest you save yourself this waste of effort.
> ...
Erik A. Mattila
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net>:
If I may speak for myself, I usually use the word "culture" in the sense
pontificated by Ed Sapir, in his essay "Culture: Genuine and Spurious."
— Sapir, Edward. 1924. Culture, Genuine and Spurious. American Journal
of Sociology 29:401-429 (reprinted, pp. 78-119 in "Culture, Language
and Personality", by Edward Sapir Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California
Press. 1949)
I like it because Sapir uses the word "art" to illustrate the inherent
vagueness of the word "culture." Let's see if I can remember:
(paraphrase) "...we generally agree that "art" is something we like, so
when we go to a gallery and see work we don't like, we don't say "then,
I don't like art" - we say "that isn't art."" Pete's OED cite seems to
fall into Sapir's "spurious" category, but to be honest I would have to
reread Sapir to say so for sure. (You're spot-on about the anthro
connotation, btw.)
But let's go back to the context of my daring statement: as I recall, it
was in response to some statement about "some" artists' work addressing
culture, and "others" work addressing something else. I don't accept
the dichotomy. Since we've seen a lot about cubism here, recently,
let's say if Picasso & Braque were addressing Einsteins "relativity"
with Analytic Cubism, were they addressing culture or science? Well,
you know...at the time Einstein's radical ideas were all the talk of
Paris intellectual circles (perfect "avant garde" science stuff) so A.C.
was a representation of that cafe talk as well as the science behind it.
Definitely "culture", in my book. Heheheheh, but is "science"
"culture"? I think so. That ought to raise some hairs.
Erik
>
>
>>...
>
>
Phan C. Pant
>Heheheheh, but is "science"
>"culture"? I think so. That ought to raise some hairs.
>
>Erik
We simple minded folk tend to think simplistically.
That having been established, then I have a problem
with defining broad terms like "science, art and
culture" narrowly (or restrictively). Unless you're
defining "culture" as that aspect of "science"
wherein something is propagated in a dish of agar.
I find it amusing when people refer to themselves
or others as being "cultured" since my dictionary
restrictively defines that word to mean:
1: Cultivated 2: Produced under artificial conditions.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> vagueness of the word "culture." Let's see if I can remember:
>
> (paraphrase) "...we generally agree that "art" is something we like, so
> when we go to a gallery and see work we don't like, we don't say "then,
> I don't like art" - we say "that isn't art."" Pete's OED cite seems to
> fall into Sapir's "spurious" category, but to be honest I would have to
> reread Sapir to say so for sure. (You're spot-on about the anthro
> connotation, btw.)
>
>
> But let's go back to the context of my daring statement: as I recall, it
> was in response to some statement about "some" artists' work addressing
> culture, and "others" work addressing something else. I don't accept
> the dichotomy. Since we've seen a lot about cubism here, recently,
> let's say if Picasso & Braque were addressing Einsteins "relativity"
> with Analytic Cubism, were they addressing culture or science? Well,
> you know...at the time Einstein's radical ideas were all the talk of
> Paris intellectual circles (perfect "avant garde" science stuff) so A.C.
> was a representation of that cafe talk as well as the science behind it.
> Definitely "culture", in my book. Heheheheh, but is "science"
> "culture"? I think so. That ought to raise some hairs.
>
Slick Willie's question - 'It depends what 'is' means'.
If A is B then you imply a two way mapping, for all x in A, x is in B
and for all x in B, x is in A. An equality, an isomorphism or a
congruence between the two.
Art is not culture in this sense, nor is science.
However, if you take culture an an anthropological sense as; 'what
group X do', then for all behaviours that are not innate, genetically
determined or absolutely environmentally fixed, the label culture can
be attached.
To give examples of these, self-preservation is innate,
left-handedness is absoltuely environmentally fixed in the womb and
hair colour is genetically determined, so none of these, nor their
manifestations are cultural.
Science is part of culture, certainly, in particular science is a
sub-culture, a culture within a culture. This is, of course, speaking
vaguely again, one should properly say that scientists form a
sub-culture, just as artists form a sub-culture, with, as with any
sub-culture, shared behaviours and beliefs.
Science is the product of what scientists do so could, like a
painting, be seen as a cultural artifact.
There is a big difference between these two artifacts, lets call sets
of them them S and A, though some things are true of both.
In this discussion, as in many others, the biggest difference is a
consistent set of rules.
You can take any s that is an element of S and show what rules it
obeys in order to be in S (peer-reviewed for; logical and mathematical
consistency both internal and with other members of S, experimental
verification, if a theory rather than a result then a clear route to
experimental or logical refutation).
This is not the case with any a that is an element of A. There are
many reasons for this, non-artists can make judgements on the
membership of A and be taken seriously - something possible as no
special knowledge is required to make such judgements [a point that
itself is disagreed with by some - some believe that academic training
can produce an objective decision on membership of A].
An important similarity between both is that they vary superficially
over time, as culture does. Thus you can point to elements that were
agreed to be either science or art at some previous time that are not
agreed to be now and the reverse.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net>:
>
>
> or any other sign, in any way you please.
>
rather sound as if you have a mild case of semiotics - there are many
good cures for this condition, adulthood being one of the best.
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> >>> What, of the several dozen meanings, transom are you worried about
> >>> getting in trouble with? How do you get into trouble with a crossbeam,
> >>> for example?
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> >> Frankie climbed down from the transom,
> >> She didn't want to see no more;
> >> Rootie-toot-toot, three times she did shoot
> >> Right through that hardwood door.
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> > So you mean a transom-window. Or, rather, you wanted to refer to a
> > poem.
>
>
> I was speaking metaphorically.
>
woodcutters and other practical people manage to avoid it.
You don't make it clear whether you intended to be metaphorical in
your reference to the poem or to the transom-window [a US expression
with which I was not familiar].
>
> It would not be much trouble to demonstrate the total
> syntactic and semantic coherence of my previous paragraph.
> Perhaps, though, I should not have dragged in poor Kafka on
> top of all that baggage, but made him wait for the next bus.
>
That might well have been sensible. Mixing your metaphors is an fault
you might well work to avoid as well.
>
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> >>> What leads you to wish to disagree with my point that aesthetics
> >>> transcents culture - since I give a particular example of it doing
> >>> just that! To argue that it is limited by culture is to suggest that
> >>> perception is limited by culture which is obvious nonsense. Perception
> >>> may be informed and enriched by culture, any and all cultures, in
> >>> relation to the perception of a feral child, for example, but it is
> >>> not limited by it.
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> >> What I just said. Feral children may enjoy beauty, but they
> >> will be hard put to discuss it or even identify it.
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> > That is not what you just said. You are still confusing aesthetics
> > with its subject matter.
>
>
> In the sentence you are commenting on, I did just the
> opposite, as it happens.
>
You confused the subject matter with aesthetics?
>
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> >> By the way, you're barking up the wrong tree with respect to
> >> Eric's question. Culture is by definition the stuff people
> >> do besides eat, sleep, kill each other, and so forth.
>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk (Peter H.M. Brooks):
> > No it isn't. It has many definitions, for example (from the OED), 'The
> > cultivating or development (of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.);
> > improvement or refinement by education and training.'.
>
>
> Just as you can use a word to use anything you want, so Eric
> can use a word to mean anything he wants. Clearly, he was
> using culture in the anthropological sense. If you want to
> engage his challenge, you will have to go onto his rhetorical
> ground; but I suggest you save yourself this waste of effort.
>
No, you can't legitimately use a word to mean anything you wish - nor
even use a word to use anything.
It isn't actually clear what sense somebody is meaning when he claims
that X is Y. One can see that it is a less foolish identity he were
considering X and Y in particular senses, but to claim that X is Y is
a mistake unless they are indeed identities, in all senses or if you
have a rider making the particular sense, meaning or definition
required for sense, clear.
Thur
>This is, of course, speaking vaguely again<
definition, and although you may be satisfied with the
result, that is not much use if there exist many other meanings
and nuances.
To do this, you need words that are new, or to construct new
phrases so that they can be used just for the one definition
that you appear to be searching for.
A British example would be "New Labour". Both words well used,
but roped in to try to make a new definition of something.
An example of a word that continues to defy a satisfactory definition
is art.
Thur
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0a7ef65.03122...@posting.google.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > It appears vague because it encompasses so much.
> You start off ok,
> >This is, of course, speaking vaguely again<
> Then you try to force the language into a certain scientific
> definition, and although you may be satisfied with the
> result, that is not much use if there exist many other meanings
> and nuances.
>
Why is defining things an attempt to 'force' the language anywhere?
Language is a tool, tools need sharpening if they are to be used
effectively, so does language, good definitions help sharpen
linguistic tools. More importantly they reveal the argument rather
than have it obscured by semantics.
>
> To do this, you need words that are new, or to construct new
> phrases so that they can be used just for the one definition
> that you appear to be searching for.
>
Maybe a neologism is sometimes required - fustbariclation is one I
found useful. Usually, however, they are not - as I demonstrate with
fustbariclation.
>
> A British example would be "New Labour". Both words well used,
> but roped in to try to make a new definition of something.
>
New 'error of judgement' Labour isn't really a very good example as it
isn't really describing anything new - Bliar and his ilk whose only
interest is their own position, are well known and not particularly
interesting creatures.
>
> An example of a word that continues to defy a satisfactory definition
> is art.
>
To whom is the definition in the OED unsatisfactory? I am perfectly
happy with it.
What exactly do you find unsatisfactory about it?
Thur
> > is art.
> To whom is the definition in the OED unsatisfactory? I am perfectly
> happy with it.
> What exactly do you find unsatisfactory about it?
Look at the many attempts in this group to come to an agreement
on the word.
Some on this group say "art is everything", and others "whatever the
artist says is art".
During the 20th century, art has become ever more something that
"challenges our very assumptions on what is art". It has reached
the point in some quarters that unless the work carries that very
challenge to the viewer it is not recognised as an original work,
and dismissed with words such as "derivative".
When you come to this group and use the word 'art ' in your posts,
no-one is going to reach for their Oxford English Dictionary, or any
other, because we all have our own (and possibly unique) definitions.
This is the basis of many threads.
I am sorry that you chose to deviate from my example of new meanings.
I had hoped it was a good example.
"fustbariclation" is a word, maybe but not in my dictionary.
Perhaps you are coining one to mean "the use of semantics to confuse
the opposition"? :-)
Thur
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0a7ef65.03122...@posting.google.com...
Dilettante
> Maybe a neologism is sometimes required - fustbariclation is one I
> found useful. Usually, however, they are not - as I demonstrate with
> fustbariclation.
What does fustbariclation mean please? I could not find in a
dictionary search. Do you mean obfuscation?
Dilettante
Erik A. Mattila
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message news:<gA0Ib.12793$FN.1...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
>
>>>It appears vague because it encompasses so much.
>>
>> You start off ok,
>>
>>>This is, of course, speaking vaguely again<
>>
>>Then you try to force the language into a certain scientific
>>definition, and although you may be satisfied with the
>>result, that is not much use if there exist many other meanings
>>and nuances.
>>
>
> What is 'scientific' about definitions?
>
> Why is defining things an attempt to 'force' the language anywhere?
>
> Language is a tool, tools need sharpening if they are to be used
> effectively, so does language, good definitions help sharpen
> linguistic tools. More importantly they reveal the argument rather
> than have it obscured by semantics.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. A "tool" like that old Larson "Far Side" cartoon.
Two cavemen, one obviously working on a stone wheel, the other the
"apprentice" holding a tool box. The journeyman is holding up a stone,
and saying: "I told you to bring me a cresent wrench. This is a hammer!
...hmmm, well, maybe it is a crescent wrench".
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3FEF9139...@oco.net>...
>
>>G*rd*n wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net>:
>>
>>
>>I like it because Sapir uses the word "art" to illustrate the inherent
>>vagueness of the word "culture." Let's see if I can remember:
>>
>
> It appears vague because it encompasses so much.
>
>>(paraphrase) "...we generally agree that "art" is something we like, so
>>when we go to a gallery and see work we don't like, we don't say "then,
>>I don't like art" - we say "that isn't art."" Pete's OED cite seems to
>>fall into Sapir's "spurious" category, but to be honest I would have to
>>reread Sapir to say so for sure. (You're spot-on about the anthro
>>connotation, btw.)
>>
>
> You'd need to describe his categorisation for us to decide.
Well, I do remember ethnicity on one side of his bipolar construct, and
sprezzatura on the other.
>
>>But let's go back to the context of my daring statement: as I recall, it
>>was in response to some statement about "some" artists' work addressing
>>culture, and "others" work addressing something else. I don't accept
>>the dichotomy. Since we've seen a lot about cubism here, recently,
>>let's say if Picasso & Braque were addressing Einsteins "relativity"
>>with Analytic Cubism, were they addressing culture or science? Well,
>>you know...at the time Einstein's radical ideas were all the talk of
>>Paris intellectual circles (perfect "avant garde" science stuff) so A.C.
>>was a representation of that cafe talk as well as the science behind it.
>> Definitely "culture", in my book. Heheheheh, but is "science"
>>"culture"? I think so. That ought to raise some hairs.
>>
>
> I think that part of the problem here, as elsewhere at the moment, is
> Slick Willie's question - 'It depends what 'is' means'.
Very good example. So Einstein wouldn't permit simultaniety in his
universe, so without doubt the "to be" verb is archaic and atavistic.
Which is why I liked Willy - so modern.
>
> If A is B then you imply a two way mapping, for all x in A, x is in B
> and for all x in B, x is in A. An equality, an isomorphism or a
> congruence between the two.
>
> Art is not culture in this sense, nor is science.
Einstein would agree, so who am I to argue?
> However, if you take culture an an anthropological sense as; 'what
> group X do', then for all behaviours that are not innate, genetically
> determined or absolutely environmentally fixed, the label culture can
> be attached.
But why? I mean a staph culture is innate, fixed etc.
Erik A. Mattila
I was just going to add that it doesn't seem that complex or even
"suspect" to say art is culture (Einstein aside). As I understand it,
Cavemen made three types in Europe - magic stuff, instructional stuff
(how to flay a wildebeeste) and everything else. It was all part of
their cultural production (Solutrean, Magdalenian or whatever). Why is
it different today? My argument is that it's not.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<veeruvo6mardrcd9s...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> They are almost useless. You want to learn about shading get a
>> computer 3d program or a book on perspective. (- a non-response- only
>> to quarrel-and a retreat into sarcasm)
>
>But Nicolaides does address the subject in at least two chapters.
>
Like where?
The book claims to teach drawing. Every student example shows work of
students who cant draw,who know almost nothing. Its the art school
drawing Bible for those learning Modern Academic Art fundamentalism.
>> you wrote:
>> > All books do have blind spots,
>> >and I would not be averse to considering another drawing text,
>> >especially, as you mention, one that did cover perspective, shading,
>> >and geometry. Do you have a recommendation?
>
>No need repeat your points here.
>
since you are incapable of addressing them.
And don't forget to repeat Nicolaides' famous art school hyperbole
"THE SOONER YOU MAKE YOUR FIRST FIVE THOUSAND MISTAKES THE
SOONER YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CORRECT THEM. And do tell us what number
mistake you are presently working on and perhaps grace us with a copy
on the net so we can see your progress.
Peter H.M. Brooks
said that I found it useful. It is defined in google news.
Here is the definition: 'a neologism that does not describe a new
idea, thing, design or other novelty in a useful manner that
replicates a phrase. Neither does it provide an interesting twist, a
novel way of seeing something well known, nor is it amusing.'
I coined it in 1998, Message-ID: <886851...@psyche.demon.co.uk>#1/1