King Rundzap realizes that he's stupid!
King Rundzap
Mani and crew are just trolling. I think I overlooked that fact
because I'm not used to trolls taking conservative positions that have
the appearance of being on-topic.
But if you look at the facts
* repeating the same "arguments" over and over without addressing any
objections/serious points
* abandoning attempts at discussions for new controversial posts
* making an art out of strawmen
. . . they're all classic trolling tactics
--King Rundzap
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com...
I noticed that some of your debating tactics include points repeated
which I feel have not been fully justified. Your constant harping
around the point of judgements being subjective, the points made
around the subject of everything being art or anything declared to
be art being art.
Another tactic of challenging people to define closer their own points,
while avoiding anything so clear in your own.
I don't think you are a troll at all, but just another whose opinions are
as fragile as anyone else's.
A troll has to be someone who wishes to set people against each other,
or who has objectives of destroying the basis of the group by flooding it
with off topic posts, and other similar anti social activities.
The question is, can you tolerate that while your opinions exist, there can
be other opinions which challenge their basis?
This has to be constant in the world of art. There always have to be
dissenters,
some of whom may well have opinions that could be mainstream tomorrow.
"Mani and crew". You just mean people who disagree with you, really.
Why have you not ignored the trolls if that is what you really think they
are?
Thur
King Rundzap
> "King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com...
> >I know I'm really slow on some things . . . I just now realized that
> > Mani and crew are just trolling. I think I overlooked that fact
> > because I'm not used to trolls taking conservative positions that have
> > the appearance of being on-topic.
> >
> > But if you look at the facts
> > * repeating the same "arguments" over and over without addressing any
> > objections/serious points
> > * abandoning attempts at discussions for new controversial posts
> > * making an art out of strawmen
> >
> > . . . they're all classic trolling tactics
> > --King Rundzap
> I noticed that some of your debating tactics include points repeated
> which I feel have not been fully justified.
Anything you have a question about I'll do my best to answer
sincerely. That would include saying, "I don't see how that follows",
or anything similar. I'll try to explain why I think something
follows. I can't guarantee that you'll agree that it follows, but I
won't just ignore the question, play dumb, etc.
> Your constant harping
> around the point of judgements being subjective,
If you don't think that follows, it would be great to talk about. Do
you want me to clarify/justify/support why I think value judgments are
subjective? I don't mind going into it in more depth. Then we can
talk about why you don't think the justification works, etc.
> the points made
> around the subject of everything being art or anything declared to
> be art being art.
So also justify why X is art to Joe if Joe thinks that X is art? I
just want to make sure that's what you're looking for before I type
out at least a few hundred words about it.
> Another tactic of challenging people to define closer their own points,
> while avoiding anything so clear in your own.
I'd be glad to address anything you think I was asked and avoided.
What were some of those things?
> I don't think you are a troll at all, but just another whose opinions are
> as fragile as anyone else's.
Okay. Again, I'd be glad to talk about anything you're interested in,
or just want to challenge, etc. in more depth. Just ask me.
> A troll has to be someone who wishes to set people against each other,
> or who has objectives of destroying the basis of the group by flooding it
> with off topic posts, and other similar anti social activities.
I think they can be apparently on-topic, too, though, ala Mani and
crew. I don't think they're trying to catalyze intelligent
discussions about art, I think they're trying to stir up bickering and
flaming. Art is what the trolling is centered around, but that seems
to be a ruse. I'll directly answer any question you have about
anything, as I noted above. Will Mani, Paul and DNALJM do that, or
will they just ignore most of the questions, ignore or creating a
strawman out of any responses that anyone gave who holds a different
opinion (while continuing to post the same old things as if they were
never addressed), and continue to flee to "new" threads designed to
further bickering and flaming?
> The question is, can you tolerate that while your opinions exist, there can
> be other opinions which challenge their basis?
Sure, and unlike the channel trolls, I'm more than willing to talk
about the challenges.
> This has to be constant in the world of art.
There will always be a variety of opinions, yes.
> There always have to be
> dissenters,
> some of whom may well have opinions that could be mainstream tomorrow.
> "Mani and crew". You just mean people who disagree with you, really.
No, I mean specifically, Mani, King Strawman (Paul) and DNALJM. You
don't seem like a troll so far, and Andy, although he seems to have
trouble listening sometimes, doesn't seem like a troll (yet). You
actually seem to have reasonable, thoughtful posts.
> Why have you not ignored the trolls if that is what you really think they
> are?
Well, for one, I seriously didn't think they were trolls until I just
posted the above this morning. I tend to be optimistic and very
patient, so if I'm having to keep going over and over something (like
the C major scale, lol) I usually figure that the other party is
making a sincere effort to understand and communicate--I tend to make
other excuses for why something is ignored or misunderstood rather
than blaming the communication problems on intentional sabotage. But
after a while, it can start to seem doubtful that the difficulties are
accompanied by a sincere effort.
--King Rundzap
Milton
> news:425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com...
> >I know I'm really slow on some things . . . I just now realized that
> > Mani and crew are just trolling. I think I overlooked that fact
> > because I'm not used to trolls taking conservative positions that have
> > the appearance of being on-topic.
> >
> > But if you look at the facts
> > * repeating the same "arguments" over and over without addressing any
> > objections/serious points
> > * abandoning attempts at discussions for new controversial posts
> > * making an art out of strawmen
> >
> > . . . they're all classic trolling tactics
> >
> >
> >
> > --King Rundzap
> A troll has to be someone who wishes to set people against each other,
> or who has objectives of destroying the basis of the group by flooding it
> with off topic posts, and other similar anti social activities.
Well five year old inflamatory posts would certainly seem to qualify.
> The question is, can you tolerate that while your opinions exist, there can
> be other opinions which challenge their basis?
And other opinions which challenge the basis of those.
> This has to be constant in the world of art. There always have to be
> dissenters,
> some of whom may well have opinions that could be mainstream tomorrow.
True but is diversity of opinion really what "Mani and crew" are
fostering? Seems like an unambiguous attack on any practice differing
from a highly conservative set of standards followed by ad hominum
accusations against anyone who disagrees with them.
> "Mani and crew". You just mean people who disagree with you, really.
>
> Why have you not ignored the trolls if that is what you really think they
> are?
> Thur
Well speaking for myself just my own amusement. It's also kinda fun
looking up old artworks to support/refute the discussion on hand.
What's remarkable about most of this NG however is how little informed
these critiques are by anything resembling contemporary scholarship,
curation,
publishing, criticism, exhibitions, what have you.
The reevaluation of Greenbergian high modernism is nearly twently
years old. Suzi Gablik's "Has Modernism Failed?" was published in
1985,
"The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths" by
Rosalind Krauss in 1986.
Since I enjoy going to galleries, discovering new artists, thinking
about different approaches to picture making and reading about the
ideas behind them I basically find ARC and similar attempts to enforce
a
set of standarized generic practices highly reactionary, ill-informed
and intellectually dishonest. (It doesn't help that the examples they
offer often so poorly ape their models. Yow! Nobody's gonna loose any
sleep over James Childs.)
Ironically many of the artists receiving the most recent attention
wear their representational chops on their sleeves:
http://fineart.ac.uk/works/sl00cb/
http://www.echoparkprojects.com/sept_23_2000/index.html
http://www.sadiecoles.com/currin-hi3.html
Comments, questions?
Andrew D
kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
> I know I'm really slow on some things . . . I just now realized that
> Mani and crew are just trolling. I think I overlooked that fact
> because I'm not used to trolls taking conservative positions that have
> the appearance of being on-topic.
You know what the funny thing is King? They probably think you're just trolling.
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.
Andrew D
> "Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message
news:<9Qe5d.81$6g4...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>...
[snip]
> > "Mani and crew". You just mean people who disagree with you, really.
> No, I mean specifically, Mani, King Strawman (Paul) and DNALJM. You
> don't seem like a troll so far, and Andy, although he seems to have
> trouble listening sometimes, doesn't seem like a troll (yet).
I have been described as a troll before - though that was far away from
usenet. And my wife agrees that I suffer from selective deafness.
[snip]> Well, for one, I seriously didn't think they were trolls until I just
> posted the above this morning. I tend to be optimistic and very
> patient, so if I'm having to keep going over and over something (like
> the C major scale, lol) I usually figure that the other party is
> making a sincere effort to understand and communicate--I tend to make
> other excuses for why something is ignored or misunderstood rather
> than blaming the communication problems on intentional sabotage. But
> after a while, it can start to seem doubtful that the difficulties are
> accompanied by a sincere effort.
In my case it's simple and your own definition of art vindicates me. I
don't think some "art" is worthy of being regarded as fine art - and
certainly not elevated to "great art" status. According to your own
philosophy, that means that, for me at least, it isn't art. Therefore, I
am free to state as such and not get dragged into a lengthy philosophical,
pedantic, sideline about why it "could be" art.
What intrigues me is that you say art is something with aesthetic value
but apparently believe aesthetic value to be personal. So you could just
say art is personal and be done with it. Having said that, the remainder
of your lenghty posts is entirely redundant. All the deep and meaningful
philosophy, all the analogies and all the attempts to get others to
explain their own rationale doesn't ad to your basic belief that "art is
what anyone perceives it to be".
King Rundzap
> In my case it's simple and your own definition of art vindicates me. I
> don't think some "art" is worthy of being regarded as fine art - and
> certainly not elevated to "great art" status. According to your own
> philosophy, that means that, for me at least, it isn't art. Therefore, I
> am free to state as such and not get dragged into a lengthy philosophical,
> pedantic, sideline about why it "could be" art.
You'll find that my responses differ based on whether you say
something like, "I don't like that, I don't think it's art, I think it
sucks", versus something like, "You're wrong, that's not art".
Because the first is clearly subjective and the second implies that
there is something objective about being art.
Not that you have to care what responses I have, of course, lol. Just
letting you know :-)
> What intrigues me is that you say art is something with aesthetic value
> but apparently believe aesthetic value to be personal.
Yes. It is subjective. That means it is only in the mind of the
person (the subject) in question.
> So you could just
> say art is personal and be done with it.
It's subjective--right, I keep saying that :-)
> Having said that, the remainder
> of your lenghty posts is entirely redundant.
Yes, they could be. Depends on whether I think someone is just
ignoring it or not. If they're just ignoring something and going on
with something I think is misconceived--the idea that art is not
subjective, but objective, I'll keep reminding them of my views, and
that will get redundant.
> All the deep and meaningful
> philosophy, all the analogies and all the attempts to get others to
> explain their own rationale doesn't ad to your basic belief that "art is
> what anyone perceives it to be".
My basic belief that art is subjective and not objective is based on
that fact that we know we make aesthetic judgments in our minds, but
there is no evidence that those judgments correlate to something
occurent in the universe, outside of minds. There is no evidence, or
no reason I can see to believe, that they inhere in things like
paintings themselves. The people who believe that the judgments
themselves are objective, are either making a pure faith claim or have
some reason that they believe things like aesthetic judgments inhere
in objects like paintings, or permeate the universe somehow. So what
I'm doing is challenging them to at least provide why they believe
that in addition to making aesthetic judgments in our minds, the
judgments also exist externally to minds, so that it could be the case
that the mental content doesn't match the fact in the world outside of
minds, and thus be incorrect.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> In article <425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com>,
> kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
> > I know I'm really slow on some things . . . I just now realized that
> > Mani and crew are just trolling. I think I overlooked that fact
> > because I'm not used to trolls taking conservative positions that have
> > the appearance of being on-topic.
> You know what the funny thing is King? They probably think you're just trolling.
Yeah, probably, but I wouldn't consider them trolls if they had
on-topic discussions (which they might, but it might just be a ruse,
as I said), responded directly to questions or points (this is not
done), asked sincere challenging questions about the topic (this is
not done--the questions are primarily intended as flames or set-ups,
answers are never acknowledged, etc.)
Paul actually tried for a couple days, but as soon as I continued to
disagree with him as he brought up a whole host of psychological and
philosophical issues that I have different views on (I'm not fond of
Freud or Jung, I'm skeptical of most theoretical rather than
experimental psychology, he is an essentialist and I'm a
non-essentialist, he is a universalist and I'm a nominalist, etc.), he
decided to just forget it. Admittedly, it would have taken a very
long time to sort through all that stuff and find some common ground
for premises, if that would have even been possible, so he just
realized that the avenue we were headed on would have taken too much
work to be fruitful. But then, oddly, he preferred to just create a
bunch of strawman arguments instead.
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli
>Ironically many of the artists receiving the most recent attention
>wear their representational chops on their sleeves:
>
>http://fineart.ac.uk/works/sl00cb/
Art school cat vomit
>
>http://www.echoparkprojects.com/sept_23_2000/index.html
dull realism, no ideas
>http://www.sadiecoles.com/currin-hi3.html
fine work, ideas that don't interest me
>Comments, questions?
Where's your work
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
sarpedon
> I know I'm really slow on some things . . . I just now realized that
> Mani and crew are just trolling.
Really not wise to barge into a group and begin labeling people as
trolls simply because you don't care for them. Mani is a nut case but
not a troll.
Wait until you figure out what the word, verbosity, really means
before throwing your weight around.
the sarp
King Rundzap
I can probably type anything I like here :-)
Just reminding you.
--King Rundzap
sarpedon
>
> I can probably type anything I like here :-)
>
> Just reminding you.
>
> --King Rundzap
you can also be relegated to the dumpster, as is soon likely, for
being a blabbering newbie whose mouth is bigger than his brain.
Just reminding you, too.
the sarp
King Rundzap
I'm supposed to care if you killfile me? Why?
--King Rundzap
sarpedon
> I'm supposed to care if you killfile me? Why?
>
> --King Rundzap
You're asking me why you are an idiot? Why?
the sarp
King Rundzap
> kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote in message news
I still don't care if you killfile me after that remarkable comeback,
strangely enough.
--King Rundzap