Um...
Electric Nachos
King Rundzap
those works, basically they're legal knock-offs. There are good
copyright issues to discuss there, but all the works those
reproduction places publicly (at least) offer "copies" of are in
public domain. Personally, I lean towards the view that copyright
should never expire (although I agree there are sticky issues there),
but on the other hand, if someone really wants an oil painting of a
van Gogh work, it's nice that they can get one if they don't have 50
million dollars, assuming the work they want would even be for sale.
On the third hand, I'd prefer to see them buy a giclee that recreates
texture (not sure if those have a special name, or how they work, but
I've seen them in galleries), but on the fourth hand (call me Kali),
those types of prints are not available for most works.
If you're an atist with your own website, it probably won't be long
before one of those reproduction places contacts you. Apparently,
they're always searching for artists, so they must have a high enough
demand, combined with maybe a low percentage of artists willing to do
the work for what they must be paying, that they have to constantly
search for talent. I've already been contacted a couple times by
reproduction websites (despite the fact that I don't think I could
copy other artists' work well enough to please someone looking for an
"exact reproduction", and my work doesn't suggest that I'd do that,
either).
--King Rundzap
"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message news:<10ja97r...@corp.supernews.com>...
> http://palettesofvision.com/Reproductions/william_bouguereau/Bouguereau_pg3.
> html
>
> ???
Electric Nachos
bunch of naked kids her boobs????
What the hell is that?
And the expression on the woman's face - the inverted nipple - the painting
as a whole is nothing short of... disturbing.
King Rundzap wrote in message
<425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com>...
King Rundzap
> Nah - I'm trippin' off of the subject matter... a grown woman showing a
> bunch of naked kids her boobs????
>
> What the hell is that?
LOL -- that's the beauty of Bouguereau (only said half-sarcastically).
In my view, he was pretty kinky, liked young women, and had a foot
fetish (among other things). The foot fetish I especially noticed,
because I have a foot fetish also, and women's feet have a frequent
prominent role in his work.
> And the expression on the woman's face - the inverted nipple - the painting
> as a whole is nothing short of... disturbing.
--That's my bag :-) I like disturbing, twisted stuff the best (and
for example, with artists like da Vinci, my favorite work of his is
his grotesques), and I usually try to create disturbing things in my
own work.
--King Rundzap
Electric Nachos
news:<10jbt4v...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Nah - I'm trippin' off of the subject matter... a grown woman showing a
>> bunch of naked kids her boobs????
>>
>> What the hell is that?
>
>LOL -- that's the beauty of Bouguereau (only said half-sarcastically).
> In my view, he was pretty kinky, liked young women, and had a foot
>fetish (among other things). The foot fetish I especially noticed,
>because I have a foot fetish also, and women's feet have a frequent
>prominent role in his work.
Women, and women's nudity, doesn't pose a problem for me. It's the
repetitive placement of nude children with nude women that's whack. Now mind
you - I'm no prude - I can certainly see a degree of innocence between a
nude mother and child (in particular, the moment of birth - bonding - breast
feeding - bathing, etc.) but this seems to be an obsession with Sir
Boog-a-roo. And since the nude female figure is not interacting with the
nude children in these *normal* circumstances, but instead, has these babies
"dancing" or "prancing" around her, or layin' up all on her lap like that,
suggests that these paintings might have been Boog's way of getting his
nasty freak on!
I believe the Boog liked a little more than just young woman...
>> And the expression on the woman's face - the inverted nipple - the
painting
>> as a whole is nothing short of... disturbing.
>
>--That's my bag :-) I like disturbing, twisted stuff the best (and
>for example, with artists like da Vinci, my favorite work of his is
>his grotesques), and I usually try to create disturbing things in my
>own work.
I don't like disturbing, but I'm interested in why you make such things. Are
you possessed? (Hey that shit happens!!)
>--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> I don't like disturbing, but I'm interested in why you make such things. Are
> you possessed? (Hey that shit happens!!)
Well, I do ask for feedback from patrons "including stories of how
your painting caused you to solicit the services of an exorcist", so
maybe, lol. But seriously, I don't know if I can give something that
sounds like a "good reason" that I like that kind of stuff the best .
. . it just gets my nasty freak on. I'm attracted to odd, wacky,
disturbing people, things, and also horror--I'm a huge horror fan
(films, fiction, etc.), but I also have an odd sense of humor, so that
combo is what I like the best in art, too (although as you can tell
from past posts here, there is no art that I "hate" or would make
elitist-sounding disparaging comments about. I like almost all art at
least a bit, and there is plenty I like a lot that doesn't fall into
my "favorite" category).
--King Rundzap
Electric Nachos
>your painting caused you to solicit the services of an exorcist", so
>maybe, lol. But seriously, I don't know if I can give something that
>sounds like a "good reason" that I like that kind of stuff the best .
>. . it just gets my nasty freak on. I'm attracted to odd, wacky,
>disturbing people, things, and also horror--I'm a huge horror fan
>(films, fiction, etc.), but I also have an odd sense of humor, so that
>combo is what I like the best in art, too (although as you can tell
>from past posts here, there is no art that I "hate" or would make
>elitist-sounding disparaging comments about. I like almost all art at
>least a bit, and there is plenty I like a lot that doesn't fall into
>my "favorite" category).
People like you....
I have no comment.
Cause I've given birth to one.
One who found some parts of "The Exorcist" funny - and then whined that it
was "boring" before falling asleep towards the end.
:'-(
He is 7 years old.
And imo... the anti-christ.
But I will say this: Good luck when Heppy Jesus and Mel Gibson wreak their
smelly wrath upon you and your horror-movie fan ilk! And by the jolly
ranchers of God Almighty himself, May the Force be With you!
(i'm-an-hoppen-step)
>--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> King Rundzap wrote in message
> <425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >Well, I do ask for feedback from patrons "including stories of how
> >your painting caused you to solicit the services of an exorcist", so
> >maybe, lol. But seriously, I don't know if I can give something that
> >sounds like a "good reason" that I like that kind of stuff the best .
> >. . it just gets my nasty freak on. I'm attracted to odd, wacky,
> >disturbing people, things, and also horror--I'm a huge horror fan
> >(films, fiction, etc.), but I also have an odd sense of humor, so that
> >combo is what I like the best in art, too (although as you can tell
> >from past posts here, there is no art that I "hate" or would make
> >elitist-sounding disparaging comments about. I like almost all art at
> >least a bit, and there is plenty I like a lot that doesn't fall into
> >my "favorite" category).
>
> People like you....
>
> I have no comment.
>
> Cause I've given birth to one.
>
> One who found some parts of "The Exorcist" funny - and then whined that it
> was "boring" before falling asleep towards the end.
You need to start showing him stuff like the Evil Dead films, the
Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, Romero's zombie films, etc. :-)
--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>You need to start showing him stuff like the Evil Dead films, the
>Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, Romero's zombie films, etc. :-)
For Heaven's Sake. He's just a kid!
Start with Fright Night, House (1 & 2), Vamp, Christine, Lost Boys and
Poltergeist (Evil Dead 3 is okay as well for children, I guess). You
have to go easy on kids ;-)
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
I would agree with some of those - maybe "Hell Raiser" too... (just can't
seem to remember the "House" or "Evil Dead" series)...
Funny thing is, we finally saw the Passion of Christ (twice, cause it's
gross) and the poor fellow ran out of the room to play right before they
beat the hell out of Heppy Jesus. I just couldn't bring myself to call him
back into the room to watch it. And I can't believe I might watch it again.
(sick!!) I think the Passion tops every horror movie ever made!
Paul Mesken
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>
>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>On 4 Sep 2004 07:34:56 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You need to start showing him stuff like the Evil Dead films, the
>>>Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, Romero's zombie films, etc. :-)
>>
>>For Heaven's Sake. He's just a kid!
>>
>>Start with Fright Night, House (1 & 2), Vamp, Christine, Lost Boys and
>>Poltergeist (Evil Dead 3 is okay as well for children, I guess). You
>>have to go easy on kids ;-)
>
>I would agree with some of those - maybe "Hell Raiser" too... (just can't
>seem to remember the "House" or "Evil Dead" series)...
House (1 & 2 but 3 much less) were just very funny movies. They had
some mild jumps (especially House 1). It's about a house having
portals to other worlds with lots of creepy stuff going on.
Personally, I think Horror for kids shouldn't be disturbing (something
like "The Ring", "The Thing", etc. so called "uncanny" movies) but
funny and fast paced.
Showing a 7 year old "Hellraiser", are you sure about that? When I was
7 I cried myself to sleep in the dark because I was afraid of the
woman with the red eyes (from some promotional clip of a horror movie
shown before some child movie) and became a "back sleeper" (which I
got used to and still am today) because I feared a little probe might
be drilled in the back of my neck as I saw in the original version of
"Space Invaders from Mars".
Aah, I was such a wussie back then :-) I became addicted to Horror
when I was around 16 or something and nowadays I collect lots of
Horror (especially from the 80s for melancholy value). Ah! The
memories ;-)
>Funny thing is, we finally saw the Passion of Christ (twice, cause it's
>gross) and the poor fellow ran out of the room to play right before they
>beat the hell out of Heppy Jesus. I just couldn't bring myself to call him
>back into the room to watch it. And I can't believe I might watch it again.
>(sick!!) I think the Passion tops every horror movie ever made!
Sounds good! I must definitely see it. I suspected from the stories
that good old Mel Gibson gets turned on by the suffering of Jesus :-)
Talking about sick movies. Have you seen Caligula? (unrated of course,
with Malcom McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, etc. a stellar
cast) It such a great movie (albeit badly edited) and had me in
stitches because McDowell is so great in playing the spoiled
sadistical scoundrel he's so well known for.
Electric Nachos
Yah, I can't really remember the plots of most of the "oldies but goldies" -
(Did they even have plots?) - so I don't know if it's appropriate or not.
But bear in mind, I showed a 7 yr old the exorcist!
WHICH (in my own defense) I didn't show them (the kids) out of mindless -
ignorant parenting. I did it out of evil "I have power over you" parenting
and honestly just wanted to put the fear of God into their little butts. I
figured that if they saw that movie, the bizarre concept of praying would
suddenly make sense. Man, I turned off all the lights so the whole den was
pitch black and made sure all radios were off - anything that would disrupt
the flow of potential fear, I eliminated. What did I get? Laughter?!?!
<rolling eyes> What a failed experiment.
Anyway, that was one reason. The other reason (believe it or not) is that I
used to live right across the street from where the real exorcism took
place. Alexian Brother's Hospital. Totally redone and the floor of the
exorcism has been removed. Anyway, I was telling my teen that the story is
true and everything, but he just rolled his eyes like, "Yeah, right Mom." So
I borrowed a copy of the movie and attempted to scare the shit out my own
monkeys.
They weren't impressed. But I would definitely like to see how they would
react to the others you mentioned.
>Aah, I was such a wussie back then :-) I became addicted to Horror
>when I was around 16 or something and nowadays I collect lots of
>Horror (especially from the 80s for melancholy value). Ah! The
>memories ;-)
The last horror movie I saw (or tried to watch) was Freddie vs. Jason. And
maybe that other movie w/ Jason in it - the last one... Jason IV?? Anyway, I
discovered that today's horror movies are much more graphic (too much for
me) and difficult to watch as an adult. As a naive kid - the horrible things
done in the movies seemed impossible - like "no one except a monster (which
[safely] doesn't exist)" would do such things. And they never showed more
than what was necessary. (Didn't look too real either). However as a
news-aware adult, well... the impossible has become a reality. Horror movies
of the past were great. Today, they are prolonged musical murders in detail
and I just can't take it anymore.
>>Funny thing is, we finally saw the Passion of Christ (twice, cause it's
>>gross) and the poor fellow ran out of the room to play right before they
>>beat the hell out of Heppy Jesus. I just couldn't bring myself to call him
>>back into the room to watch it. And I can't believe I might watch it
again.
>>(sick!!) I think the Passion tops every horror movie ever made!
>
>Sounds good! I must definitely see it. I suspected from the stories
>that good old Mel Gibson gets turned on by the suffering of Jesus :-)
Dude - don't watch it on a full stomach. Forget the religion, forget the
message (ain't none except to jerk a few tears from you), and forget the
hype. If you're into maggots, rotten teeth, rampant flesh cutting, (yes, I
said cutting - they cut that man so bad he looked like a walking mosaic!)
constant beating, bruising, enough dripping blood to re-flood the Nile, then
yeah - see it! There's 2 and 1/2 hours of this stuff!!
I've come to the conclusion that the "religious" purpose of this movie is to
elicit sympathetic belief in Christianity. About 2/3rds into the movie,
you've got a walking corpse [ribs exposed from the flesh-ripping whipping]
carrying his own cross up a long ass dusty and rocky road (while constantly
being beaten by soldiers, mind you) . Okay, that's just sick. You'll get
sick. You'll connect with the character on an emotional level - one of
sympathy - so you will sympathize w/ Christ and thus "give him a chance" if
you don't already do. A Christianity "Gotcha" of sorts.
Blecch. Nasty Trickery if ya ask me.
Horror fans should enjoy watching a perfectly healthy man slowly deteriorate
before your eyes ... skin layer by skin layer... swelling bruise over
swelling bruise... exposed bone by exposed bone...
Did I say there was a lot a dripping blood? I thought it was dripping sweat
at first. But Nope. It was blood.
>Talking about sick movies. Have you seen Caligula? (unrated of course,
>with Malcom McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, etc. a stellar
>cast) It such a great movie (albeit badly edited) and had me in
>stitches because McDowell is so great in playing the spoiled
>sadistical scoundrel he's so well known for.
>
No - never heard of it!! ?
Paul Mesken
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>But bear in mind, I showed a 7 yr old the exorcist!
>
>WHICH (in my own defense) I didn't show them (the kids) out of mindless -
>ignorant parenting. I did it out of evil "I have power over you" parenting
>and honestly just wanted to put the fear of God into their little butts.
But.. But.. God is Infinite Love.
Hmm, probably too difficult a concept to grasp by their youthfull
minds (I've been reading a bit of Meher Baba, can you tell? ;-)
>I figured that if they saw that movie, the bizarre concept of praying would
>suddenly make sense. Man, I turned off all the lights so the whole den was
>pitch black and made sure all radios were off - anything that would disrupt
>the flow of potential fear, I eliminated. What did I get? Laughter?!?!
><rolling eyes> What a failed experiment.
Ah it backfired. My mum was very successfull with Santa Claus (well,
"Sinterklaas" in the Netherlands, exists next to Santa Claus and
brings presents as well, based on a real bishop and not on a design by
Coca Cola Company).
Whenever me and my sister showed textbook cases of sibbling rivalry my
mum yelled through the chimney "Oh Santa Claus!".
It never failed to work. Use their Greed against them, it's one of the
very first sins that appear in children ;-)
>Anyway, that was one reason. The other reason (believe it or not) is that I
>used to live right across the street from where the real exorcism took
>place. Alexian Brother's Hospital. Totally redone and the floor of the
>exorcism has been removed. Anyway, I was telling my teen that the story is
>true and everything, but he just rolled his eyes like, "Yeah, right Mom." So
>I borrowed a copy of the movie and attempted to scare the shit out my own
>monkeys.
Ah, children are so cynical nowadays. It takes away all magic and
leaves very little in its place :-)
>The last horror movie I saw (or tried to watch) was Freddie vs. Jason.
Great movie! The special edition is great. It has audio commentary by
Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Ken Kirzinger (Jason, in this movie)
and director Ronny Yu. That Englund is one sick guy ;-) (BTW in real
life he's a very nice chap, he also played nice characters like Willy,
the friendly alien, in the SF series "V").
>And
>maybe that other movie w/ Jason in it - the last one... Jason IV??
Jason X, the tenth entry of the Friday the 13th series.
>Today, they are prolonged musical murders in detail
>and I just can't take it anymore.
Yes, it's a bit "form over content" nowadays. More about quantity than
quality. John Carpenter (director of many great horror movies like
Halloween, The Thing, Prince of Darkness, In the Mouth of Madness,
etc.) commented on this. He was one that started of the "Slasher
Movies" with Halloween but that movie was a slow paced thriller with
quite little blood. Any action movie nowadays has much more gore and a
far higher bodycount. Subsequent movies simply took the blood and
added much more of it but lost the creepiness. It's so terribly
formulaic that one can exactly predict where the "jumps" come, which
ones are going to die and which one is going to survive and even
predict the "surprise ending".
>Dude - don't watch it on a full stomach. Forget the religion, forget the
>message (ain't none except to jerk a few tears from you), and forget the
>hype. If you're into maggots, rotten teeth, rampant flesh cutting, (yes, I
>said cutting - they cut that man so bad he looked like a walking mosaic!)
>constant beating, bruising, enough dripping blood to re-flood the Nile, then
>yeah - see it! There's 2 and 1/2 hours of this stuff!!
Wow! The suffering of Jesus exploited in full color.
There's a certain beauty to such obscenity. Forget the Message, give
us the Blood. I wonder how many had any profound revelations after
seeing the movie. At least, believing it to be revelation while in
fact a dark Lust was satisfied (for the moment, no Lust, Greed or
Anger is ever satisfied).
I simply have to see it so I ordered it. It should arrive in a couple
of days. A couple of days ago I also ordered the 2200 page "King
James" Bible (a Bible should be BIG, has more authority that way ;-)
so I can actually read what the Message was should the movie not
answer that question :-)
>I've come to the conclusion that the "religious" purpose of this movie is to
>elicit sympathetic belief in Christianity. About 2/3rds into the movie,
>you've got a walking corpse [ribs exposed from the flesh-ripping whipping]
>carrying his own cross up a long ass dusty and rocky road (while constantly
>being beaten by soldiers, mind you) . Okay, that's just sick. You'll get
>sick. You'll connect with the character on an emotional level - one of
>sympathy - so you will sympathize w/ Christ and thus "give him a chance" if
>you don't already do. A Christianity "Gotcha" of sorts.
The "in-your-face" approach, but this only works for a short time. In
the 80s we were shown starving people in Ethiopia and the whole world
responded. But now people are used to such imagery. However, the new
one is pretty good. It shows a little embryo while a voice speaks
about how great it is and how its parents will love it. The embryo
grows and grows until we hear the first scream. It comes from some
God-forsaken hut in the desert. Pretty good imagery. I'm constantly
amazed at how innovative movie makers are (with the image, not with
the story, that gets worse and worse).
>Horror fans should enjoy watching a perfectly healthy man slowly deteriorate
>before your eyes ... skin layer by skin layer... swelling bruise over
>swelling bruise... exposed bone by exposed bone...
Well, it depends. I'm not such a gore hound. I just like the slightly
sinister setting of horror movies and I appreciate it when a movie
makes me jump (although that happens less and less). I love it when
the ugly (death, rotting, etc.) is juxtaposed with the beauty (youth,
life, sex). A little bit the two faces that Earth can show. It gets me
hot ;-)
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message <9cikj09nkfqga65io...@4ax.com>...
>(I've been reading a bit of Meher Baba, can you tell? ;-)
Oh! Well um.. Good luck with that.
>Ah it backfired. My mum was very successfull with Santa Claus (well,
>"Sinterklaas" in the Netherlands, exists next to Santa Claus and
>brings presents as well, based on a real bishop and not on a design by
>Coca Cola Company).
>
>Whenever me and my sister showed textbook cases of sibbling rivalry my
>mum yelled through the chimney "Oh Santa Claus!".
>
>It never failed to work. Use their Greed against them, it's one of the
>very first sins that appear in children ;-)
I don't get it. Was santa going to come down the chimney, whip off his shiny
black belt, and bend you over or something??
>>The last horror movie I saw (or tried to watch) was Freddie vs. Jason.
>
>Great movie! The special edition is great. It has audio commentary by
>Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Ken Kirzinger (Jason, in this movie)
>and director Ronny Yu. That Englund is one sick guy ;-) (BTW in real
>life he's a very nice chap, he also played nice characters like Willy,
>the friendly alien, in the SF series "V").
>
>>And
>>maybe that other movie w/ Jason in it - the last one... Jason IV??
>
>Jason X, the tenth entry of the Friday the 13th series.
Yeah - that's it. Shows how much I pay attention to these things Lol. I will
confess that I (internally) celebrated the concept, because I grew up w/
these movies. But I just couldn't bring myself to watch the entire movie.
>Yes, it's a bit "form over content" nowadays. More about quantity than
>quality. John Carpenter (director of many great horror movies like
>Halloween, The Thing, Prince of Darkness, In the Mouth of Madness,
>etc.) commented on this. He was one that started of the "Slasher
>Movies" with Halloween but that movie was a slow paced thriller with
>quite little blood. Any action movie nowadays has much more gore and a
>far higher bodycount. Subsequent movies simply took the blood and
>added much more of it but lost the creepiness. It's so terribly
>formulaic that one can exactly predict where the "jumps" come, which
>ones are going to die and which one is going to survive and even
>predict the "surprise ending".
Lol - exactly. BUT - although I'm late in seeing it, I will admit that the
Blair Witch Project had me 2nd guessing myself - which I guess was the
purpose of the movie. Of course, the ending was a dead give away, but a
clever concept in that it was new plot for the horror genre.
>There's a certain beauty to such obscenity. Forget the Message, give
>us the Blood. I wonder how many had any profound revelations after
>seeing the movie. At least, believing it to be revelation while in
>fact a dark Lust was satisfied (for the moment, no Lust, Greed or
>Anger is ever satisfied).
I don't know, but I did hear about someone having a frickin heart attack
during the movie - others passing out - or confessing to crimes after seeing
the movie. <major eye roll> It aint' ALL that! All that was on my mind was
"Why?"
-Why- did that happen...
-Why- didn't anyone stop it...
-Why- would any want to inflict such pain... yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, and -Why- did I watch it three times?
(It gets worse each time you watch it, too. Try it.)
>I simply have to see it so I ordered it. It should arrive in a couple
>of days. A couple of days ago I also ordered the 2200 page "King
>James" Bible (a Bible should be BIG, has more authority that way ;-)
>so I can actually read what the Message was should the movie not
>answer that question :-)
Well when you get the answer, let me know. Afaik, there was no message.
Except maybe what the Pope said about the movie: "It is, as it was." But DO
tell us what you think of the movie!!!
>The "in-your-face" approach, but this only works for a short time. In
>the 80s we were shown starving people in Ethiopia and the whole world
>responded. But now people are used to such imagery. However, the new
>one is pretty good. It shows a little embryo while a voice speaks
>about how great it is and how its parents will love it. The embryo
>grows and grows until we hear the first scream. It comes from some
>God-forsaken hut in the desert. Pretty good imagery. I'm constantly
>amazed at how innovative movie makers are (with the image, not with
>the story, that gets worse and worse).
Lol - reminds me of the current state of television here. Where
the -commercials- are more entertaining than the shows they sponsor! I mean,
you know it's bad when you have to tell the kids to be quiet just so you can
hear a commercial - and then resume talking when the show comes back on?!
Worse and worse is right!
>Well, it depends. I'm not such a gore hound. I just like the slightly
>sinister setting of horror movies and I appreciate it when a movie
>makes me jump (although that happens less and less). I love it when
>the ugly (death, rotting, etc.) is juxtaposed with the beauty (youth,
>life, sex). A little bit the two faces that Earth can show. It gets me
>hot ;-)
You're weird. But I have recently begun to 'appreciate' your pov - I can
'understand' the importance of ugliness. But does that importance qualify
itself as art?
<vehemently shaking head>
Paul Mesken
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote in message <9cikj09nkfqga65io...@4ax.com>...
>>Whenever me and my sister showed textbook cases of sibbling rivalry my
>>mum yelled through the chimney "Oh Santa Claus!".
>>
>>It never failed to work. Use their Greed against them, it's one of the
>>very first sins that appear in children ;-)
>
>I don't get it. Was santa going to come down the chimney, whip off his shiny
>black belt, and bend you over or something??
No, we were afraid we wouldn't get any presents. See? Greed works :-)
>I don't know, but I did hear about someone having a frickin heart attack
>during the movie - others passing out - or confessing to crimes after seeing
>the movie. <major eye roll> It aint' ALL that! All that was on my mind was
>"Why?"
>-Why- did that happen...
>-Why- didn't anyone stop it...
>-Why- would any want to inflict such pain... yadda yadda yadda.
To bring Freedom and Democracy, of course, or some other profound
ideal either born out of Love or Pride ;-)
Well, at the very least the ideal is used as a coverup and is used as
the _stated_ ideal. People love ideals, makes them feel Holy :-)
Any incompatibilities experienced between the Good Reason and its
netto effect on Earth is simply due to the fact that the observer
shouldn't have left the realm of Ideas (where there's no blood and
suffering, only a clear distinction between Good and Bad as explained
by skilled demagogues). Hitler never wanted to know about the
concentration camps (he only wanted to know numbers). He was a smart
fellow, he knew better than to have his ideal disrupted by the horror
of what it meant in reality. He might have lost his ruthlesness :-)
Lots of soldiers who have seen some action on the battlefield (and
witnessed the great skill people have to erradicate other lives) have
exactly this same question : why?
Of course, there are a select few (the perverted ones) who can stand
such things but they are only a few and they're not very efficient for
they like to torture slowly instead of killing quickly.
>Oh, and -Why- did I watch it three times?
You were searching for the answer but the movie, cleverly, didn't give
it so that people come back for more, thinking they have missed it.
It's a pretty good marketing strategy. If a movie would give the
answers then people would go home and spend the rest of their days in
illuminated Bliss. That doesn't bring in any money ;-)
>Lol - reminds me of the current state of television here. Where
>the -commercials- are more entertaining than the shows they sponsor! I mean,
>you know it's bad when you have to tell the kids to be quiet just so you can
>hear a commercial - and then resume talking when the show comes back on?!
Yeah, we have commercials (and programs) like that as well. They
really should bring out collections of good commercials on DVD. I
could think of a bunch of really good ones. I believe there's huge
talent amongst those commercial makers.
>You're weird. But I have recently begun to 'appreciate' your pov - I can
>'understand' the importance of ugliness. But does that importance qualify
>itself as art?
>
><vehemently shaking head>
Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course). If people say
that a movie gives a very human view and has depth because of this
then it shows the strange duality in humans. People are not one
dimensionally. They can be both Good and Bad at the same time, they
are alive but only under the shadow of Death, etc. Human existence
seems constantly to defy Logic. There's always some conflict and that
creates depth because it is the conflict we are either aware of or
subconsciously aware of. Nothing is ever clear cut for humans.
Painters like Kinkade et all don't show this strange thing and I
believe it is because of this one dimensionality that many people
don't want to call it art. It's flat, it only has beauty but no
ugliness, therefor it's a lie because the both are always present
together.
For example, the movie "Blade Runner" (with Harisson Ford and Rutger
Hauer). **** SPOILER ALERT ****
When Roy Batty, the replicant, kills his own creator Tyrell by
crushing his head between his hands then he doesn't simply do this job
but is in great pain and cries doing it. It's a very powerfull scene
because of this. Hate and Love being present at the very same time.
The scene was also set up great. Roy finally achieves to invade the
premises of his creator Tyrell (a great genius and powerfull
industrial). When they meet it is like the prodigal son returning to
his father. Roy adresses him as God, Tyrell answers as such ("It's a
hard thing to meet your Maker", "And what can He do for you?"). Roy
wants to have more life (replicants were made only to last for 4 years
as slaves but more intelligent and more powerfull than humans). Tyrell
can not give it to him "The light that burns twice as bright only
lasts half as long, and you've burnt so very brightly Roy". Roy
finally realises he's going to die, no matter what and confesses to
his Maker "I've done questionable things" (he killed many to get to
Tyrell). But Tyrell forgives him for all of his sins, no matter what
they were. Roy smiles and gently touches the face of his Maker (and
Tyrell is sooo into being a God) then he clasps his head with both
hands and crushes it.
It's a very good movie, easily in my top 10. It raises many important
questions (it's an existentialist action movie). It answers none, only
the realisation that these questions are basic to human existence.
I think all art should have the conflict that is basic to human
nature. Ambiguousness seems to be the defining property of human
existence.
Slasher movies are often of the formula : some hot young chicks doing
lots of sex (Life) and some creepy zombies, maniacs, etc. that
represent Death. Lots of killing in gruesome ways (it's never a clean
kill like with guns, the body is always chopped, pierced, etc. it
might even explode). But in the end the "Final Girl" (as she has
become known) is victorious over Death because Life is victorious over
Death. But at the very end it is shown that the one(s) representing
Death are not finished so the conflict will go on and on :-)
King Rundzap
> On 4 Sep 2004 07:34:56 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
>
> >You need to start showing him stuff like the Evil Dead films, the
> >Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, Romero's zombie films, etc. :-)
>
> For Heaven's Sake. He's just a kid!
Well, I'm pretty twisted :-)
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
I loved horror when I was a kid. I guess I had pretty liberal, or
just crazy, parents, because they let me watch whatever I wanted, and
that was often horror. They used to take me to the theater to see
that stuff when I was a kid, too, and I had an older sister who worked
in a theater when she was 17, so I'd go on the weekend and watch
everything new.
But I've always been a bit strange, maybe, in that even when I was a
kid (in the 70s--I'm in my late 30s now), I didn't think horror was
scary, I just thought it was a lot of fun. I guess it's because I
didn't think of most of it as anything other than fantasy, and even
the films more rooted in reality, like serial killer or early slasher
films, seemed too far removed from my reality for me to become
frightened over them.
> Aah, I was such a wussie back then :-) I became addicted to Horror
> when I was around 16 or something and nowadays I collect lots of
> Horror (especially from the 80s for melancholy value). Ah! The
> memories ;-)
> >Funny thing is, we finally saw the Passion of Christ (twice, cause it's
> >gross) and the poor fellow ran out of the room to play right before they
> >beat the hell out of Heppy Jesus. I just couldn't bring myself to call him
> >back into the room to watch it. And I can't believe I might watch it again.
> >(sick!!) I think the Passion tops every horror movie ever made!
> Sounds good! I must definitely see it. I suspected from the stories
> that good old Mel Gibson gets turned on by the suffering of Jesus :-)
I haven't seen it yet . . . I guess I will eventually. I keep
thinking that it's going to seem like religious propaganda to me,
though. I did like The Last Passion Of Christ (although for the Peter
Gabriel soundtrack as much as anything else) and Life of Brian, though
:-)
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
> >On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:03:29 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
> ><aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
> Yah, I can't really remember the plots of most of the "oldies but goldies" -
> (Did they even have plots?)
Yeah, they all have plots. It's pretty difficult (although maybe
possible) to make a film without a plot :-)
It's like trying to make a painting without some kind of skill (versus
something that someone like Mani de Li would call a skill). Maybe it
could be done, but it would be difficult.
>- so I don't know if it's appropriate or not.
> But bear in mind, I showed a 7 yr old the exorcist!
> WHICH (in my own defense) I didn't show them (the kids) out of mindless -
> ignorant parenting. I did it out of evil "I have power over you" parenting
> and honestly just wanted to put the fear of God into their little butts.
That sounds kinda evil to me, but . . . okay :-) I'm not very fond of
religion.
> I
> figured that if they saw that movie, the bizarre concept of praying would
> suddenly make sense.
To some of us, praying, and other religious ideas would be difficult
to make not seem bizarre. That stuff seemed bizarre when I first
really started learning about it (from friends who were religious)
when I was in my early teens, and now in my late 30s, it still seems
pretty bizarre.
>Man, I turned off all the lights so the whole den was
> pitch black and made sure all radios were off - anything that would disrupt
> the flow of potential fear, I eliminated. What did I get? Laughter?!?!
> <rolling eyes> What a failed experiment.
I also find lots of the Exorcist unintentionally funny. (Not sure if
I mentioned that earlier in this thread). I think that film tends to
be grossly overrated, but of course, that's just my opinion.
> Anyway, that was one reason. The other reason (believe it or not) is that I
> used to live right across the street from where the real exorcism took
> place. Alexian Brother's Hospital. Totally redone and the floor of the
> exorcism has been removed. Anyway, I was telling my teen that the story is
> true and everything, but he just rolled his eyes like, "Yeah, right Mom."
LOL--sounds like me.
> So
> I borrowed a copy of the movie and attempted to scare the shit out my own
> monkeys.
> They weren't impressed. But I would definitely like to see how they would
> react to the others you mentioned.
> The last horror movie I saw (or tried to watch) was Freddie vs. Jason. And
> maybe that other movie w/ Jason in it - the last one... Jason IV??
Yikes, you really haven't kept up with those. The Friday the 13th
prior to Freddy vs. Jason was number 10 (Jason X), and the Nightmare
On Elm Street was number 7 (Wes Craven's New Nightmare). I still try
to watch every horror film made, but I'm kind of a fanatic about it,
too :-)
>Anyway, I
> discovered that today's horror movies are much more graphic (too much for
> me) and difficult to watch as an adult.
They started getting more graphic in the 70s, largely because of
changes in the rating system (which came about because of some
particular challenges to it) in the late 60s/early 70s. The MPAA has
actually grown more conservative since then, but most horror films are
still more graphic now than they were in the 60s and prior. The more
graphic stuff tended to be more "underground" in the 70s, and didn't
really get mainstream until films like Dawn Of The Dead were popular
in the multiplexes.
But, that stuff isn't difficult for me to watch. I love it, although
I love older horror styles (Hammer stuff, Universal films, even the
older silent horror films) to.
>As a naive kid - the horrible things
> done in the movies seemed impossible - like "no one except a monster (which
> [safely] doesn't exist)" would do such things. And they never showed more
> than what was necessary. (Didn't look too real either). However as a
> news-aware adult, well... the impossible has become a reality. Horror movies
> of the past were great. Today, they are prolonged musical murders in detail
> and I just can't take it anymore.
I love the new stuff as much as any of the old stuff. But with
horror, just as with art (and plenty of other things, too), I'm a
pluralist and like a very wide variety of material.
> Dude - don't watch it [Mel Gibson's film Passion] on a full stomach.
I'm one of those people who can watch surgery footage while eating
spaghetti.
>Forget the religion, forget the
> message (ain't none except to jerk a few tears from you), and forget the
> hype. If you're into maggots, rotten teeth, rampant flesh cutting, (yes, I
> said cutting - they cut that man so bad he looked like a walking mosaic!)
> constant beating, bruising, enough dripping blood to re-flood the Nile, then
> yeah - see it! There's 2 and 1/2 hours of this stuff!!
Sounds cool. Maybe I'll watch it sooner than I would have otherwise!
:-)
> I've come to the conclusion that the "religious" purpose of this movie is to
> elicit sympathetic belief in Christianity.
Well, that probably won't work for me. But I might enjoy it anyway.
>About 2/3rds into the movie,
> you've got a walking corpse [ribs exposed from the flesh-ripping whipping]
> carrying his own cross up a long ass dusty and rocky road (while constantly
> being beaten by soldiers, mind you) . Okay, that's just sick. You'll get
> sick.
That sounds cool to me. Although I'd be hoping that he'll bite into
the shoulders of the folks trying to beat him and turn them into
zombies.
> You'll connect with the character on an emotional level - one of
> sympathy - so you will sympathize w/ Christ and thus "give him a chance" if
> you don't already do. A Christianity "Gotcha" of sorts.
Like a lot of horror fanatics, I'm one of those people who tend to
root for the villain. I don't _want_ Dracula to die at the end of a
film. I want him to turn half of the people into vampires, and leave
the other half for dinner.
> Blecch. Nasty Trickery if ya ask me.
> Horror fans should enjoy watching a perfectly healthy man slowly deteriorate
> before your eyes ... skin layer by skin layer... swelling bruise over
> swelling bruise... exposed bone by exposed bone...
Sounds a bit like American Werewolf in London, but without the humor.
> Did I say there was a lot a dripping blood? I thought it was dripping sweat
> at first. But Nope. It was blood.
> >Talking about sick movies. Have you seen Caligula? (unrated of course,
> >with Malcom McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, etc. a stellar
> >cast) It such a great movie (albeit badly edited) and had me in
> >stitches because McDowell is so great in playing the spoiled
> >sadistical scoundrel he's so well known for.
> No - never heard of it!! ?
Caligula was okay, although I think the last time I watched it I
wasn't as impressed with it.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> >The last horror movie I saw (or tried to watch) was Freddie vs. Jason.
>
> Great movie! The special edition is great. It has audio commentary by
> Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Ken Kirzinger (Jason, in this movie)
> and director Ronny Yu. That Englund is one sick guy ;-) (BTW in real
> life he's a very nice chap, he also played nice characters like Willy,
> the friendly alien, in the SF series "V").
I agree--the DVD has one of the better recent collections of extras.
> Yes, it's a bit "form over content" nowadays. More about quantity than
> quality. John Carpenter (director of many great horror movies like
> Halloween, The Thing, Prince of Darkness, In the Mouth of Madness,
> etc.) commented on this. He was one that started of the "Slasher
> Movies" with Halloween but that movie was a slow paced thriller with
> quite little blood.
Although Halloween wasn't actually the first slasher, and was heavily
influenced by other films from the late 60s and early 70s--some also
dealing with urban legends (Halloween was initially conceived as a
riff on the babysitter being called by the murderer urban legend,
although it evolved into something different), and some, such as one
of Jess Franco's films from the early 70s (I'd have to look up the
title again), which had very similar villains, also wearing a mask,
walking in a way similar to The Shape, using a butcher knife, etc.
> Any action movie nowadays has much more gore and a
> far higher bodycount. Subsequent movies simply took the blood and
> added much more of it but lost the creepiness.
Except that in the 90s, the MPAA became much more conservative (and
incidents such as Columbine just made it worse), so modern horror
films are less gory in general than a lot of films in the 70s and 80s.
Gore fans complain about that frequently.
> It's so terribly
> formulaic that one can exactly predict where the "jumps" come, which
> ones are going to die and which one is going to survive and even
> predict the "surprise ending".
To an extent. Although some of my experiments with friends
complaining about predictability have shown them that they can't
predict quite as much as they believe or claim they can. But that's
more in mainstream films, anyway. There are still plenty of films
that aren't so formulaic.
--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>I also find lots of the Exorcist unintentionally funny. (Not sure if
>I mentioned that earlier in this thread). I think that film tends to
>be grossly overrated, but of course, that's just my opinion.
It gave rise to some interesting spoofs. I loved that opening scene of
Scary Movie 2 with James Woods as the priest :-)
>Yikes, you really haven't kept up with those. The Friday the 13th
>prior to Freddy vs. Jason was number 10 (Jason X), and the Nightmare
>On Elm Street was number 7 (Wes Craven's New Nightmare). I still try
>to watch every horror film made, but I'm kind of a fanatic about it,
>too :-)
I think horror movies get worse (apart from some good exceptions).
"Jeepers Creepers" started off okay (the first 10 minutes or so) and I
thought I was looking at a good one but the rest was so boring (and
the sister and brother really got on my nerves) that I watched it with
the fast forward. I didn't even bother to watch its sequel.
>I'm one of those people who can watch surgery footage while eating
>spaghetti.
But can you eat spaghetti while watching Lloyd Kaufman's Troma movies
like "Terror Firmer"? :-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Although Halloween wasn't actually the first slasher, and was heavily
>influenced by other films from the late 60s and early 70s--some also
>dealing with urban legends (Halloween was initially conceived as a
>riff on the babysitter being called by the murderer urban legend,
>although it evolved into something different), and some, such as one
>of Jess Franco's films from the early 70s (I'd have to look up the
>title again), which had very similar villains, also wearing a mask,
>walking in a way similar to The Shape, using a butcher knife, etc.
Yes, Halloween was certainly not the very first slasher movie and was
quite "dry" and low on bodycount. How about old classics like Bava's
"Twitch of the Death Nerve" ('72) or Clark's "Black Christmas" ('74)
but Halloween certainly started the "slasher rage" that lasted till
deep in the 80s.
>To an extent. Although some of my experiments with friends
>complaining about predictability have shown them that they can't
>predict quite as much as they believe or claim they can. But that's
>more in mainstream films, anyway. There are still plenty of films
>that aren't so formulaic.
Well, I was a bit off with my predictions with "The Ring" as well :-)
Erik A. Mattila
> Well, it depends. I'm not such a gore hound. I just like the slightly
> sinister setting of horror movies and I appreciate it when a movie
> makes me jump (although that happens less and less). I love it when
> the ugly (death, rotting, etc.) is juxtaposed with the beauty (youth,
> life, sex). A little bit the two faces that Earth can show. It gets me
> hot ;-)
How about the original "Diabolique"? (1955 - Simone Signoret). The
whole movie centered on that masterful scene of the corpse opening its
eyes in the bathtub. Scared the shit out of me when I saw it as a
child. So now they've taken a "horror climax" scene and prolifererated
it througout the whole movie. You get to see it all in the trailers,
too. Definite overkill.
But for modern horror flicks, I think "Shadow of a Vampire" (Willem
Dafoe) was a masterwork.
And what about the "Kill Bill" Monty Python blood spurts? Does that
qualify?
Erik
>
>
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>
>> Well, it depends. I'm not such a gore hound. I just like the slightly
>> sinister setting of horror movies and I appreciate it when a movie
>> makes me jump (although that happens less and less). I love it when
>> the ugly (death, rotting, etc.) is juxtaposed with the beauty (youth,
>> life, sex). A little bit the two faces that Earth can show. It gets me
>> hot ;-)
>
>How about the original "Diabolique"? (1955 - Simone Signoret). The
>whole movie centered on that masterful scene of the corpse opening its
>eyes in the bathtub. Scared the shit out of me when I saw it as a
>child. So now they've taken a "horror climax" scene and prolifererated
>it througout the whole movie. You get to see it all in the trailers,
>too. Definite overkill.
Sounds good. I haven't seen it though.
>But for modern horror flicks, I think "Shadow of a Vampire" (Willem
>Dafoe) was a masterwork.
Yes, the "Making Of" from the original Nosferatu. It was great. Less
and less of the crew and cast was left :-) Anything with Malkovich in
it is okay :-)
>And what about the "Kill Bill" Monty Python blood spurts? Does that
>qualify?
Not really horror of course but today's action movies come quite close
;-)
Electric Nachos
>Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
>in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course). If people say
>that a movie gives a very human view and has depth because of this
>then it shows the strange duality in humans. People are not one
>dimensionally. They can be both Good and Bad at the same time, they
>are alive but only under the shadow of Death, etc. Human existence
>seems constantly to defy Logic. There's always some conflict and that
>creates depth because it is the conflict we are either aware of or
>subconsciously aware of. Nothing is ever clear cut for humans.
>Painters like Kinkade et all don't show this strange thing and I
>believe it is because of this one dimensionality that many people
>don't want to call it art. It's flat, it only has beauty but no
>ugliness, therefor it's a lie because the both are always present
>together.
Yeah, every good story has a conflict and an antagonist (and the "more" the
better) but - *visual art* is rather 'still' - it captures a ^single^ moment
from a myraid of moments. So is it fair to place the burden of "how
everything really is" onto one poor little 'ol painting? And is ^one^ artist
responsible for portraying "how everything really is" while there are tons
of other artists out there to do that?
I like Kinkade's ideals. Not crazy about the subject matter, but it's cute
and everything and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would like to
see the burden of portraying "how everything really is" placed onto the
viewer instead of on a single artist (like Kinkade) - meaning that art
viewers should actively seek out artwork that portrays a particular view of
life and assemble a collection of art that represents that view of life.
You know, it's almost as if people get pissed off cause they can't purchase
carrots from an apple farmer!!!
Hey, remember "The Blob"? Lol. Is that the first horror movie that featured
a female victor? Or was it Friday the 13th? (The Living Dead??) I can't
remember which - but I remember being surprised that a chick kicked major
monster butt in these movies.
Electric Nachos
news:<10jkh13...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Yah, I can't really remember the plots of most of the "oldies but
goldies" -
>> (Did they even have plots?)
>
>Yeah, they all have plots. It's pretty difficult (although maybe
>possible) to make a film without a plot :-)
Actually - I think Spike Lee rose to fame for doing just that!! Lol
But some movies really don't have a plot - they're just "A day in the life
of a nobody."
>I also find lots of the Exorcist unintentionally funny. (Not sure if
>I mentioned that earlier in this thread). I think that film tends to
>be grossly overrated, but of course, that's just my opinion.
Gonna see the second one? I'm tempted - but re-makes and "Part Two's" are
almost always a let down. Take "Planet of the Apes" for example. Dude?!?!
WTF?? They totally ruined the ENTIRE spirit of the series and imo, should
have been sued for artistic degradation!! <pout> (Did you see the costumes??
What were Michael Jackson and Prince doing in that movie?!? - HORRID)
>>About 2/3rds into the movie,
>> you've got a walking corpse [ribs exposed from the flesh-ripping
whipping]
>> carrying his own cross up a long ass dusty and rocky road (while
constantly
>> being beaten by soldiers, mind you) . Okay, that's just sick. You'll get
>> sick.
>
>That sounds cool to me. Although I'd be hoping that he'll bite into
>the shoulders of the folks trying to beat him and turn them into
>zombies.
Wow - that's funny - cause there's a little flesh biting in the movie, too!
>> You'll connect with the character on an emotional level - one of
>> sympathy - so you will sympathize w/ Christ and thus "give him a chance"
if
>> you don't already do. A Christianity "Gotcha" of sorts.
>
>Like a lot of horror fanatics, I'm one of those people who tend to
>root for the villain. I don't _want_ Dracula to die at the end of a
>film. I want him to turn half of the people into vampires, and leave
>the other half for dinner.
Maybe that's because the writers are slick little devils and cast the
dracula character as a lonely outcast who really just wants somebody to
love. <wiping tear> What did you think of "Interview With a Vampire"? I
liked it the first time but not the second. Still scratch ma' head over what
got Oprah's panties all riled up. She interviewed Tom Cruise and appeared to
be "whining" over how "dark" the movie was and how "surprised" that her
beloved Tom was a damn vamp.
Whatta goofball.
Tom was cool. People gotta live - Vamp's gotta eat.
>> Blecch. Nasty Trickery if ya ask me.
>
>> Horror fans should enjoy watching a perfectly healthy man slowly
deteriorate
>> before your eyes ... skin layer by skin layer... swelling bruise over
>> swelling bruise... exposed bone by exposed bone...
>
>Sounds a bit like American Werewolf in London, but without the humor.
Heh - cool movie.
Electric Nachos
<425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> Although some of my experiments with friends
>complaining about predictability have shown them that they can't
>predict quite as much as they believe or claim they can. But that's
>more in mainstream films, anyway. There are still plenty of films
>that aren't so formulaic.
Maybe what Paul means is what I mean by predictability - and that's timing.
No, we might not know "what" event will occur - but we sure know "when" it
will occur. Not to mention that the musical and visual clues "clue" us in.
There's another "timing" mechanism involved and I don't know how this is
metered, but right near the point where you (the audience) starts to think,
"Ok, this is getting a little boring..." then <screech screech screech
screech!> Something scary shows up.
How "surprising." LOL
I would LOVE to see a really really really scary movie. Not gore - just
scary - EVIL scary. Like the Devil. Love the Devil.
>--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>I would LOVE to see a really really really scary movie. Not gore - just
>scary - EVIL scary. Like the Devil. Love the Devil.
The Ring was pretty scary. So is the Shining (the original one with
Jack Nicholson) But they don't have the Devil.
A good devil was played by Viggo Mortensen in "Prophecy". It's all
about angels, especially a rebelling Gabriël played by Christopher
Walken (great actor). A short piece though (for Viggo) but the less
screentime good ole Lucifer gets, the more heavy the impact. All three
"Prophecies" are good. Great fun because Gabriël can't drive a car and
has to resurrect humans to do the driving for him (he refers to them
as monkeys).
I also loved Jeroen Krabbé as Satan in "Jesus", in his Armani suit,
talking Jesus into taking mankind's freedom away because they will
only use him as an excuse for war. Great crucification scene as well.
Good old Al Pacino made a great devil in the "Devil's Advocate" with
Keanu Reeves.
I yet have to see a movie in which Lucifer's character is more
truthfully followed. He's not some lunatic animal but the most
powerfull of the Archangels with a slight attitude problem ;-)
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
><aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>
>>I would LOVE to see a really really really scary movie. Not gore - just
>>scary - EVIL scary. Like the Devil. Love the Devil.
>
>The Ring was pretty scary. So is the Shining (the original one with
>Jack Nicholson) But they don't have the Devil.
Oh the Shining was excellent. Perfection - from all characters! Just
excellent!
>A good devil was played by Viggo Mortensen in "Prophecy". It's all
>about angels, especially a rebelling Gabriël played by Christopher
>Walken (great actor). A short piece though (for Viggo) but the less
>screentime good ole Lucifer gets, the more heavy the impact. All three
>"Prophecies" are good. Great fun because Gabriël can't drive a car and
>has to resurrect humans to do the driving for him (he refers to them
>as monkeys).
heh-heh. yeah. monkeys. heh-heh. I seemed to have forgotten all about
Prophecy - will have to borrow a copy. Christopher Walken is *so* weird!
What about "Dogma"? Was that horror or just a bad idea? I think, the latter.
>I also loved Jeroen Krabbé as Satan in "Jesus", in his Armani suit,
>talking Jesus into taking mankind's freedom away because they will
>only use him as an excuse for war. Great crucification scene as well.
>
>Good old Al Pacino made a great devil in the "Devil's Advocate" with
>Keanu Reeves.
>
>I yet have to see a movie in which Lucifer's character is more
>truthfully followed. He's not some lunatic animal but the most
>powerfull of the Archangels with a slight attitude problem ;-)
I agree. And if one would read that cockamamie "good book" with a -sober-
mind, one would find that our beloved satan actually tried to heighten the
intelligence of the dummies in that story. (Ok, he kind of ruined the nudity
thing...) But I don't think there's one instance in the Bible that states
Satan killed anyone. Conversely, it was "God" who initiated mass murder.
Hello?
Talk about a good horror story - That bible will fuck with anybody's mind!!
King Rundzap
> From: Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>
> >Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
> >in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course).
Right (re just your opinion, lol). I see that as too limiting. There
is a lot more to the world than humans, in my view, and art also has
the advantage of being able to be about fictional things, and not
necessarily fictions about humans.
> >If people say
> >that a movie gives a very human view and has depth because of this
> >then it shows the strange duality in humans. People are not one
> >dimensionally. They can be both Good and Bad at the same time, they
> >are alive but only under the shadow of Death, etc. Human existence
> >seems constantly to defy Logic.
Well, and most of the people who say they're concerned with logic, or
who just invoke it in conversations in some way, don't know much about
it. They tend to be referring to some colloquial notion, which is
almost always vague and everyone tends to have their own definition in
that realm, as opposed to referring to the academic field of logic.
If you ask them to talk about paraconsistent logic for a minute, for
example, they usually have no idea what you're referring to. There
isn't just one "species" of academic logic, and not all of them are
consistent with each other.
>There's always some conflict and that
> >creates depth because it is the conflict we are either aware of or
> >subconsciously aware of.
I'm a bit skeptical of the notion of subconscious awareness.
> Nothing is ever clear cut for humans.
> >Painters like Kinkade et all don't show this strange thing and I
> >believe it is because of this one dimensionality that many people
> >don't want to call it art.
I don't at all agree that everyone views and interprets the same art
the same way. Assume for a minute that some arbitrary person agrees
with all of the statements "good art is about the human condition",
"the human condition is multi-faceted and conflicted on many issues",
etc. That person might think that Kinkade's works show that and might
think that someone whose works _you_ think show that in fact don't
show that--they might say that that other artist's works are
one-dimensional.
In other words, those kinds of interpretations aren't actually in the
pigments on the canvas that you're considering. They're in your head.
And not everyone has the same stuff in their heads in response to the
same external stimuli.
> >It's flat, it only has beauty but no
> >ugliness,
I know people who think that Kinkade's paintings have plenty of
ugliness. There isn't agreement on what is beautiful or ugly, as
should be readily apparent with even a brief survey, especially of
people from different kinds of cultures or subcultures.
> >therefor it's a lie because the both are always present
> >together.
Unless that's not true. What would make it true? The fact that you
think they're always present in everything? Well, you can't think
that if you think they're not both present in Kinkade's paintings.
The fact that you think they're both always present in humans (but not
necessarily always both present in other things)? Well, if you don't
see them both "reflected" in Kinkade's paintings, then, maybe the
reason why is that Kinkade isn't trying to do that, not that they're
"lies". Of course, as you mentioned above, then you just wouldn't
consider that art, because you only call art the stuff that "reflects"
what you think is always present in the "human condition". But that's
just about _your_ interpretation of a bunch of stuff, including your
particular interpretation of Kinkade's paintings.
To some other people, they don't believe that the beautiful and ugly
are present in all humans, say. And maybe don't interpret anything
else the same way you do, either.
While all of that is interesting, to me, it's more a conversation
about your psychological peculiarities, versus some other person's
psychological peculiarities, and not so much about the stuff in the
world we're talking about. Or, in other words, those kinds of things
are not actually properties (or characteristics, if you like) of the
things we're referring to, they're properties of your mind, of how you
interpret and think about various things.
> Yeah, every good story has a conflict and an antagonist (and the "more" the
> better)
And not everyone agrees with that, of course.
> but - *visual art* is rather 'still' - it captures a ^single^ moment
> from a myraid of moments.
If it's even trying to do that. Not everyone is trying to do the same
things with art. I guess that's going to be my mantra in this
newsgroup :-) Although it tends to be my mantra overall, for all
different kinds of things. "Not everyone in the world is the same,
has the same desires or goals, likes the same things, etc." I think a
lot of problems arise because we expect and sometimes try to persuade
or make everyone (to) be the same.
> So is it fair to place the burden of "how
> everything really is" onto one poor little 'ol painting? And is ^one^ artist
> responsible for portraying "how everything really is" while there are tons
> of other artists out there to do that?
And why can't fiction, for just one alternative, be a valid area for
painting? The idea that all painting has to be realist (has to try to
say something about the actual world, try to "reflect" it in
particular ways, etc.) is a very strange one to me, although one that
many people in this newsgroup seem to hold. Mani actually seemed to
conflate this belief with the notion of skill, which seems even more
bizarre to me. I'm not sure where that underlying realist assumption
about art is coming from (I'm assuming that it's coming from some
external cultural source, rather than all of these people arriving at
that same odd idea independently).
At any rate, that expectation is analogous to someone considering all
of literature, but with an underlying assumption that it is all, or
should all be, of the same genre.
> I like Kinkade's ideals. Not crazy about the subject matter, but it's cute
> and everything and there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't actually think about much of that stuff when I look at his
paintings. I think more about the colors, combinations, forms, etc.
I do make some realist associations with it, but for me, that tends to
be stuff like, "Ah, nice, looks like Acadia" (Acadia is a National
Park in Maine that Kinkade has depicted, and that I frequent), or
"That looks like a nice place to hike", or "Wow, that's more
impressionist than his later stuff, it's interesting to see his
transition from more impressionist to more photorealist" . . .
> In fact, I would like to
> see the burden of portraying "how everything really is" placed onto the
> viewer instead of on a single artist (like Kinkade) - meaning that art
> viewers should actively seek out artwork that portrays a particular view of
> life and assemble a collection of art that represents that view of life.
I think more of people seeking out artwork that has a look that they
enjoy. Another belief that I'm encountering frequently in this
newsgroup is that art is primarily about mental associations provoked
by the pigments on the canvas (or whatever media) rather than being
just as much about the pigments on the canvas. That's probably why
some people here are having problems with abstract art, and why
they're unlikely to see non-man-made things as art. My primary
attraction to art is its intrinsic attraction to me--that is, how much
I like those arrangements of colors, forms, etc., which to me can be
representational or not. I do enjoy a lot of the symbolic, or more
mental suggestions I get from artworks, but that's more secondary to
me, and I realize that maybe no one else will make those same mental
associations.
Maybe for that reason, I can get just as much enjoyment out of an
interesting or beautiful (to me) rock that I encounter while hiking,
say, as I can from any painting. The form, colors, texture, and so on
of the rock can be just as engrossing to me, and just as much art to
me.
Now, I'm sure that will get some regular's blood pressure soaring, and
the point isn't to divert this to a "what is art" conversation. I'm
just figuring out a bit how people are looking at art differently than
I'm looking at it, and why that difference is giving them problems
with abstract art, "natural" art, etc.
> You know, it's almost as if people get pissed off cause they can't purchase
> carrots from an apple farmer!!!
I agree and think that's a good analogy to people looking at artworks
and expecting them to be realist.
> >I think all art should have the conflict that is basic to human
> >nature. Ambiguousness seems to be the defining property of human
> >existence.
I don't agree that there _is_ a "human nature", other than however
humans, or a human, happens to be. I don't think there is "conflict"
in all of that, or that it is all, or always, ambiguous. And of
course, I don't see why art would have to be about any of that, even
assuming I believed all of those statements were the case.
> Hey, remember "The Blob"? Lol. Is that the first horror movie that featured
> a female victor?
The Blob is a classic. The remake was excellent, too, and the sequel
(with Larry Hagman) is a funny camp-fest that's worth watching if you
appreciate that kind of thing. I'd have to think awhile about the
first horror film with a female non-monster victor. It's probably
something much earlier than The Blob.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:25:32 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
> <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>
> >I would LOVE to see a really really really scary movie. Not gore - just
> >scary - EVIL scary. Like the Devil. Love the Devil.
>
> The Ring was pretty scary. So is the Shining (the original one with
> Jack Nicholson) But they don't have the Devil.
I'd love to see a "scary" film, too, but I just do not think that
films are scary. (And as you can probably guess here, then, I hate
when "horror" and "scary movie" are conflated . . . that got a lot
worse in popular culture after Scream). I loved The Ring (both the
Japanese and the US versions, although I liked the US versiona bit
better) and The Shining (and there I liked both the original and the
miniseries, but prefer the original), but neither are scary to me.
They're just great horror films.
Scary to me is more like the IRS, or the thought of having cancer, or
even the idea of sitting in the DMV for five days straight trying to
get a license.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> >I'm one of those people who can watch surgery footage while eating
> >spaghetti.
> But can you eat spaghetti while watching Lloyd Kaufman's Troma movies
> like "Terror Firmer"? :-)
Yeah, definitely--I love Troma! I could even eat a cantaloupe with
red food coloring staining the "meat" while watching a Troma
film--that's Lloyd's favorite way of doing a head crushing scene.
I actually did some grunt work, and a few scenes as a extra, for
Troma--that's my big film industry story, lol. Lloyd's a great guy.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> King Rundzap wrote in message
> <425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> >"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
> news:<10jkh13...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> >> Yah, I can't really remember the plots of most of the "oldies but
> goldies" -
> >> (Did they even have plots?)
> >
> >Yeah, they all have plots. It's pretty difficult (although maybe
> >possible) to make a film without a plot :-)
>
> Actually - I think Spike Lee rose to fame for doing just that!! Lol
>
> But some movies really don't have a plot - they're just "A day in the life
> of a nobody."
Well, a plot is just a sequence of events . . . the answer to "what
happens"? Due to the nature of film, which is necessarily a temporal
medium, it's difficult to not have a sequence of events, even if it's
something like, "This guy gets out of bed, brushes his teeth, walks to
the corner to get a newspaper, and so on".
Usually, what people mean instead by "it didn't have a plot" is the
same thing that Mani means with "No skill no art". That is, "It
didn't have a plot that I liked", or "it didn't have a plot that I
consider worthwhile", just like "It doesn't have the kind of skill
that I like".
> >I also find lots of the Exorcist unintentionally funny. (Not sure if
> >I mentioned that earlier in this thread). I think that film tends to
> >be grossly overrated, but of course, that's just my opinion.
> Gonna see the second one?
Well I have I (the original), II and III on DVD. I like II and III
much better than I. II is very bizarre--John Boorman directed it, so
that it's bizarre almost goes without saying--but I love bizarre
stuff. III is more of a straightforward horror film, and one that I
like a lot better than I.
I haven't seen the prequel yet (Exorcist: The Beginning),but I'll get
it as soon as it appears on DVD. I haven't seen any films in the
theater for quite a few years now. When they started showing so many
commercials, that was the last straw for me. But I also don't like
seeing previews before I see a film, I don't like people sitting in
front of me, right next to me, right behind me if they're goig to make
noise or kick my chair, etc. -- I'm very fussy when I watch films,
lol.
The Exorcist prequel on DVD is scheduled to have two versions of the
film, since a complete film directed by Paul Schrader and starring
Stellen Skarsgard was shot, but when Morgan Creek (the production
company) screened it, they canned it and rewrote/reshot the entire
film (spending _another_ 50 million dollars) with Renny Harlin
directing and Skarsgard still starring. The idea is to use the second
film to boost the profits of the DVD, hoping to recoup some of the 80
- 100 million spent overall (the box office gross so far in the US has
only been about 30 million).
> I'm tempted - but re-makes and "Part Two's" are
> almost always a let down.
There are many sequels, and later entries in series, that I like
better than the first entry in a series.
> Take "Planet of the Apes" for example. Dude?!?!
> WTF?? They totally ruined the ENTIRE spirit of the series and imo, should
> have been sued for artistic degradation!! <pout> (Did you see the costumes??
> What were Michael Jackson and Prince doing in that movie?!? - HORRID)
I haven't actually seen the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes yet. I
don't have any sacred cows, though, so I'll probably not be quite as
upset about it, and I love most of Burton's work anyway (and I like
most films), so I'll probably like his version.
> >>About 2/3rds into the movie,
> >> you've got a walking corpse [ribs exposed from the flesh-ripping
> whipping]
> >> carrying his own cross up a long ass dusty and rocky road (while
> constantly
> >> being beaten by soldiers, mind you) . Okay, that's just sick. You'll get
> >> sick.
> >
> >That sounds cool to me. Although I'd be hoping that he'll bite into
> >the shoulders of the folks trying to beat him and turn them into
> >zombies.
>
> Wow - that's funny - cause there's a little flesh biting in the movie, too!
Cool. Maybe Mel is into zombie films.
> >> You'll connect with the character on an emotional level - one of
> >> sympathy - so you will sympathize w/ Christ and thus "give him a chance"
> if
> >> you don't already do. A Christianity "Gotcha" of sorts.
> >
> >Like a lot of horror fanatics, I'm one of those people who tend to
> >root for the villain. I don't _want_ Dracula to die at the end of a
> >film. I want him to turn half of the people into vampires, and leave
> >the other half for dinner.
> Maybe that's because the writers are slick little devils and cast the
> dracula character as a lonely outcast who really just wants somebody to
> love.
Well, or that horror fans like horror primarily because of the
monsters and if we always wanted the "good guys", or the "human guys"
to win, we'd just watch realist stuff, since that only has humans :-)
> <wiping tear> What did you think of "Interview With a Vampire"? I
> liked it the first time but not the second.
I think I've seen it three times. I remembered kinda liking it at one
point, but the last time I watched it, which was just in the last
year, I hated it. Way too melodramatic for me, this last time I felt
that it was trying to be more of a historical drama than a horror
film, and I felt that none of the dialogue made much sense this time.
Not sure why I didn't feel so strongly against it before.
> Still scratch ma' head over what
> got Oprah's panties all riled up. She interviewed Tom Cruise and appeared to
> be "whining" over how "dark" the movie was and how "surprised" that her
> beloved Tom was a damn vamp.
Yeah, she's probably just infatuated with Tom Cruise. I'm more
indifferent about him (not that I'd be infatuated with him, lol). But
there are some actors who I like almost everything they're in, no
matter what it is (De Niro, Nicholson, Pacino, Harrison Ford, etc.)
and some who I could take or leave--like Tom Cruise.
> Whatta goofball.
> Tom was cool. People gotta live - Vamp's gotta eat.
That's a good example of dialogue that doesn't make any sense to me.
People have to eat, too, if they have to live, and being even more
anal about it, we could say that vamps are eating to live--to continue
existing (and metabolizing, etc.)
My kind of modern vampire film is more like Blade, or John Carpenter's
Vampires. I also liked Francis Ford Coppola's version of Dracula a
lot, although at times that approached melodrama to me. But he kept
the focus on the horror stuff, and on the surreal, enough to please
me.
--King Rundzap
Thur
> pigments on the canvas that you're considering. They're in your head.
> And not everyone has the same stuff in their heads in response to the
Given then that there is no absolute way to define art, and to judge it,
is this what you want us to own up to?
In your effort to argue this matter, you leave me puzzled on what
values you are using for your own assessment on art.
You must have some common references with other artists and art
lovers.
It seems to me that "modern art" is the only beneficiary of your arguments.
Even Impressionism had traditional visual references, and the whole
bulk of art from Byzantine work to Impressionism did not require too much
argument to convince that when you looked at one, is was part of a whole.
I have been considering whether "modern art" is really the same "art" as
that which it has generally replaced.
Maybe it needs new definitions rather than none at all?
What I think the discussion centres around is "culture"
Culture, defined for example as:-
" The complete way of life of a people: the shared attitudes,
" values, goals, and practices that "characterise a group;
" their customs, art, literature, religion, philosophy, etc.; the
" pattern of "learned and shared behaviour among the members
" of a group.
, will be bound to shape it's contemporary works of art.
Sure there will always be people who demand to plough their
own artistic furrows, but anyone who is in tune to any degree
of their culture will be sure whether or not they are true reflectors
of it, or are at the periphery of it, along with their works.
The culture I refer to is our Western one.
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com...
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message news:<10jnb27...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> From: Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>>
>> >Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
>> >in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course).
>
>Right (re just your opinion, lol). I see that as too limiting. There
>is a lot more to the world than humans, in my view, and art also has
>the advantage of being able to be about fictional things, and not
>necessarily fictions about humans.
Perhaps I'm not using the right expression with "human condition".
Humans can certainly ponder about the nature of other things, like
animals, but always project their own being onto them. Manmade
fictions are always based on human experience because we cannot
willfully create something beyond that. We only understand by means of
analogy and these analogies always refer back to our own being because
that's all we know. All knowledge is essentially Self knowledge.
We don't know the world independent of our Self. We _only_ know the
world _through_ our Self. We're far from objective. Even mathematics
comes from our own being because of the fact that we perceive amounts,
the "more" and the "less".
We cannot understand the world in any other terms than in our own. For
example : we cannot imagine what UV light looks like simply because we
cannot register it (color blind people report interesting things like
how they don't have the slightest clue as of what a color like red
looks like). Every insight, idea or new experience builds upon old
experiences and, in the end, all are build on our first experiences
that are bodily in nature, concerned with senses and feelings.
Thus, a couple of very basic concepts underlie all others that center
around our feelings and our senses. Images, smells, sounds, etc. all
kinds of sensory experiences become associated with feelings and gives
meaning to these sensory experiences for there is no meaning without
feelings. The mind cannot evaluate things that don't invoke feelings
either directly (a nail through the hand hurts like Hell) or
indirectly (based on association with past experiences that, in their
turn, are associated with feelings).
It is important that feelings are coupled to sensory experiences. For
one thing : it keeps us out of trouble. If pain no longer invokes very
negative feelings that we react to then we become indifferent to
putting our hands in fire. Bad from an evolutionary point of view :-)
Childhood experiences are very important. They form the basic building
blocks of subsequent thought and are responsible of much of the form
that we give our feelings (feelings only have form, either sound,
images, etc. by association). Culture is very important as well
because it delivers much of the imagery.
Central ideas emerge from all this, the constants in the chaos. Ideas
about pain, sadness, happiness, hate, male, female, hunger,
responsibility, strength, weakness, life, death, justice, etc. Because
of the central position these ideas take they become "deep". They are
part of a great number of past experiences and can thus unlock an
avalanche of memories and feelings.
Feelings might even, because of childhood experiences, become deeply
associated with objects. Take the high heeled shoe for example. In
this culture they are (almost) exclusively worn by women. A very young
child sitting under a table while his mother is sitting around it with
her female friends wearing high heels makes the child associate high
heels with femaleness. The influence of culture on basic imagery is
obvious here. Since the earlyness of this perception it becomes
enormously entrenched in the psyche (subsequent experiences are built
upon previous experiences, makes analogies easier and is a huge space
saver in the brain). It might even give rise to perverse behaviour in
that the boy will grow up wanting to make love to high heeled shoes
instead of women, this is fetishism in its most extreme form in which
one image starts to rule over all.
What does this all have to do with art? Art is about making images and
sounds that are meant to evoke feelings or, one might argue, to
externalize feelings which is a very natural thing to do. We
externalize anger, sadness, etc. in behaviour, art making can be
viewed the same way. Autists typically don't feel much need to
externalize, as such they have a very passive relationship with their
environment.
Feelings can be indirectly accessed by the ideas they have given rise
to (the result of feelings and the sensory experiences that gave rise
to the feelings). We can express such ideas, represent them in art.
I have used the expression "human condition" as how humans experience
life in thought. Thinking about such things (human life has many
facets) involves using the basic ideas and these basic ideas have
images, sounds, smells, etc. associated with them. Lots of it comes
from childhood. Almost any obsession has its roots in childhood. How
about grown up men obsessively playing with trains? It probably was an
unfullfilled desire of their childhood that governs now such a big
part of their life. Again : culture governed the form of this
obsession (I don't think stone age men want to play with trains
because there weren't any).
Art can be about suffering. Suffering itself is an innate thing to
humans (and a lot of other life forms) but it is expressed with
different forms coming from experience, a lot of it childhood
experience, which, in its turn, is governed by culture.
>Well, and most of the people who say they're concerned with logic, or
>who just invoke it in conversations in some way, don't know much about
>it. They tend to be referring to some colloquial notion, which is
>almost always vague and everyone tends to have their own definition in
>that realm, as opposed to referring to the academic field of logic.
>If you ask them to talk about paraconsistent logic for a minute, for
>example, they usually have no idea what you're referring to. There
>isn't just one "species" of academic logic, and not all of them are
>consistent with each other.
But logic, in its many forms, is an intellectual tool. And logic
itself has shown itself to be limited (Gödel's incompleteness theorem
for example). Logic isn't some universal thing. Our logic only exists
in ourselves and not outside ourselves and we can have no other logic
but our own. Therefor it is limited by ourselves unless we're
omniscient beings. Furthermore : logic always relies on some axioms
and these come from our own observations. The problem is that our
observations are not objective. No observation can be objective
because observation requires a point of view (in our case : the human
perspective). Therefor, there is incompleteness unless we assume that
our point of view can include all other points of view.
I don't know but I question logic as universal truth while having
phenomenology as its foundation
>>There's always some conflict and that
>> >creates depth because it is the conflict we are either aware of or
>> >subconsciously aware of.
>
>I'm a bit skeptical of the notion of subconscious awareness.
Okay, let me rephrase "subconscious awareness" in a "Je ne sais pas",
you know : the feeling one cannot pinpoint ;-)
>> Nothing is ever clear cut for humans.
>> >Painters like Kinkade et all don't show this strange thing and I
>> >believe it is because of this one dimensionality that many people
>> >don't want to call it art.
>
>I don't at all agree that everyone views and interprets the same art
>the same way. Assume for a minute that some arbitrary person agrees
>with all of the statements "good art is about the human condition",
>"the human condition is multi-faceted and conflicted on many issues",
>etc. That person might think that Kinkade's works show that and might
>think that someone whose works _you_ think show that in fact don't
>show that--they might say that that other artist's works are
>one-dimensional.
To a certain degree you're right. However, even though humans are
different, they are also the same (the conflict again :-)
It is wrong to say that all humans are alike and it's also wrong to
say they are all different. They are both different and alike. The
"run-of-the-mill" logic doesn't like it very much if duality is taken
away. Things are far easier to understand in extremes. What good is a
logic if it doesn't answer any question? The logical course of action
is, of course, to simply accept the phenomenon and don't question it
at all :-)
The problem of logic to come up with an answer might be simply a
"resolution problem". Raise the resolution to a "finer grain" and it
might come up with an answer. However : the real problem with logic is
that it is built upon the assumption of "resolution". It operates on
symbols and symbols are used to group phenomenons in concepts (in
humans in a fuzzy fashion, of course, due to the nature of our neural
network that implements our logic). This implicitly assumes that it is
okay to do grouping. In every day life this certainly holds truth but
it isn't all encompassing.
Logic reminds me a little bit of statistics. It's only true in general
but not in the specific. It also can bite itself in the tail with
artifacts which arise solely from its own workings, like oxymorons
which only exist in logic but not in observation.
>In other words, those kinds of interpretations aren't actually in the
>pigments on the canvas that you're considering. They're in your head.
> And not everyone has the same stuff in their heads in response to the
>same external stimuli.
Not necessarily, but a lot of people do. Take the simple facial
expressions of emotions, for example. They are quite universal (as
researched by Paul Ekman) although I'm sure there will be a few
individuals who misinterpret them (according to the artist, or photo,
or even real life, representing them).
I believe the more abstract a work of art gets the greater the range
of interpretations. The more ground it is in human experience and
represented by the human body, the easier it gets to interpret things
according to the artist's intentions.
But this is somewhat of an oversimplification. We're both united and
divided by our human bodies (and this includes the brain as well, of
course).
Culture also plays a major role. There were even tribes found (in New
Guinea, I believe) who didn't understand photos until it was explained
to them (after that, they couldn't unlearn it). Indeed, if even the
medium of representation itself can be misunderstood then, certainly,
that what is represented can be misunderstood as well.
But this doesn't mean that every single individual has an
interpretation completely different from the next individual.
If I would show a painting of a human with quite an uneasy postural
balance then most will interpret it right simply because my ideas (in
images) about such a thing is consistent with the ideas of others.
Stating that not all will interpret it right doesn't mean that the
representation is unsuccessfull. The lack of complete success doesn't
mean complete unsuccessfullness.
I write in English right now but I am Dutch. You understand my words
but as soon as I would switch to Dutch then you (and 95% of the rest
of Earth's population) probably wouldn't understand a single sentence
anymore. This doesn't mean that it is a futile thing to use Dutch for
expression.
>> >It's flat, it only has beauty but no
>> >ugliness,
>
>I know people who think that Kinkade's paintings have plenty of
>ugliness. There isn't agreement on what is beautiful or ugly, as
>should be readily apparent with even a brief survey, especially of
>people from different kinds of cultures or subcultures.
Yes, this is true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But this is
not about beauty but the nature of that what is attempted to be
expressed. Is that thing shallow or deep? If it is shallow then it is
only concerned with form. If it is deep then it is concerned with the
expression of basic (and deep) ideas about human existence.
Certainly, depth can be perceived when there was actually no attempt
to express it and shallowness can be perceived when there actually
_was_ an attempt to express depth.
However, this is the effectiveness of representation and is mostly
concerned with skill and the ability to not fool oneself about the
nature of these ideas.
If depth is perceived where there is actually only form intended then
it was just a lucky shot. If shallowness is perceived when the
intention was to create depth then the artist lacked skill to
communicate effectively (note : a complete success is not required,
only a big enough one in the intended audience).
This doesn't mean at all that being a good artist is a matter of luck.
If an artist is true to him/herself, expresses deep ideas and has good
skill then, more often than not, will the art be successfull. If not,
then it was just bad luck.
It is said that all good stories actually rely on a limited number of
basic stories and that characters also fit basic archetypes. The only
things that differ is the effectiveness they have and the specific
form they take on.
We can only be moved by art if it is about human existence (this
doesn't mean the art needs to involve humans). If it is about
suffering, conflict, happiness, death, etc. (not necessarily all at
once, of course). Only if we can relate a piece of art (being it a
movie, painting, comic, statue, etc.) to our own life then we can be
moved by it. Art that doesn't move is just illustration, like an
"explosion view" of a combustion engine.
>To some other people, they don't believe that the beautiful and ugly
>are present in all humans, say. And maybe don't interpret anything
>else the same way you do, either.
I don't believe that. Light can only be known by its relation to
darkness. Love only by its relation to fear. Humans can only be good
because they have the option of being evil. Good can conquer Evil but
it can only do that if there actually is Evil. Evil can corrupt Good
but only if there actually is Good.
The very basic nature of perception is based on relativeness, always
registering by comparison. Ideas emerge from observation, it is
obvious that they have the same nature as perception.
If I want to make something shiny in a painting then I make sure it's
surrounded by dullness, it brings the shine out more. If I want to
bring out a red strongly then I make sure that the other colors are
weak. If I would make an entire painting with strong colors then no
color would dominate and the painting wouldn't say anything at all on
the level of colors.
You suggest that perception is a matter of choice and that it can be
anything but this is not the case. Perception is not free, it is
governed by the specifics of our human body. Certainly there will be
differences but there's also lots of similarity simply because humans
share a basically similar body with small differences both in
physiology and experiences. But basically humans are the same and a
little bit different.
>> Yeah, every good story has a conflict and an antagonist (and the "more" the
>> better)
>
>And not everyone agrees with that, of course.
All stories have conflict. It's basic to human existence. We always
have to do some balancing act between the different desires of our
bodies. The "archetypes" in stories are based on different aspects of
our Selfs. They gain humanity as soon as they become more diffuse,
more mixed with other archetypes (the not-so-evil crook, the cynical
hero, the not-so-innocent child, etc.).
It's fun to see children grow up. They discover one by one their
skills and are aware of their desires. Slowly they learn to integrate
and balance all these things. At first, they are perfectly happy by
the aquired skill of walking (which involves the integration of many
other skills). After a while they will integrate it with hunger by
simply walking to the fridge. After more time they will learn to
control their urges because, when taken too far, they can thwart other
desires (not eating too much because it makes the body less attractive
when overly fat, for example).
There's an ongoing conflict going on between all the different desires
within the body. It gets even worse when we consider the whole of
mankind.
>> but - *visual art* is rather 'still' - it captures a ^single^ moment
>> from a myraid of moments.
>
>If it's even trying to do that. Not everyone is trying to do the same
>things with art. I guess that's going to be my mantra in this
>newsgroup :-) Although it tends to be my mantra overall, for all
>different kinds of things. "Not everyone in the world is the same,
>has the same desires or goals, likes the same things, etc." I think a
>lot of problems arise because we expect and sometimes try to persuade
>or make everyone (to) be the same.
But you run the risk by adhering to your "mantra" of "Not everyone in
the world is the same" that you take it too far and start to make it
into "Everyone in the world is completely different". That's not true
either.
I don't believe that art should strive for universal Truth (which
cannot be known by humans of course). Only for one Truth : the one of
the artist. Since people are both different and the same, a good deal
of people will agree with the artist. Some will disagree. This only
shows that humans are both the same and different.
>And why can't fiction, for just one alternative, be a valid area for
>painting? The idea that all painting has to be realist (has to try to
>say something about the actual world, try to "reflect" it in
>particular ways, etc.) is a very strange one to me, although one that
>many people in this newsgroup seem to hold.
It wasn't always like this in this ng. Some years ago realism was
rejected by most here and De Li was one of its few proponents :-)
There is, however, one good thing about setting something in a
"worldly setting" (a painting expressing something that _can_ be seen
in reality, for example) : it's something most people know because all
people are in the same world (although it might appear somewhat
different to each of them).
A complete abstract painting which is meant as non-representational
(at least not representing something that can be seen in the visual
world) has the problem that it doesn't have a visual equivalent in the
real world. It's not clear about what it is. Any meaning can be
attached to it although some particular feelings might be attached to
it by a majority (a haunting image, a tranquil image, etc.).
I just feel it's much easier to show pain by showing a face in pain
then by some streaks of color meant to represent pain on an abstract
level.
But then again, good realist art borrows from abstract art. Visual
abstract art often borrows from the non visual domains like music, for
example. This is an interesting thing because it widens the effect to
non-visual domains and is some way to overcome the limitations of a
static image that a painting basically is. There can be rhythm in a
painting even though it doesn't make a sound.
The problem is, of course, the integration of all these things. Pure
photorealism seems quite barren. There are myriads of things to
overcome its limitations.
>Mani actually seemed to
>conflate this belief with the notion of skill, which seems even more
>bizarre to me. I'm not sure where that underlying realist assumption
>about art is coming from (I'm assuming that it's coming from some
>external cultural source, rather than all of these people arriving at
>that same odd idea independently).
What is considered "Good Art" is of course governed for a large part
by culture. Once a painting needed to be brown to be good (in
Constable's time I believe). But the notions of a culture (which are
multifaceted and conflicting because culture is not monolithical) are
of no particular interest to the real artist. For survival reasons,
the artist only needs one single person appreciating his/her art : the
one who buys it. What the whole of mankind thinks of a single piece of
art is inconsequential.
>I think more of people seeking out artwork that has a look that they
>enjoy. Another belief that I'm encountering frequently in this
>newsgroup is that art is primarily about mental associations provoked
>by the pigments on the canvas (or whatever media) rather than being
>just as much about the pigments on the canvas.
Well, yes, you're right about that. A piece of art can be enjoyed
fully for simply what it is : a visual experience. It doesn't need to
be augmented by ideas. I feel it would add depth though. But certainly
you're right about your notion.
There's even a book about it : "Inner Vision" by neurobiologist Semir
Zeki. Just like babies (and grown ups) just like to move their body
for no other reason than that it is enjoyable to use one's body, the
same way it can be enjoyable just to have a "feast for the eyes" only.
Why do some people do crossword puzzles each an every day? They don't
learn any new skills. They just like to indulge in using the existing
ones.
>That's probably why
>some people here are having problems with abstract art, and why
>they're unlikely to see non-man-made things as art. My primary
>attraction to art is its intrinsic attraction to me--that is, how much
>I like those arrangements of colors, forms, etc., which to me can be
>representational or not. I do enjoy a lot of the symbolic, or more
>mental suggestions I get from artworks, but that's more secondary to
>me, and I realize that maybe no one else will make those same mental
>associations.
You have a very interesting point. Only with my test panels did I do
such things (at random). I start to get the desire to impart the
special visual properties to realist paintings.
Here's one of my chaotic test panels (normally they're just blocks of
paint to test the paint in mixes) :
http://www.paulmesken.net/temp3/clip0001.jpg
As can be seen I did get somewhat enamoured by the blue with the
orange streaks in it. It was pleasing on my eyes and I experimented a
little bit further with it. Now I want to integrate such purely visual
things in my realist paintings. The problem is, of course, how to
integrate them successfully.
>Now, I'm sure that will get some regular's blood pressure soaring, and
>the point isn't to divert this to a "what is art" conversation.
BLASPHEMY! Only NeoRaphaelites make REAL art! ;-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
> If I would make an entire painting with strong colors then no
>color would dominate and the painting wouldn't say anything at all on
>the level of colors.
This is not right. It would say nothing on the level of saturation of
colors. Using all strong colors could still say a lot on other
contrasts that can exist between colors. But the main idea remains
that it is contrast that is needed to make a statement.
King Rundzap
> > In other words, those kinds of interpretations aren't actually in the
> > pigments on the canvas that you're considering. They're in your head.
> > And not everyone has the same stuff in their heads in response to the
> > same external stimuli< etc.
> Given then that there is no absolute way to define art, and to judge it,
> is this what you want us to own up to?
I agree there is no "absolute" way to define art or judge it, but I
think more strongly I'm trying to get people to analyze their own
positions in depth and test whether they're consistent or not.
> In your effort to argue this matter, you leave me puzzled on what
> values you are using for your own assessment on art.
The ultimate value is whether I like something or not. I think that's
what everyone is doing when it comes to art that they personally
value. For whatever reason (I guess primarily cultural reasons, but
it's difficult to pin down a set of those that we could "blame"), some
people think that it isn't sufficient to just leave it at like versus
dislike, so they try to invent a "grand narrative" of what makes art
valuable or not, and try to project that onto the world at large
(project it from their mind to the rest of the world). But most of
those grand narratives quickly fall apart on analysis. Since they're
basically just made up to try to make like/dislike sound fancier and
more substantial, it doesn't usually take much to knock them over .
They tend to be inconsistently applied, since it's almost impossible
to construct something consistent logically that matches everything
someone likes and excludes the stuff they don't like. Ideally, I'd
like to undermine those narratives, get people to question why they
tought they needed them in the first place, and let us be okay with
like versus dislike, and okay with other people having different likes
than we do . . . we don't all have to be the same, and there's nothing
wrong with someone who is different than someone else (this is
subverting the herd instinct).
> You must have some common references with other artists and art
> lovers.
There are people who like the same kinds of things I do, but again,
there's nothing wrong with the folks who like other kinds of things
instead. Different people have different tastes.
> It seems to me that "modern art" is the only beneficiary of your arguments.
> Even Impressionism had traditional visual references, and the whole
> bulk of art from Byzantine work to Impressionism did not require too much
> argument to convince that when you looked at one, is was part of a whole.
Well, if you've been reading most of my posts (I certainly don't
expect you to bore yourself like that) you'll notice that I'm spending
a lot of time arguing against the idea that all art must have
"realist" goals (that is, that all artists must be aiming for forms,
proportions, perspective, etc. as it occurs in the actual world).
That's not made as an argument explicitly for non-representational
"modern art". What I have in mind is more what I tend to like the
best--representationalism that isn't trying to mimic the actual world,
but shown fictionalizations, or exaggerations, or distortions, etc. of
it. That's everything from Arcimboldo to Otto Dix to a lot of Miro,
to things more outside of the "fine arts" mainstream, like Gerald
Scarfe, Don Martin, and even various ethnic artforms. But the
arguments against the realist assumption work for non-representational
stuff just as well.
> I have been considering whether "modern art" is really the same "art" as
> that which it has generally replaced.
> Maybe it needs new definitions rather than none at all?
I try not to think of it as a dichotomy, partially because that
excludes an awful lot of artwork, such as that stuff that I like the
best. I don't think it's a black or white situation, but one with
hundreds or thousands of colors, many of them mixtures. Another
problem with depicting it as a dichotomy like that is that it tends to
imply that people we'd usually stick in those two categories are
either doing A or B, when no two people in those categories are really
doing quite the same thing, with the same goals.
Another thing I'll regularly rail against is anything approaching
elitism--separating "fine arts" from other arts, painting from
"illustration", art from "decoration", etc. That's another example of
people wanting to invent a narrative to make the stuff they like stand
out, be better, than the stuff they don't like as much, and under
analysis, those attempted divisions also fall apart.
> What I think the discussion centres around is "culture"
> Culture, defined for example as:-
> " The complete way of life of a people: the shared attitudes,
> " values, goals, and practices that "characterise a group;
> " their customs, art, literature, religion, philosophy, etc.; the
> " pattern of "learned and shared behaviour among the members
> " of a group.
> , will be bound to shape it's contemporary works of art.
There is a big problem with definitions of culture like that--it's not
really true that there is a population who all share attitudes,
values, goals, etc. Assuming that there is, as a kind of convenient
fiction, makes it much easier to talk about culture, but we can't
forget that it's a convenient fiction only.
It's true that various people might share a particular attitude or
belief, or whatever we'd like to talk about, concerning, say, the war
in Iraq, but when we survey those people about their attitudes on gay
marriage, say, we might come up with 50 different views. As we go on,
everyone is going to end up in their own category, but they'll share
various properties (attitudes, values, goals . . .) with various
other people. So it's really much more complicated than saying that a
culture, or a subculture, will all have some shared attitudes, values,
goals, etc.
> Sure there will always be people who demand to plough their
> own artistic furrows, but anyone who is in tune to any degree
> of their culture will be sure whether or not they are true reflectors
> of it, or are at the periphery of it, along with their works.
> The culture I refer to is our Western one.
The way I read that is more that at least some people have a strongly
believed, particular fiction about what their culture's shared
attitudes, beliefs, goals, etc. are, and they then assess whether they
match that or not. The emphasis there, to me, is on _fiction_. After
that, I'd stress that it's "at least some people", and not "all" or
"most", or maybe even "many".
I'm not the only person I know who thinks that cultures are really
very complex things where no two people are really the same in terms
of beliefs, values, and such, and who thinks that even with
statistical trends, there aren't many places where there would be just
one strong trend (or strong culture), without competing trends (or
competing cultures). And it's not just the U.S. Most countries have
a number of strong but somewhat incompatible cultures co-existing, and
all have a number of subcultures that can be divided up in various
ways.
Anyway, without making this too long, if you're wanting to appeal to a
shared cultural definition of art, as _the_ definition that is
superior, or the recommended one, etc., the first hurdle is simply
establishing that there is such a thing (and I don't think that would
be very easy--just quoting a dictionary wouldn't do it, for example).
The second hurdle would be showing why that shared cultural definition
is superior, or the recommended one, versus competing cultural, or
subcultural, or individual definitions that occur in the same
population considered geographically. Of course, then we're really
just inventing narratives, and we're trying to establish something as
elitist. I pointed out problems with inventing narratives and why I
dislike attempts at elitism earlier. You're going to have the same
problem here. It's probably going to be impossible to invent a
narrative that is consistent if you want it to include the stuff you
like and exclude the stuff you don't like.
My advice is to just forget about all of that. Let different people
like different things, let it be sufficient that they like them, and
don't get bent out of shape about it. It doesn't mean there is
something wrong with you if you don't like the same thing as someone
else. It's just about taste.
--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>"Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message news:<UPZ_c.2263$zq....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>...
>> > In other words, those kinds of interpretations aren't actually in the
>> > pigments on the canvas that you're considering. They're in your head.
>> > And not everyone has the same stuff in their heads in response to the
>> > same external stimuli< etc.
>
>> Given then that there is no absolute way to define art, and to judge it,
>> is this what you want us to own up to?
>
>I agree there is no "absolute" way to define art or judge it, but I
>think more strongly I'm trying to get people to analyze their own
>positions in depth and test whether they're consistent or not.
Well, there always seems to be some discrepancy between the "universal
meaning" of the word "art" and the ideas an individual has about it.
>The ultimate value is whether I like something or not. I think that's
>what everyone is doing when it comes to art that they personally
>value.
Yes, the goal of the artist is, of course, to find out exactly what it
is that he/she likes. This involves a bit of soul searching and a lack
of fear of the truth (which might fill the artist with shame).
Whatever the art is that is produced, it must be truthfull to the
vision (the true vision) of the artist. It must not be contaminated
with public attitudes, this would only dilute the vision, make it
weaker (a kind of "McDonald's art", offends no-one but isn't thought
to be brilliant by anyone either).
It is relatively easy to find out what one likes (or dislikes, which
is just as good). One responds to it strongly. Then it must be
examined in depth without trying to justify one's feelings by bringing
it into accordance with prevalent ideas of society. After all : it's
just art, it isn't hurting anyone (although the artist him/herself
might be hurt by those that are offended by it).
>> What I think the discussion centres around is "culture"
>> Culture, defined for example as:-
>> " The complete way of life of a people: the shared attitudes,
>> " values, goals, and practices that "characterise a group;
>> " their customs, art, literature, religion, philosophy, etc.; the
>> " pattern of "learned and shared behaviour among the members
>> " of a group.
>> , will be bound to shape it's contemporary works of art.
>
>There is a big problem with definitions of culture like that--it's not
>really true that there is a population who all share attitudes,
>values, goals, etc. Assuming that there is, as a kind of convenient
>fiction, makes it much easier to talk about culture, but we can't
>forget that it's a convenient fiction only.
If I understand you correctly, you completely oppose the idea that
there is such a thing as culture that has people sharing same ideas,
languages, religions, etc.
The big idea behind culture is not so much that all people in it
accept those things but only that they have been brought into contact
with it and have been affected by it.
Language is also part of culture. It is unclear how great the
influence of a language is on the thoughts of individuals. Any
language (even sign language) orders thought, but this also means that
it narrows thought.
Culture is quite a dominant force. The individual is wrought in it.
The individual might rebel against culture but will always think in
its terms because those terms were the first ones that were revealed
to him/her.
>It's true that various people might share a particular attitude or
>belief, or whatever we'd like to talk about, concerning, say, the war
>in Iraq, but when we survey those people about their attitudes on gay
>marriage, say, we might come up with 50 different views. As we go on,
>everyone is going to end up in their own category, but they'll share
>various properties (attitudes, values, goals . . .) with various
>other people. So it's really much more complicated than saying that a
>culture, or a subculture, will all have some shared attitudes, values,
>goals, etc.
But the very concept of marriage (and gay marriage, for that matter)
is a thing of culture and people only have a view about it because
culture has such a thing.
It is clear that marriage has a biological foundation (love, loyalty,
responsibility) but it is culture that gave it a form and
institutionalized it in a ritual and protected it.
But sometimes the form starts to dominate over the content. Much like
praying is an empty mechanical ritual to many. No longer does it bring
them closer to their God, it removes them further away from Him (or
Her, They, It). There's a staggering amount of lip service going on
but the deeds show otherwise. The Quran, for example, warns explicitly
against this : that there will be those who call themselves Muslims
(and might even believe themselves to be it) but are in fact
disbelievers because they don't do Good Deeds at all and only use
Allah's word for their own gain. Special warnings are given to priests
and writers of God's word. There must be an amazing amount of
illiteracy going on, given the current state of affairs. The very same
goes for Christians and Jews and other followers of religion (even
atheists or agnostics).
What does this has to do with art? Art, too, is about truth and form
should be subjected to it. It manifests itself in form though. Culture
is likewise. The truth in culture is man itself. Culture is only
fiction when it detaches itself from man.
>My advice is to just forget about all of that. Let different people
>like different things, let it be sufficient that they like them, and
>don't get bent out of shape about it. It doesn't mean there is
>something wrong with you if you don't like the same thing as someone
>else. It's just about taste.
Of course, all humans like to eat when hungry. This unites them. But
some favour french fries over potatoes and this seems to divide them.
However, when a man is dieing of thirst in the desert then he needs
water, not lemonade.
So, essentially humans are the same. The small differences can only
provide the icing on the cake :-)
Erik A. Mattila
>>There is a big problem with definitions of culture like that--it's not
>>really true that there is a population who all share attitudes,
>>values, goals, etc. Assuming that there is, as a kind of convenient
>>fiction, makes it much easier to talk about culture, but we can't
>>forget that it's a convenient fiction only.
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, you completely oppose the idea that
> there is such a thing as culture that has people sharing same ideas,
> languages, religions, etc.
>
> The big idea behind culture is not so much that all people in it
> accept those things but only that they have been brought into contact
> with it and have been affected by it.
>
> Language is also part of culture. It is unclear how great the
> influence of a language is on the thoughts of individuals. Any
> language (even sign language) orders thought, but this also means that
> it narrows thought.
>
> Culture is quite a dominant force. The individual is wrought in it.
> The individual might rebel against culture but will always think in
> its terms because those terms were the first ones that were revealed
> to him/her.
Aha...I like to contemplate the idea that Breugel's "Netherlandish
Proverbs" is intelligible to a janitor in Ames, Iowa almost 500 years
after the fact. Now, I think it would be less intelligible for a Tuareg
and perhaps ludacrous to a Trobriand Islander. Makes the case for
culture, in my book.
King Rundzap
> >I agree there is no "absolute" way to define art or judge it, but I
> >think more strongly I'm trying to get people to analyze their own
> >positions in depth and test whether they're consistent or not.
> Well, there always seems to be some discrepancy between the "universal
> meaning" of the word "art" and the ideas an individual has about it.
There would definitely be a discrepancy there, as "universal meanings"
are fictions--there are no such things. In my view (contra-Putnam)
all meanings are ultimately in the head--they're all ideas that an
individual has.
> >The ultimate value is whether I like something or not. I think that's
> >what everyone is doing when it comes to art that they personally
> >value.
> Yes, the goal of the artist is, of course, to find out exactly what it
> is that he/she likes. This involves a bit of soul searching and a lack
> of fear of the truth (which might fill the artist with shame).
Well, I don't agree with that, either, though, if we're saying it with
any kind of assumption of normativity or objectivity. That doesn't
have to be the goal of an artist. Again, it sure makes it a lot
easier to assume, or talk as if everyone is or should be doing the
same thing, sharing the same goals, and so on (and it also is
comfortable to anyone with a disposition for monism, but that's
another discussion), but it's more a pipe dream than an observation
about what is the case.
> Whatever the art is that is produced, it must be truthfull to the
> vision (the true vision) of the artist. It must not be contaminated
> with public attitudes, this would only dilute the vision, make it
> weaker (a kind of "McDonald's art", offends no-one but isn't thought
> to be brilliant by anyone either).
You're just trying to invoke elitism from another angle here. I think
that's garbage. One doesn't have to think that one is better than
another category of people. You don't have to invent categories and
criteria like that just to marginalize some folks. Different people
can be doing different things, with different goals, they can like
different things, and it can be okay.
> It is relatively easy to find out what one likes (or dislikes, which
> is just as good).
The only reason I brought up like versus dislike is to simplify why I
find some things personally valuable over some other things. I'm not
trying to suggest some normative criterion for creating elitist versus
non-elitist categories. Everyone finds the stuff valuable that they
do because they "like" something about that stuff, and it's different
stuff for different people. Maybe some artists find following the
advice of critics, or a corporation, valuable, because they like
something about that, over following other things they find valuable
but maybe others don't. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with
those folks because they find different things valuable than I do, and
I'm not in a "better" category than they are just because they like
and do things differently.
> One responds to it strongly. Then it must be
> examined in depth without trying to justify one's feelings by bringing
> it into accordance with prevalent ideas of society. After all : it's
> just art, it isn't hurting anyone (although the artist him/herself
> might be hurt by those that are offended by it).
But I don't understand why it "must" be examined in depth without
trying to justify one's feelings . . . if that's what you want to do
or not do, fine. The other folks who like different things aren't in
a lower class than you because they have a different view.
> >> What I think the discussion centres around is "culture"
> >> Culture, defined for example as:-
> >> " The complete way of life of a people: the shared attitudes,
> >> " values, goals, and practices that "characterise a group;
> >> " their customs, art, literature, religion, philosophy, etc.; the
> >> " pattern of "learned and shared behaviour among the members
> >> " of a group.
> >> , will be bound to shape it's contemporary works of art.
> >
> >There is a big problem with definitions of culture like that--it's not
> >really true that there is a population who all share attitudes,
> >values, goals, etc. Assuming that there is, as a kind of convenient
> >fiction, makes it much easier to talk about culture, but we can't
> >forget that it's a convenient fiction only.
> If I understand you correctly, you completely oppose the idea that
> there is such a thing as culture that has people sharing same ideas,
> languages, religions, etc.
I'm not opposing an idea. I'm pointing out that in fact, there aren't
populations who all have the same ideas, religions, etc.
> The big idea behind culture is not so much that all people in it
> accept those things but only that they have been brought into contact
> with it and have been affected by it.
"They tend to interact with each other", more or less directly, would
work, I think. And of course, through interacting, they tend to
influence each other in various ways, sure.
> Language is also part of culture. It is unclear how great the
> influence of a language is on the thoughts of individuals. Any
> language (even sign language) orders thought, but this also means that
> it narrows thought.
I don't really agree with either "language orders thought" or
"language narrows thought". There is a particular way that languages
tend to be constructed in terms of syntax, of course, but I do not
agree that it is co-extensive with thought. There is thought that
isn't language, language that I wouldn't call thought, etc. I
wouldn't say that language has no effect on thought, but I'd be very
careful about correlating the two too closely.
> Culture is quite a dominant force.
Interactions with other people have a lot of influence, yes.
> The individual is wrought in it.
As long as they're interacting with other people, yes.
> The individual might rebel against culture
You seem to be getting back here to the idea of a monist view of
culture--the idea that there is a unified set of beliefs, customs,
etc. That isn't the case, in point of fact, although as I noted in
the previous post, there are various statistical trends that are
shared by various people.
It's easy to oversimplify when we talk about cultures, as they are
incredibly complex, not unified, but if we want to say accurate things
about it, it's important to not oversimplify.
> but will always think in
> its terms because those terms were the first ones that were revealed
> to him/her.
Except that I don't think that it's all nurture in the nature versus
nurture argument (I think it's a combination of both) and no two
people are quite identical, so that person raised in a particular
place will be exposed to a multitude of different beliefs, customs,
etc.
> But the very concept of marriage (and gay marriage, for that matter)
> is a thing of culture and people only have a view about it because
> culture has such a thing.
Well, marriage requires more than one person, and usually requires
other people to recognize the marriage in various ways, etc. (although
it wouldn't necessarily require that), so yes, in that way, it is
necessarily cultural, but having a view on it is just a factor of
being aware of it, or the notion of it, and coming to whatever
conclusion you come to, for whatever reason you come to it. There
isn't just one cultural view on it, and there isn't even just one view
of it within smaller cultural units like families.
You can't say that the "American cultural view on gay marriage is such
and such" because there isn't a unified view, nor are there just two
opposing views, or even just fifty alternatives. There may be
millions of different American views on something like gay marriage.
> It is clear that marriage has a biological foundation (love, loyalty,
> responsibility) but it is culture that gave it a form and
> institutionalized it in a ritual and protected it.
Sure, in that cultures are people interacting and people have to
interact to have what is usually considered marriage.
> But sometimes the form starts to dominate over the content. Much like
> praying is an empty mechanical ritual to many. No longer does it bring
> them closer to their God, it removes them further away from Him (or
> Her, They, It). There's a staggering amount of lip service going on
> but the deeds show otherwise. The Quran, for example, warns explicitly
> against this : that there will be those who call themselves Muslims
> (and might even believe themselves to be it) but are in fact
> disbelievers because they don't do Good Deeds at all and only use
> Allah's word for their own gain. Special warnings are given to priests
> and writers of God's word. There must be an amazing amount of
> illiteracy going on, given the current state of affairs. The very same
> goes for Christians and Jews and other followers of religion (even
> atheists or agnostics).
Religion is a good example of a cultural phenomenon with little unity
of belief. Even though most of the people in a given culture might
identify themselves as Christian, say, there is little unity among
what they actually believe, even within the "same" church, and rituals
and customs can vary from church to church, or from family to family,
or individual to individual. Again, it's easy to simplify, and many
impossible to talk about it in a way that doesn't simplify it, but we
have to be aware of the tendency to simplify it if we want to try to
make true statements about it.
> What does this has to do with art? Art, too, is about truth
Well, according to whom is it about truth, though? Even as a
fictionalized cultural notion, where are you encountering that
particular fiction? Once we figure that out, if indeed it is a
popular monistic fiction (if there is a belief that it's a "shared"
cultural definition of art), which I doubt, we have to think again
about whether it's oversimplifying what is the case in the culture
we're talking about. To do that, we think about where the author of
that definition got his/her idea from, what the population would
actually say if surveyed, whether they all mean the same things by the
same terms, etc. It's very, very complicated, which might be
unfortunate if we want to theorize about it, but it doesn't make it
the case that it's not really complicated and multi-faceted just
because it would be easier to talk about, and we would like that
better, if it weren't really complicated and multi-faceted.
> and form
> should be subjected to it.
The same there. According to whom?
> It manifests itself in form though. Culture
> is likewise. The truth in culture is man itself.
That sounds like a paraphrase of what we call the consensus theory of
truth in epistemology (a branch of philosophy). I use the
correspondence theory of truth, but my own modification, which is a
subjectivist correspondence theory of truth. However, I agree that
for some propositions, at least, in some sufficiently narrow arenas,
the consensus theory of truth might work. An example, in my view,
would be something like, "The square root of negative 1 is an
imaginary number".
> Culture is only
> fiction when it detaches itself from man.
Culture isn't a fiction. A unified culture, on the other hand, is.
That's a very important difference. It's similar to saying "cars
aren't fictions, but cars that can drive to Arcturus (another star in
our Milky Way Galaxy) in two hours are".
> >My advice is to just forget about all of that. Let different people
> >like different things, let it be sufficient that they like them, and
> >don't get bent out of shape about it. It doesn't mean there is
> >something wrong with you if you don't like the same thing as someone
> >else. It's just about taste.
> Of course, all humans like to eat when hungry.
Well, I'd be careful about saying all there.
> This unites them. But
> some favour french fries over potatoes and this seems to divide them.
But there's no reason for it to divide them in an antagonistic way,
which is what I'm trying to stress overall. It's okay if different
people like different things.
> However, when a man is dieing of thirst in the desert then he needs
> water, not lemonade.
I'm not sure that's true, but I guess it doesn't matter . . . I don't
know what the point of it was, anyway.
> So, essentially humans are the same.
I'm known as a non-essentialist philosophically, and I'm a nominalist
(I think no two things are logically identical). So I don't think
that "essentially humans are the same".
> The small differences can only
> provide the icing on the cake :-)
I don't think that differences are really quantifiable, either. So
it's difficult to say that they're small or large. My view on that is
wrapped up with my non-essentialism and nominalism.
Sorry to bring up some academic philosophy terms in this, since I'm
sure they won't mean much to some folks reading this, but I'm trying
to cut to the chase on some of these issues, since the disagreements
really hinge on disagreements about those kinds of issues.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> Aha...I like to contemplate the idea that Breugel's "Netherlandish
> Proverbs" is intelligible to a janitor in Ames, Iowa almost 500 years
> after the fact. Now, I think it would be less intelligible for a Tuareg
> and perhaps ludacrous to a Trobriand Islander. Makes the case for
> culture, in my book.
I'm in the camp that buys "radical hermeneutics" (an offshoot of some
of Gadamer's ideas on hermeneutics) and "localized indeterminacy of
translation" (which is a stronger version of Quine's indeterminacy of
translation). Under that, Bruegel's work may not have been
intelligible, in the "same way" that Bruegel intended or conceived it,
even to other people in 16th Century Flanders, including his mother,
or his wife, Mayken.
--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>I'm known as a non-essentialist philosophically, and I'm a nominalist
>(I think no two things are logically identical). So I don't think
>that "essentially humans are the same".
Well, that's the essence of the whole disagreement. You cling to the
conviction that everything is different. I say that everything is both
different and the same. Surely you must realise that perception (which
is the root of all logic) relies both on similarity and difference.
Saying that "all is different" or "all is the same" is an oxymoron in
itself because the very language that these statements are spoken in
rely on both similarity and difference. One doesn't make sense without
the other.
If humans wouldn't be essentially the same then we wouldn't recognize
them as such and wouldn't even have the word "humans". At least, you
shouldn't label humans as "humans" because then you are suggesting
that there is an essential similarity between humans.
Now, I say "humans don't like pain". Then you say : "not all humans
are the same and therefor your statement is wrong". But then I would
say that it would be even more wrong to reject my statement on the
existence of rare exceptions (and most people don't like pain, I think
we can safely assume that, it also makes more sense in an evolutionary
way).
Much of our decisions are governed by "educated guesses" and they rely
on similarities. Provisions are made for the rare exceptions ("People
don't like pain but John does").
Mani Deli
academic artists.
Here they will get about two weeks worth of information for every six
months of time spent there. And of course they will expect a tuition
fee in order to be taught the following mantra of quaint aphorisms as
a substitute for what the teachers don't know. (in much more
long-winded form of course. They have all that time to kill.)
- modernism is something new.
-the term realism when used as a negative description is to be
understood as merely a photographic rendition of reality.
- representation in painting needs to be abandoned.
- people who cannot draw have greater freedom in expressing themselves
than people who can.
- art since Impressionism makes better use of color than it did
before.
·-permanent rebellion against the past is a moral artistic requirement
-neurotic or antisocial people are necessarily better artists.
- modern Academic Art operates outside of the commercial economic
sphere
-Art history is divided into antiquated realism and modern
abstraction.
-There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our Modern
Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and then there is
all that 'other stuff'. That is, painting not holy-critic approved
like illustration, animation and anything to do with commercial art,
etc.
At the conclusion of your studies you will receive a certificate
attesting to your intellectual and artistic superiority. This should
serve as much an asset to getting work and public acceptance, as it
has for all those other certified failures out there.
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
King Rundzap
participating in usenet--I don't really have hours to spend every day
writing stuff for usenet that a couple people will read and then
forget about. Not that I don't enjoy it, but I have to paint and work
on my other arts!
Anyway, here comes me going "blah blah blah" a lot:
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<dk4pj0h5qde49ci7d...@4ax.com>...
> On 6 Sep 2004 05:03:28 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
>
> >"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message news:<10jnb27...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> From: Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
> >>
> >> >Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
> >> >in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course).
> >
> >Right (re just your opinion, lol). I see that as too limiting. There
> >is a lot more to the world than humans, in my view, and art also has
> >the advantage of being able to be about fictional things, and not
> >necessarily fictions about humans.
>
> Perhaps I'm not using the right expression with "human condition".
>
> Humans can certainly ponder about the nature of other things, like
> animals, but always project their own being onto them. Manmade
> fictions are always based on human experience because we cannot
> willfully create something beyond that. We only understand by means of
> analogy and these analogies always refer back to our own being because
> that's all we know. All knowledge is essentially Self knowledge.
Reading it that way, a human couldn't make art that's not about the
human condition, and so if that's a criterion for good art, it's all
good, at least if made by a human (the debate would then go back to
whether things made by other kinds of living things, or even occurring
without the intervention of living things, can be art or not).
> We don't know the world independent of our Self. We _only_ know the
> world _through_ our Self. We're far from objective.
I agree with that. I was just commenting on the person saying that
"Good art is about the human condition", as if that was going to
exclude some art made by humans as being not good.
> Thus, a couple of very basic concepts underlie all others that center
> around our feelings and our senses. Images, smells, sounds, etc. all
> kinds of sensory experiences become associated with feelings and gives
> meaning to these sensory experiences for there is no meaning without
> feelings.
Meaning is mental in my view, though--something that brains do. It
would be difficult to say whether that could occur without senses,
maybe, as there is probably no one without any senses who could tell
us whether they assign meanings to things or not.
> The mind cannot evaluate things that don't invoke feelings
> either directly (a nail through the hand hurts like Hell) or
> indirectly (based on association with past experiences that, in their
> turn, are associated with feelings).
I don't agree with that. I think you can evaluate purely mental
fictions, with no direct or indirect sense perception associated.
> Childhood experiences are very important. They form the basic building
> blocks of subsequent thought and are responsible of much of the form
> that we give our feelings (feelings only have form, either sound,
> images, etc. by association). Culture is very important as well
> because it delivers much of the imagery.
You seem to lean towards the nurture side of the nature versus nurture
argument (based on the last post I responded to, also). I think it's
a mistake to lean to one side or the other on that argument.
> Feelings might even, because of childhood experiences, become deeply
> associated with objects.
Well, or that could be the case from the "nature" side of the
argument, too.
> Take the high heeled shoe for example. In
> this culture they are (almost) exclusively worn by women. A very young
> child sitting under a table while his mother is sitting around it with
> her female friends wearing high heels makes the child associate high
> heels with femaleness.
I'm not much of a Freudian, I think he had a lot of things very wrong.
So I don't think we can explain everything in terms of childhood
experiences. I don't even think we can explain everything when it
comes to psychology. I think we just want to be able to, but I think
it's very bizarre to think that we should be able to. But that's
another discussion . . . maybe, lol
> The influence of culture on basic imagery is
> obvious here.
If you oversimplify and assume that everything is going to conform to
some invented narrative maybe.
> Since the earlyness of this perception it becomes
> enormously entrenched in the psyche (subsequent experiences are built
> upon previous experiences, makes analogies easier and is a huge space
> saver in the brain).
Although that's just a fictional narrative.
> It might even give rise to perverse behaviour in
> that the boy will grow up wanting to make love to high heeled shoes
> instead of women,
And that might not have anything to do with what you're claiming it
has to do with, also.
> this is fetishism in its most extreme form in which
> one image starts to rule over all.
And that's a bad oversimplification of fetishes, too. I have a number
of fetishes, for example, and that doesn't describe them.
> What does this all have to do with art? Art is about making images
I don't agree that art is about "making images", as I think that
objects or events without intervention from sentient beings can be
art, but even if we arbitrarily decide to limit art to things arising
from sentient being intervention, and then limit it to visual art
(which I agree is implied in the newsgroup), I would say that it is
about presenting visual structures of some kind. I think "making
images" would even limit sentient-manipulated visual art too much to
cover all the stuff I think should be covered.
> and sounds that are meant to evoke feelings or, one might argue, to
> externalize feelings which is a very natural thing to do.
Music, if that's what you're referring to here, is definitely not
always intended to "evoke feelings" or externalize feelings.
> We
> externalize anger, sadness, etc. in behaviour, art making can be
> viewed the same way.
I agree that many artists do that, but not all, and I don't agree that
we should only call art the stuff that does that.
> Autists typically don't feel much need to
> externalize, as such they have a very passive relationship with their
> environment.
That seems like a crass generalization. Not sure where you're getting
that from.
> Feelings can be indirectly accessed by the ideas they have given rise
> to (the result of feelings and the sensory experiences that gave rise
> to the feelings).
Would you agree that "identical" feelings give rise to "identical"
ideas, and vice versa? I sure wouldn't agree with that.
> We can express such ideas, represent them in art.
Different things would maybe represent ideas to different people, and
for them, they might represent different ideas (assuming we could ever
know whether it's the same or a different idea, which I think is
problematic).
> I have used the expression "human condition" as how humans experience
> life in thought.
Well, based on what you said earlier in this post, that would
translate to, "humans experience life in thought as humans". I agree
with that.
>Thinking about such things (human life has many
> facets) involves using the basic ideas
"the basic ideas"? What is that referring to?
> and these basic ideas have
> images, sounds, smells, etc. associated with them.
As I noted earlier, I definitely do not agree that all ideas have
images, sounds, and smells associated with them. Now, maybe for some
people they do--maybe some people always have concomitant images,
sounds and smells when they have an idea, and there is nothing wrong
with that, but not all people have concomitant images, sounds and
smells (or tactile or olfactory associations) with ideas--I know that,
because I'm one of them, and there's nothing wrong with me, either,
for that.
> Lots of it comes
> from childhood. Almost any obsession has its roots in childhood.
Again, I'm not a Freudian, and I think a lot of psychology, in
general, is problematic. We could get into why, but that would be a
long conversation, probably better reserved for a different newsgroup,
as I prefer to stay on topic if possible.
> How
> about grown up men obsessively playing with trains? It probably was an
> unfullfilled desire of their childhood that governs now such a big
> part of their life.
That's a nice narrative that appeals to anyone wanting a narrative, a
set of reasons, to explain some behavior or another, but I don't think
there's any particular reason to believe that it's correct. It's not
something we can test experimentally, say.
> Again : culture governed the form of this
> obsession (I don't think stone age men want to play with trains
> because there weren't any).
I agree that you have to have an idea about trains to want to play
with them. No argument there.
> Art can be about suffering.
Yeah, an artist could intend it to be about anything they like,
really.
> Suffering itself is an innate thing to
> humans (and a lot of other life forms)
I don't agree with that, either. There aren't many non-tautologous
universal generalizations I would agree with (tautologous ones I don't
have a problem with), although I'd probably agree with a few.
> but it is expressed with
> different forms coming from experience, a lot of it childhood
> experience, which, in its turn, is governed by culture.
I don't agree that we can say it comes from childhood experience, that
all mental content is from external sources (tabula rasa is nonsense
to me) or that most mental content has external sources.
> >Well, and most of the people who say they're concerned with logic, or
> >who just invoke it in conversations in some way, don't know much about
> >it. They tend to be referring to some colloquial notion, which is
> >almost always vague and everyone tends to have their own definition in
> >that realm, as opposed to referring to the academic field of logic.
> >If you ask them to talk about paraconsistent logic for a minute, for
> >example, they usually have no idea what you're referring to. There
> >isn't just one "species" of academic logic, and not all of them are
> >consistent with each other.
> But logic, in its many forms, is an intellectual tool.
Yes, but that fact doesn't have much to do with most people invoking
it and not being very familiar with it.
> And logic
> itself has shown itself to be limited (Gödel's incompleteness theorem
> for example).
I'm just pointing out that must people who bring up logic aren't very
familiar with logic. Not sure why you're talking about something
else. Are you agreeing with me, or are you claiming that no, in fact
they are very familiar with logic--if the latter, what is the evidence
for that? You seem to be going off on a lot of tangents in this post
that aren't actually addressing anything I said.
> Logic isn't some universal thing.
Of course.
> Our logic only exists
> in ourselves and not outside ourselves and we can have no other logic
> but our own. Therefor it is limited by ourselves unless we're
> omniscient beings.
What? What does omniscience have to do with anything we were just
talking about?
> Furthermore : logic always relies on some axioms
> and these come from our own observations.
No, they certainly do not always come from observations. Many formal
logics amount to symbol games, that have nothing to do with anything
observational. Logic isn't considered an empirical discipline.
> The problem is that our
> observations are not objective.
Are you thinking that I believed they were? Why were you thinking
that? It sounds like you just read the term "logic", and assumed some
other argument that you're already familiar with, instead of just
reading what I actually wrote. Either that, or you're just using it
as an excuse to give a lecture on something you're interested in, and
you're not actually addressing my post.
> No observation can be objective
> because observation requires a point of view (in our case : the human
> perspective).
I don't think all humans share a perspective. Each human has their
own.
> Therefor, there is incompleteness
I hope that's not an attempt to relate the above to Godel in some way.
Godel has nothing to do with that. Godel is about a specific problem
that arose in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, and which
would arise in any formal logical system that attempted to reduce
mathematics complex enough to encompass arithmetic into the formal
logical system.
> unless we assume that
> our point of view can include all other points of view.
> I don't know but I question logic as universal truth while having
> phenomenology as its foundation
Who, exactly, are you addressing here, though?
> >>There's always some conflict and that
> >> >creates depth because it is the conflict we are either aware of or
> >> >subconsciously aware of.
> >I'm a bit skeptical of the notion of subconscious awareness.
> Okay, let me rephrase "subconscious awareness" in a "Je ne sais pas",
> you know : the feeling one cannot pinpoint ;-)
My point is that I don't think you can have a mental conflict that you
are unaware of. Either you're aware of it, or there's no reason to
believe that you have it.
> >> Nothing is ever clear cut for humans.
> >> >Painters like Kinkade et all don't show this strange thing and I
> >> >believe it is because of this one dimensionality that many people
> >> >don't want to call it art.
> >I don't at all agree that everyone views and interprets the same art
> >the same way. Assume for a minute that some arbitrary person agrees
> >with all of the statements "good art is about the human condition",
> >"the human condition is multi-faceted and conflicted on many issues",
> >etc. That person might think that Kinkade's works show that and might
> >think that someone whose works _you_ think show that in fact don't
> >show that--they might say that that other artist's works are
> >one-dimensional.
> To a certain degree you're right. However, even though humans are
> different, they are also the same (the conflict again :-)
Remember that I'm a non-essentialist and a nominalist. But anyway,
assuming that "humans are also the same", that has no bearing on the
fact that someone might disagree that Kinkade's works do not show the
human condition, etc. So they're the same--so what? They disagree
that this art shows that and that this other art doesn't.
> It is wrong to say that all humans are alike and it's also wrong to
> say they are all different. They are both different and alike. The
> "run-of-the-mill" logic doesn't like it very much if duality is taken
> away. Things are far easier to understand in extremes. What good is a
> logic if it doesn't answer any question? The logical course of action
> is, of course, to simply accept the phenomenon and don't question it
> at all :-)
I don't think it's wrong to say that they are all different. I think
all of everything is different. I don't think there are any real
universals--no "real properties" in the sense of their being single
properties that multiple particulars can participate in. That's what
it means to be a nominalist.
Secondly, get off of the logic hang-up. I only mentioned it to point
out that most people invoking it aren't very familiar with it, not to
champion it in any way or to claim it's objective, which you must be
getting from other conversations you've had with other people. I
mentioned paraconsistent logic as an example of something most people
invoking logic in a conversation like this wouldn't be familiar with.
Re duality, paraconsistent logic allows some cases of "P & ~P"
(logical contradictions in traditional formal bivalent logic) to be
assigned "T", or "true". Is parasonsistent logic run-of-the-mill?
Well, anyone who is a logician would be very familiar with it, at
least . . . I'm not sure what makes something run-of-the-mill to you.
Re logics answering questions . . . well, they answer questions within
the logical system at hand . . . they're not very good for other
things, I agree. Not sure what the point of all that is, though.
Again, you seem to think I'm having some conversation about logic that
I didn't mention. It reminds me of my wife. You say certain
"keywords" to her and she goes off in a tirade, regardless of what it
was that you said containing the keyword, lol.
> The problem of logic to come up with an answer might be simply a
> "resolution problem".
Why are you still talking about this?
> Raise the resolution to a "finer grain" and it
> might come up with an answer. However : the real problem with logic is
> that it is built upon the assumption of "resolution".
> It operates on
> symbols and symbols are used to group phenomenons in concepts
If you're thinking that logic is mostly about "grouping phenomena in
concepts" I can't help but think you're talking more about a
colloquial notion of what logic is, as opposed to the academic field
of logic. The academic field isn't very concerned with phenomena or
concepts. Again, it's not empirical.
> (in
> humans in a fuzzy fashion, of course, due to the nature of our neural
> network that implements our logic).
There isn't just "one logic" in academic terms, and we're not really
talking about how humans think once we get past the Aristotelian
syllogistic and early formal logic ala Boole. That's why logic
professors continually stress to students to not try to parse their
exercises in formal logic into natural language (such as English)
terms, since that tends to confuse students more than help them, as
they try to "get logic" by what makes sense to them in a natural
language, and formal logic isn't about that.
> This implicitly assumes that it is
> okay to do grouping. In every day life this certainly holds truth but
> it isn't all encompassing.
This is a good opportunity to ask exactly what you’re meaning by
“grouping”.
> Logic reminds me a little bit of statistics.
Well, except that statistics is usually concerned with something
empirical--data from the "external world" so to speak. Formal logic
isn't about that.
> It's only true in general
> but not in the specific.
Logics are true or not as defined in each particular logical
system--truth-values are literally definitions there. I know a lot of
this probably makes little sense, but that's why I mentioned that
people usually invoking logic (such as whoever did it first in this
thread, it wasn't me) usually aren't very familiar with it
non-colloquially, and hence it's often difficult to tell exactly what
they're talking about, as it's just some personal notion of what logic
is, which doesn't usually resemble the academic discipline.
> It also can bite itself in the tail with
> artifacts which arise solely from its own workings, like oxymorons
> which only exist in logic but not in observation.
As logic isn't about empirical observation, that's not surprising.
> >In other words, those kinds of interpretations aren't actually in the
> >pigments on the canvas that you're considering. They're in your head.
> > And not everyone has the same stuff in their heads in response to the
> >same external stimuli.
> Not necessarily, but a lot of people do.
Well, it would be impossible to know what exactly someone else has in
their head. They can't just tell you. Speech or written text, for
example, aren't the same thing as the stuff in their head.
> Take the simple facial
> expressions of emotions, for example.
Behavior is _not_ mental content.
> They are quite universal (as
> researched by Paul Ekman) although I'm sure there will be a few
> individuals who misinterpret them (according to the artist, or photo,
> or even real life, representing them).
We abstract them, by simplifying the differences, into classes of the
"same" behavior, like a smile. As behavior isn't mental content, and
speech, writing, etc. are also behavior, not mental content, there
isn't a way to correlate behavior to mental content, or to know just
what another person's mental content is.
> I believe the more abstract a work of art gets the greater the range
> of interpretations.
Well, that's interesting belief-wise, but I doubt it has much
grounding experimentally, even if we're only talking about behavior.
I mentioned in another thread that I very rarely have the same
interpretation in mind as commentators mention, behaviorally, about
various representational, classical art. I'd bet that if we tested
this, we'd find that both, behaviorally, have a very wide range of
interpretations.
> The more ground it is in human experience and
> represented by the human body, the easier it gets to interpret things
> according to the artist's intentions.
That's a great myth, but that's all I think it is. It depends on a
variety of other myths--shared mental content arising from the same or
similar experiences, the ability to know others' meanings, the ability
to “observe” another’s intention, etc. – all myths in my book.
> But this is somewhat of an oversimplification. We're both united and
> divided by our human bodies (and this includes the brain as well, of
> course).
I’m not sure what it means to be “united” or “divided” by our human
bodies.
> Culture also plays a major role. There were even tribes found (in New
> Guinea, I believe) who didn't understand photos until it was explained
> to them (after that, they couldn't unlearn it).
I think I had close friend who didn’t understand photos, lol. I know
I had a friend who didn’t understand the moon. It scared her. She
was from the Philippines.
> Indeed, if even the
> medium of representation itself can be misunderstood then, certainly,
> that what is represented can be misunderstood as well.
I don’t agree that people from the same culture, the same family, etc.
get the same thing from an object they’re intimately familiar with.
We don’t have to resort to wildly different cultures for examples. We
could just use my sister and I, for example.
> But this doesn't mean that every single individual has an
> interpretation completely different from the next individual.
Well, we can’t know exactly what someone’s interpretation is. I doubt
any two people have the same interpretation, but I agree that I’m just
speculating based on behavioral clues (such as speech, writing, etc.).
> If I would show a painting of a human with quite an uneasy postural
> balance then most will interpret it right simply because my ideas (in
> images) about such a thing is consistent with the ideas of others.
LOL re “interpret it right”. What is the right interpretation there?
I don’t know. So I wouldn’t interpret it the same way as you are,
since you are apparently inferring a whole host of other information
from that.
I agree that we could survey a large number of people about behavioral
“interpretation” (ask them to say in words, to write, etc. their
interpretation), but I am skeptical that there would be as much
agreement as you believe. I think the most agreement would occur
among people socialized into a particular view who aren’t averse to
parroting, or slightly paraphrasing, some interpretation of something
they’re familiar with. But that would be a small, very specific
population. A good example is with the earlier logic discussion. If
we surveyed a large cross section of the population of New York City,
say, on what logic was, we’d get a huge number of different answers,
many wildly divergent from one another. The subpopulation of those
surveyed who had some graduate school training in formal logic under
an analytic system (as opposed to a continental-leaning school like
The New School, say) would probably tend to agree that formal logic,
at least, is not about empirical facts. They would have at least been
exposed to that as the received view in that specific subculture
(analytic logicians), and would have a greater tendency to parrot or
paraphrase the view.
Here’s one very concrete reason why I’m so skeptical about this.
Consider the scientific method, for an example. You’d probably guess
that there’s a lot, or at least more probable agreement among
academics about what the scientific method is—just what kinds of steps
it consists of (even if not necessarily in the same order), what
properties distinguish it, etc. When I was doing philosophy of
science academically, one of the projects I undertook was surveying
people teaching and trained academically in the sciences about just
what the scientific method was (it was a field research project in
what’s known as the “demarcation criterion problem” in philosophy of
science). I surveyed thousands of textbooks, encyclopedias,
professors, researchers, etc. and to my surprise, I ended up with
hundreds of different characterizations of the scientific method, and
at most, about a 17% agreement on any particular “step” or “property”.
And those were all individuals putatively socialized into the same
discipline, where that discipline was their profession, and they can’t
even agree on what characterizes the discipline they work in!
That’s one reason I’m fairly confident that if we did survey a large
number of people about interpretations of artworks, we’d get hundreds
of different answers, wildly divergent from one another. It would be
a fun experiment, but would take us some time to organize and execute.
> Stating that not all will interpret it right doesn't mean that the
> representation is unsuccessfull. The lack of complete success doesn't
> mean complete unsuccessfullness.
Well, I don’t think there _is_ a “right” interpretation, or a wrong
interpretation. I don’t think of interpretation in that way. And in
light of some of my philosophical views, which should be apparent at
this point, you could probably guess that I wouldn’t call an artwork
successful or unsuccessful based on anything about conveying an
artist’s intention—I don’t think it’s necessarily possible to convey,
even if they explicitly state it in speech, and you feel that you
understand the speech and can repeat it back. Remember that I do
_not_ think that behavior is the same as mental content.
> I write in English right now but I am Dutch. You understand my words
I get something from your words. You’ll get something from mine,
probably. There’s no way for us to tell if those things match. We
can only match behaviors, not mental content. (And frustration with
this fact is what led to the ridiculous doctrine of behavioralism in
psychology/philosophy of mind, wherein it was claimed that the mind
simply didn’t exist).
> but as soon as I would switch to Dutch then you (and 95% of the rest
> of Earth's population) probably wouldn't understand a single sentence
> anymore.
Well, I’d still get something from the sentences, most likely, but I’d
also guess that I’m not getting much from them, as those kinds of
assessments are usually made about behavioral matching abilities, and
those are often mistakenly conflated with mental content.
> This doesn't mean that it is a futile thing to use Dutch for
> expression.
I don’t think it’s futile to use a language you made up just now even.
> >> >It's flat, it only has beauty but no
> >> >ugliness,
> >I know people who think that Kinkade's paintings have plenty of
> >ugliness. There isn't agreement on what is beautiful or ugly, as
> >should be readily apparent with even a brief survey, especially of
> >people from different kinds of cultures or subcultures.
> Yes, this is true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But this is
> not about beauty but the nature of that what is attempted to be
> expressed. Is that thing shallow or deep?
Not like people are going to agree on that.
> If it is shallow then it is
> only concerned with form.
Would everyone agree that object X is only concerned with form? Would
everyone agree with the statement, “if something is only concerned
with form, then it is shallow”?
> If it is deep then it is concerned with the
> expression of basic (and deep) ideas about human existence.
Basic and deep to whom?
> Certainly, depth can be perceived when there was actually no attempt
> to express it and shallowness can be perceived when there actually
> _was_ an attempt to express depth.
Honestly, “deep” versus “shallow” are never words I use to talk about
art. The only possible exception might be, “Wow, he painted a deep
canyon there”, or “Gee, that’s a shallow sea”, etc. So just who is
perceiving deep versus shallow? And why aren’t we agreeing on it?
> However, this is the effectiveness of representation and is mostly
> concerned with skill and the ability to not fool oneself about the
> nature of these ideas.
I don’t think I understand that sentence.
> If depth is perceived where there is actually only form intended then
> it was just a lucky shot.
Why is depth better than shallowness? That’s implied there.
> If shallowness is perceived when the
> intention was to create depth then the artist lacked skill to
> communicate effectively (note : a complete success is not required,
> only a big enough one in the intended audience).
I don’t think a lot of people would say “X is shallow” or “X is deep”
without being goaded by a leading question in the survey. It’s not
something very well-defined, unless it’s something standard in some
art schools that I’m not aware of.
> This doesn't mean at all that being a good artist is a matter of luck.
> If an artist is true to him/herself, expresses deep ideas and has good
> skill then, more often than not, will the art be successfull. If not,
> then it was just bad luck.
I don’t agree that an artist has to be “true” to him/herself, express
“deep ideas” and have a particular skill to be successful or good. As
I mentioned earlier, re the idea part, I don’t even think that art
itself expresses ideas. You either apply an idea to it or not.
> It is said that all good stories actually rely on a limited number of
> basic stories and that characters also fit basic archetypes.
That makes it easier for creative writing teachers at least, doesn’t
it? lol
> The only
> things that differ is the effectiveness they have and the specific
> form they take on.
And that not everyone agrees that “all good stories actually rely on a
limited number of basic stories”.
> We can only be moved by art if it is about human existence (this
> doesn't mean the art needs to involve humans).
Plenty of people can be moved by art that wasn’t done by humans (what
you mean by “about human existence”). I’m moved by art that wasn’t
done by humans frequently. I’m moved by everything from art done by
turtles to art done by computers to aesthetic appreciation of things
like rocks, mountains, clouds, etc. (art in “nature”). So it is
trivially wrong that “we can only be moved by art if it is about human
existence”.
> If it is about
> suffering, conflict, happiness, death, etc. (not necessarily all at
> once, of course).
This is seeming to conflict with your earlier definition of “about
human existence” as “anything done by a human”.
>Only if we can relate a piece of art (being it a
> movie, painting, comic, statue, etc.) to our own life then we can be
> moved by it.
Again, trivially wrong. At least make claims that aren’t so easily
contradicted by people with other views. If you’re making a claim of
the type, “You can only feel X in situation Y”, you’d better have a
good deal of evidence that no one else feels X in other situations.
As soon as Joe claims that he feels X in situation Z, you’re screwed
otherwise.
> Art that doesn't move is just illustration,
So illustration is objects A, E and F to Betty, since they don’t move
her, while B G and I move her and are art.
However, to Jane, B, G and I are illustration, while to Jane, A E and
F are art?
> like an
> "explosion view" of a combustion engine.
> >To some other people, they don't believe that the beautiful and ugly
> >are present in all humans, say. And maybe don't interpret anything
> >else the same way you do, either.
> I don't believe that.
Well, you can disbelieve it all you want, but if Joe says “I believe
Mark is only beautiful and not ugly at all” you can’t very well show
that, no, in fact Joe _does_ believe that Mark is also ugly. That’s
ridiculous.
> Light can only be known by its relation to
> darkness. Love only by its relation to fear.
You know things like mice, neutrons, etc. Those do not have
opposites. That whole opposites thing is really, _really_ silly to
me.
> Humans can only be good
> because they have the option of being evil.
Humans are good or evil, or do good or evil actions, to the people who
judge those things in that way, based on their criteria or just their
intuition for judging them that way. Someone could always judge
everything one way or the other and have no conception of the other
thing. That’s certainly possible.
> Good can conquer Evil
I really don’t think of anything in that way. But I’m not mired in
religions at all, and I have a more clinical view of ethical
judgments.
> but
> it can only do that if there actually is Evil. Evil can corrupt Good
> but only if there actually is Good.
I think good and evil are judgments that only occur in minds, and are
not applied to the same things by different people. I don’t think
there’s a “right” answer. I’m a subjectivist on ethics just as I am a
subjectivist on aesthetics.
> The very basic nature of perception is based on relativeness, always
> registering by comparison.
Well, for one, not everything is a perception, Bishop Berkeley :-)
> Ideas emerge from observation,
No only from observation. For example, they can just emerge from
brains, without any observational precedent.
>it is
> obvious that they have the same nature as perception.
Why do I think it’s wrong if it’s so obvious? It can’t be that
obvious to everyone.
> If I want to make something shiny in a painting then I make sure it's
> surrounded by dullness,
The whole painting could be shiny. It doesn’t have to have dull spots
to call it shiny. Anyway, I already said the whole opposites thing is
extremely stupid and silly to me. I’m not going to spend a lot of
time rebutting a claim about it.
> it brings the shine out more.
Not necessarily. And I’m not just saying that to be a pain in the
ass. Seriously, as I’ve studied traditional art theory more, I’ve
encountered statements like that—“If you make everything else darker,
this light stuff will stand out more”, etc. Well, sorry Charlie, but
that doesn’t always seem true to me. There doesn’t seem to be a
direct correlation there when it comes to me looking at a painting.
>If I want to
> bring out a red strongly then I make sure that the other colors are
> weak. If I would make an entire painting with strong colors then no
> color would dominate and the painting wouldn't say anything at all on
> the level of colors.
You’re parroting traditional theory there, and maybe it also seems
that way to you. Well, it doesn’t seem that way to everyone—is that
surprising to you?
> You suggest that perception is a matter of choice
I’m suggesting that it’s a matter of physiology, and a lot of it
depends on brain function. I’m also pointing out that no two
physiologies or brains are identical structurally. That probably
helps explain why perceptions, interpretations, etc. differ. I agree
it’s not all nature though, and that nurture is another variable.
> and that it can be
> anything but this is not the case.
Except that I’m giving you examples of difference. Denying the
difference to stick with a theory you like isn’t very convincing to
me.
> Perception is not free, it is
> governed by the specifics of our human body.
Right, and everyone’s body is different.
> Certainly there will be
> differences but there's also lots of similarity simply because humans
> share a basically similar body with small differences both in
> physiology and experiences.
But remember nominalism. You’re obviously not a nominalist. But
aside from that, just how “small” do differences have to be to be
significant? We don’t know, really. If Joe is saying that he
perceives P in X way, which is very different than Frank’s saying that
he perceives P in M way, and we develop some way to quantify
differences in their brains, then maybe the physiological differences
only have to be very minute to lead to significant differences in
mental content.
> But basically humans are the same and a
> little bit different.
Maybe if you’re not a nominalist.
> >> Yeah, every good story has a conflict and an antagonist (and the "more" the
> >> better)
> >And not everyone agrees with that, of course.
> All stories have conflict.
Well, they don’t, unless you have some way to make that claim
unfalsifiable. Suppose our story is, “Joe woke up. Joe brushed his
teeth. Joe walked to the store. Joe got some ice cream. Joe took a
nap. The end.” I wouldn’t say there’s a conflict there. It’s
definitely a story to me. Maybe you wouldn’t think that’s a good
story, but maybe someone else does. They’re not wrong if they like
it. So that would be an example of a good story, to them, that
doesn’t have conflict.
> It's basic to human existence.
I agree that most people have things they interpret as conflicts in
their lives. I don’t think it’s something that obtains objectively,
independent of judgment of an event or situation as a conflict or not.
Some people may not have anything that they judge as a conflict.
> We always
> have to do some balancing act between the different desires of our
> bodies. The "archetypes" in stories are based on different aspects of
> our Selfs.
Not if Frank writes a story and doesn’t base an archetype on that.
> They gain humanity as soon as they become more diffuse,
I think of “human” as a biological definition. Not something more
abstract, or based on particular kinds of actions, emotions, etc.
> more mixed with other archetypes (the not-so-evil crook, the cynical
> hero, the not-so-innocent child, etc.).
> It's fun to see children grow up. They discover one by one their
> skills and are aware of their desires. Slowly they learn to integrate
> and balance all these things. At first, they are perfectly happy by
> the aquired skill of walking (which involves the integration of many
> other skills). After a while they will integrate it with hunger by
> simply walking to the fridge. After more time they will learn to
> control their urges because, when taken too far, they can thwart other
> desires (not eating too much because it makes the body less attractive
> when overly fat, for example).
Now you’re dissing fat people! Geez! Always some underlying elitism.
Some people think heavier people are more attractive.
> There's an ongoing conflict going on between all the different desires
> within the body. It gets even worse when we consider the whole of
> mankind.
None of this would be an argument for a story having to have a
conflict.
> >> but - *visual art* is rather 'still' - it captures a ^single^ moment
> >> from a myraid of moments.
> >If it's even trying to do that. Not everyone is trying to do the same
> >things with art. I guess that's going to be my mantra in this
> >newsgroup :-) Although it tends to be my mantra overall, for all
> >different kinds of things. "Not everyone in the world is the same,
> >has the same desires or goals, likes the same things, etc." I think a
> >lot of problems arise because we expect and sometimes try to persuade
> >or make everyone (to) be the same.
> But you run the risk by adhering to your "mantra" of "Not everyone in
> the world is the same" that you take it too far and start to make it
> into "Everyone in the world is completely different".
Well, remember that I don’t believe we really have a way to quantify
difference. Mainly because I do not believe there are any real
universals, so we can’t measure how many real universals something
has.
>That's not true
> either.
I think nominalism is true. Everything is different, but I don’t
think it’s a quantificational issue. Usually sameness versus
difference, as you’re talking about it, is a factor of how one chooses
to mentally abstract things in the world into categories. I agree
that we don’t have a separate category for everything we encounter. I
don’t agree that that makes universals (the categories) real
(something in the world versus something we’re simplifying to make the
world easier to deal with).
So, we can’t quantify sameness because it’s not something in the world
to measure, but depends on just how Joe versus Frank divides things up
into categories.
> I don't believe that art should strive for universal Truth (which
> cannot be known by humans of course).
I think truth is subjective, so I agree with you there.
> Only for one Truth : the one of
> the artist.
Well, I don’t think it should necessarily strive for that either. If
the artist isn’t interested in that, I don’t see why they should
bother with it.
> Since people are both different and the same, a good deal
> of people will agree with the artist. Some will disagree.
While we’re at this point, it’s probably an appropriate place for me
to mention that I don’t think art is anything like argumentation,
anyway. In my view, “truth”, “falsehood”, “agree”, “disagree”, etc.
are things we apply to propositions (statements, as in “the cat is on
the mat”). I don’t think that a painting , or a piece of music, or
dance, etc. is anything like a proposition.
>This only
> shows that humans are both the same and different.
> >And why can't fiction, for just one alternative, be a valid area for
> >painting? The idea that all painting has to be realist (has to try to
> >say something about the actual world, try to "reflect" it in
> >particular ways, etc.) is a very strange one to me, although one that
> >many people in this newsgroup seem to hold.
> It wasn't always like this in this ng. Some years ago realism was
> rejected by most here and De Li was one of its few proponents :-)
Well, it’s a pipe dream, but it would be nice to not have to reject
anything. I know there’s little chance of that happening on usenet.
> There is, however, one good thing about setting something in a
> "worldly setting" (a painting expressing something that _can_ be seen
> in reality, for example) : it's something most people know because all
> people are in the same world (although it might appear somewhat
> different to each of them).
If that’s what someone likes, that’s great. We don’t all like the
same things, though.
> A complete abstract painting which is meant as non-representational
> (at least not representing something that can be seen in the visual
> world) has the problem that it doesn't have a visual equivalent in the
> real world.
But many of us do not see that as a problem. That’s what I prefer to
have in art—something I can’t experience otherwise. I like the artist
to show me his imagination, and not care about the actual world.
>It's not clear about what it is.
To me, it’s clear that it’s about a possible world, versus the actual
world.
>Any meaning can be
> attached to it
Well, any meaning can be attached to anything. I have countless
examples of me attaching meaning to actual-world oriented works that
in no way resemble the meaning attached to those works by others (such
as authors).
>although some particular feelings might be attached to
> it by a majority (a haunting image, a tranquil image, etc.).
> I just feel it's much easier to show pain by showing a face in pain
> then by some streaks of color meant to represent pain on an abstract
> level.
I’m not very interested in a work showing pain or not, and would
hardly ever interpret anything that way. The art I like best is
representational, but not representational of the actual world.
> But then again, good realist art borrows from abstract art. Visual
> abstract art often borrows from the non visual domains like music, for
> example. This is an interesting thing because it widens the effect to
> non-visual domains and is some way to overcome the limitations of a
> static image that a painting basically is. There can be rhythm in a
> painting even though it doesn't make a sound.
I don’t think I’d ever say that a painting has rhythm either. Maybe
because I never attended art school and wasn’t socialized into the
standard descriptive terms, although I would have likely just objected
to/argued about them if I had gone to art school.
> The problem is, of course, the integration of all these things. Pure
> photorealism seems quite barren.
There’s nothing inherently distasteful to me about photorealism. I’m
just as likely to like a photorealist work as anything else not in my
preferred category (non-realist representationalism).
>There are myriads of things to
> overcome its limitations.
> >Mani actually seemed to
> >conflate this belief with the notion of skill, which seems even more
> >bizarre to me. I'm not sure where that underlying realist assumption
> >about art is coming from (I'm assuming that it's coming from some
> >external cultural source, rather than all of these people arriving at
> >that same odd idea independently).
> What is considered "Good Art" is of course governed for a large part
> by culture.
Well, I agree that culture has various kinds of influences, but
ultimately, any value judgment made is an individual one. That goes
for aesthetics as well as ethics.
> Once a painting needed to be brown to be good (in
> Constable's time I believe).
LOL – I wasn’t aware of that. That’s pretty funny.
> But the notions of a culture (which are
> multifaceted and conflicting because culture is not monolithical) are
> of no particular interest to the real artist.
Yet more elitism from you. “Real” artists versus non-real artists
now. lol
> For survival reasons,
> the artist only needs one single person appreciating his/her art : the
> one who buys it.
Well, as long as that one single person appreciates a lot of your art.
Or if that one piece is very expensive. Otherwise, it’s difficult to
survive.
> What the whole of mankind thinks of a single piece of
> art is inconsequential.
> >I think more of people seeking out artwork that has a look that they
> >enjoy. Another belief that I'm encountering frequently in this
> >newsgroup is that art is primarily about mental associations provoked
> >by the pigments on the canvas (or whatever media) rather than being
> >just as much about the pigments on the canvas.
> Well, yes, you're right about that. A piece of art can be enjoyed
> fully for simply what it is : a visual experience. It doesn't need to
> be augmented by ideas. I feel it would add depth though. But certainly
> you're right about your notion.
And I don’t think the ideas are actually contained in the painting, as
I’ve repeated a number of times.
> >That's probably why
> >some people here are having problems with abstract art, and why
> >they're unlikely to see non-man-made things as art. My primary
> >attraction to art is its intrinsic attraction to me--that is, how much
> >I like those arrangements of colors, forms, etc., which to me can be
> >representational or not. I do enjoy a lot of the symbolic, or more
> >mental suggestions I get from artworks, but that's more secondary to
> >me, and I realize that maybe no one else will make those same mental
> >associations.
> You have a very interesting point. Only with my test panels did I do
> such things (at random). I start to get the desire to impart the
> special visual properties to realist paintings.
> Here's one of my chaotic test panels (normally they're just blocks of
> paint to test the paint in mixes) :
> http://www.paulmesken.net/temp3/clip0001.jpg
That link didn’t work for me.
> As can be seen I did get somewhat enamoured by the blue with the
> orange streaks in it. It was pleasing on my eyes and I experimented a
> little bit further with it. Now I want to integrate such purely visual
> things in my realist paintings. The problem is, of course, how to
> integrate them successfully.
I actually never test anything, and I never do sketches in any kind of
traditional way (I will very roughly scribble out something if I have
a complex arrangement in mind, but usually I’m done within 10
minutes—just to give myself a rough idea of how to begin fitting
things together). But I have never had a work of mine that I didn’t
think was successful, either, lol. I think part of it is that I
cherish “accidents” and “mistakes” and make them features of the work
rather than trying to match some preconceived notion – it’s something
that I was initially influenced on by Brian Eno’s way of approaching
his work. I even have various categories of work that begin by
intentionally being as random as possible, then I develop that into
representationalism that isn’t aiming for real-world correspondence.
I’m sure some other people don’t think all of my work is successful
(if they think any of it is), but I couldn’t care less. I try to
please myself first and foremost, and so far, I’ve always pleased
myself! Of course, in my view, I can’t have a mistake, so that helps
:-)
King Rundzap
> >Reading it that way, a human couldn't make art that's not about the
> >human condition, and so if that's a criterion for good art, it's all
> Not really.
If not really, then we're back to my original point, was that art
could be about anything we'd like it to be about, not just the human
condition.
In other words:
If it's necessarily about the human condition if it's created by a
human, then all human created art has to be about the human condition,
and it's all good if the criterion is that it has to be about the
human condition.
If not all art created by a human is necessarily about the human
condition, then there are other things that humans could create art
about than the human condition, and I'd argue that (subjectively) that
art can be good. Or more simply, I'd argue that the criterion has a
problem.
>Without getting into an existentialist debate, let's
> assume there are both stimuli and the effect on the individual of
> these stimuli. The stimuli get their meaning by how they affect the
> individual (eating an apple might satisfy hunger, this is both good
> and food).
I don't agree with that, as pointed out in the other post. I think
meaning comes from the head. I don't think there is a direct
correlation to external stimuli.
>Meaning is thus a connection between the stimulus and the
> effect on the individual.
I disagree with this.
> One might oppose this view and state that meaning can also exist
> independent of the perceptual system. Then I would say (if I accept
> that statement at all) that this is just an artifact of the
> implementation.
I don't know what that means "an artificact of the implementation".
As an aside, you seem to be a bit familiar with some philosophy. Have
you read Hilary Putnam's _The Meaning of Meaning_? I disagree pretty
srongly with Putnam on a lot of his argument, but that's a classic
monograph in semantics (philosophy of meaning), I think you'd
appreciate it, and a lot of current philosophical debate on meaning
references it in some way.
> If I choose to make a work of art about a man accidently driving a
> drill through his hand then I will not be content to only represent
> the stimuli symbolically but I will also want to represent the effect
> it has on him (which might choose to be excuciating pain, surprise,
> etc. : the usual feeling that accompanies such a thing).
I've actually done a number of works like that where I _didn't_
represent the expected, or any physical reaction, on the part of the
person getting hit on the side of the head by a hammer, or with an
axe, etc. (I do a lot of horror-influenced stuff). I did that
intentionally, because I want to create works about possible worlds,
and I want to dissociate much of my content from the usual
connotations it has for others. Again, a large part of the point in
that is to present possible worlds, and emphasize arbitrariness and
relativity for cultures, customs, and even physical facts.
> If I only choose to represent the stimuli then my freedom is greater
> (I might represent it quite schematically) but the risk is also
> greater that I perceive my painting as more shallow because it lacks a
> representation of that affect part (it is not complete enough).
To me, that sounds like you're expecting things in paintings to be
more or less like you believe them to be in the actual world. But
that's just my point here. We don't _have_ to paint with the
intention of mimicking the actual world, and we can still be
representational. A lot of artists, including me, fit that
description, and we tend to do it because that's what we like the best
in others' works--that's what we like to see, so that's what we do. I
don't know if you define "shallow" and "deep" below, and I don't agree
that one is "objectively" better than the other--however you define
them--but it's not as if there is necessarily no thought behind what
I'm calling "fictional" painting. My stuff has a host of academic
philosophical intent behind it, and isn't quite so obvious as "that
guy's getting hit in the hand with a hammer, he should be grimacing".
If you want to think a bit more about why the guy in a painting of
mine is _not_ grimacing, or why he has the expression he has in the
situation he has, etc., there is plenty of material to be gleaned from
it, but I also don't think one has to do that to enjoy my work, and I
don't think it's better if one does it. It's up to the viewer, in my
opinion.
> One might say that one cannot know what is on one's mind but I say
> this is only partially so.
As a tangent, do you see how you're stuck in the groove of thinking
that painting cannot be fictional, though?
> Feelings often signal themselves
> externally.
Well, it would usually take a long time for me to go through the
argument, but there is no way to correlate mental content with
behavioral content, other than for yourself. That certainly is _not_
the received view in popular culture or even in academic fields like
psychology. But I'm disagreeing with the received view. In a
nutshell, the problem is this: you'd need some way to start making a
correlation list to get an idea of how often observationals, namely
behavior, correspond to particular mental states. That way, you can
tell whether 100% of the time, expression A correlates to the
phenomenal experience of pain, statement or word P correlates to the
phenomenal experience of happiness, etc. However, you can only have
awareness of your own mental states. To begin correlating the data
for others, you have to have data of their mental states, but that's
just what we can't get. Their facial expressions, their words, etc.
are _not_ the same as their mental states. The only way out of that
is to argue behaviorism, and claim that we don't really have minds.
Although it's difficult to believe, that actually led a number of
psychologists and philosophers of mind to champion behaviorism--some
people just can stand the idea that something like others' mental
states can be a mystery to us.
> Embarrasement can be accompanied by a deep blush, for
> instance.
You're giving me the received view here as if I'm unaware of it. I'm
aware of the received view, but I'm disagreeing with it.
> Likewise I can represent the horror the man experiences by
> resorting to its external signs.
You could try to show expressions on your figure that match your
behavior as it correlates to your phenomenal experience. It might not
correlate to anyone else's phenomenal experience, and you can't check,
because all they can show you is behavior, and that's not the same as
phenomenal experience. One extreme form of this by way of a thought
experiment, which might help you visualize the problem, is to consider
that maybe everyone else is a very sophisticated, non-sentient robot,
with no apparent physical differences to non-robots, no matter how far
down you "dig" physically. In that case, they could have the behavior
that you expect, but have _no_ mental content.
But to get back to painting, I'd like to again point out that you're
talking about representing actual world data. I'm emphasizing that
we do _not_ need to do that in painting, and in fact, many of us are
not trying to do that.
>I won't leave it at that, naturally,
> I will include all kinds of different things that make me feel uneasy
> to represent more strongly that what goes through the man (apart from
> the drill).
> Then one might say that the symbolism I employ, or even the medium,
> might not be interpreted according to my wishes by the audience.
I've been creating artworks (music, writing and visual art), and
getting feedback from audiences on them, for almost 30 years now (I'm
only in my late 30s, or it would be longer). Over that time, I've
also known hundreds of other artists well enough to talk about this
kind of thing. It's rare that many people commenting on a work have
the same interpretation of it (and the degree that it differs is
directly proportional to the degree that they're unaware of others'
comments), and it's just as rare that interpretations resemble what
the artist's intent was. For most of the people I've known, that's
just a fact of artistic life.
> The
> representation of the feelings of the man might be interpreted
> differently. Perhaps some think that the man is enjoying it, some
> might think the man is indifferent to it, some might see it as male
> surpression of the female and throw acid over the painting (there are
> always a few of those ;-)
Right.
> But that is not the point.
My point was that we don't have to try to mimic the actual world, or
do any particular thing to have "good art".
> The point is that I have at least the belief that I can make people
> interpret my art in a similar way to my intentions.
That's difficult for me to believe if you've been creating art and
getting feedback from a wide variety of people on it over any length
of time. Maybe it's a case of eternal optimism? Not that I think
it's preferable, myself. I think it's preferable to let everyone get
their own interpretation of something, whether it resembles anyone
else's or not. I think that's another thing that Eno first impressed
strongly on me when I was a teen.
> This belief makes
> me study how I can more effectively represent certain things.
That's interesting, but you realize that not everyone is trying to do
that, and therefore shouldn't be judged on that, right?
> Even though I'm quite sure that I will never have complete control
> over the feelings my work evokes in the audience, at least I'm not of
> the opinion that I will never evoke intended feelings in the audience
> and that every member of the audience will have an utterly and
> completely different interpretation.
I can't imagine you getting a lot of feedback though, then. Either
that, or most of your feedback is coming from a very narrow cultural
cross-section, or most of the audience is familiar with others'
comments before they make their own comment. It would be a good
experiment for us to take, say, 20 of your works, and present them to
1000 different random people on the street, whom we then survey,
making sure that they are not aware of what others have already said.
I bet the comments wouldn't be as similar as you think they'll be.
> "Not completely the same" does
> not mean "completely different", I will be happy with "good enough".
> This belief is not a folly.
I think it is, and it is testable.
> We are now communicating by words and,
> even though some slight misunderstandings might creep in, the bulk of
> what we say to each other is interpreted the way we want to.
There's absolutely no way to know that. See the earlier nutshell
explanation of the problem of knowing others' mental content. In the
above experiment, for example, we'd know those 1000 persons' behavior,
not their actual mental content. They could be robots for all we
know. There is no way to test for it.
> This doesn't mean we expect each other to agree, of course. It simply means
> that our intentions are relatively clear.
Our _behavior_ is relatively clear. But I'm not a behaviorist, so I
don't confuse behavior with mental content, and intetion is mental
content.
> It would very much surprise me if you were reading all of what I write
> as a recipe of how to make Brownies.
The problem is that you have no way of knowing what my actual mental
content is. You can only see my behavior. As long as that's
consistent with the behavior you're expecting, or can understand,
you'll probably not suspect that some very different mental content is
underlying the behavior, although it could be.
> The same goes for art as for this writing. It is possible to make it
> so that the interpretation is steered to that interpretation the
> artist wants to.
Writing is also behavior. I tried to explicitly point that out many
times in the last post and this one.
> This is the communicative side of art. I am of the opinion that the
> only things worth communicating about in art are the feelings of
> people so that the people might respond with feelings as well.
Why are you of that opinion, though? That's what I really want to get
at. Why people have these narrow views of what it's okay to do in
art, and what it's not okay to do, at least insofar as potentially
creating "good art". Most of these comments are stated in a way that
implies the utterer has illusions of objectivity.
I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to "communicate
feelings" in art, but to make it solely about that seems like a
feeling fetish to me :-)
> And when an audience responds with feelings then the work of art
> becomes deep because, as already stated, many things are coupled to
> feelings, many experiences.
Deep isn't objectively better than non-deep. What would make it so?
> And these things are all invoked by the
> feelings evoked by the work of art. The piece of art then becomes
> bigger than itself because it is augmented by the experiences of the
> audience. And all will rejoice ;-)
lol --yeah, just ignore the other folks with different opinions :-)
> >I'm not much of a Freudian, I think he had a lot of things very wrong.
> > So I don't think we can explain everything in terms of childhood
> >experiences.
> No, but it is a major influence.
Maybe. Maybe not. I wouldn't make a universal generalization about
something that is only speculative.
> >I would say that it <art> is
> >about presenting visual structures of some kind.
> In that case you will have an easier job at making art than I have.
Well, I don't think you can actually do anything else. I agree you
could think about it as doing something else.
> >Music, if that's what you're referring to here, is definitely not
> >always intended to "evoke feelings" or externalize feelings.
> But it mostly is, in my experience.
Where are you getting that from though? Simply from the fact that it
usually causes feelings to arise in you? Or from talking with a lot
of musicians and composers? I've been a musician since I was 7, and
started writing music that other people were exposed to (through
public performances, etc.) by the time I was 11. I've known thousands
of other musicians and hundreds of other composers over the years. I
know plenty of them who have said that music isn't always intended to
evoke feelings, and many more who I bet would say that if asked. So
just what are you basing this belief on?
> Perhaps an example of music that
> isn't intended to evoke feelings might rid me of my ignorance.
> Or
> better yet : music that does not evoke any feelings because music that
> isn't intended to evoke feelings can only be succesfull if it doesn't
> evoke feelings.
Isn't there a big difference between, "Music is always intended to
evoke or externalize feelings" and " 'Successful' music always does
what is intended to do, and all music that I've heard evokes feelings
in me, so the only 'successful' music is that which is intended to
evoke or externalize feelings"? The former is stated as a fact about
musicians' and composers' intentions. The latter is a value judgment,
framed as objective when it's really subjective, as much about
experiencing music as about the intentions behind its creation.
I can see that, to you, the only successful artworks (a) do what the
creator intended to do and (b) are intended to evoke or externalize
feelings, but it's just your opinion (which some others might share).
Interesting in that, but lots of other people have lots of different
opinions. Many of them trying to do many different things with art
than (a) and (b). It's seems a shame to me that you can't enjoy them
just because of the restrictions you're placing on art for yourself,
but if you're fine with that, no problem.
> >Different things would maybe represent ideas to different people, and
> >for them, they might represent different ideas (assuming we could ever
> >know whether it's the same or a different idea, which I think is
> >problematic).
> Ah! You offer only doubt. I offer certainty.
Certainty where there is none to be had factually doesn't seem very
attractive to me. I know western culture has had a certainty fetish
for a long time, but I think it's misguided, and has led to a lot of
bad philosophy, among many other things.
>Certainty can be acted
> upon (irrespective of whether the certainty was justified or not),
> doubt cannot be acted upon. I definitely should start a religion :-)
Why can't doubt be acted upon? Apparently you're not familiar with
pragmatism? I'm not certain of most things, including the claim that
my refrigerator still exists in the kitchen when I'm in my studio.
Yet, I still head there when I'm thirsty. It usually works :-) You
can act on things that are not certain without any problem. I don't
have a certainty fetish (or a monism fetish, or a feeling fetish,
etc.)
I do have a foot fetish, but that's another thread.
> >As I noted earlier, I definitely do not agree that all ideas have
> >images, sounds, and smells associated with them.
> Then it is impossible to represent such ideas.
I agree that it's impossible to represent some ideas.
> I would ask you about
> such ideas but, of course, you cannot make them explicit because they
> have nothing associated with it (at least nothing that can be
> communicated about).
Right. I don't have any problem with the notion of ineffable mental
content. I think there is a lot of it that occurs.
> For example, I cannot tell you _how_ I move my arm around because this
> knowledge is implicit, I cannot make it explicit, but I can use the
> knowledge effortlessly to move my arm around.
Yes.
> >> The problem is that our
> >> observations are not objective.
> >Are you thinking that I believed they were? Why were you thinking
> >that?
> Were you thinking that everything I write is meant as an attack on
> your position? I can both elaborate and disagree.
I was hoping that you weren't using the post to launch lectures on pet
positions, fetishes, etc. but as a conversation. I'm one of those
people who'll just walk away (literally, if I'm talking to someone in
person) when someone starts lecturing instead of engaging in a
conversation, at least if I'm not there specifically for a lecture, so
I don't tend to like it online either.
> >> Okay, let me rephrase "subconscious awareness" in a "Je ne sais pas",
> >> you know : the feeling one cannot pinpoint ;-)
> >My point is that I don't think you can have a mental conflict that you
> >are unaware of. Either you're aware of it, or there's no reason to
> >believe that you have it.
> But one can also be aware of something one cannot make explicit.
Yes, I agree with that.
> >> Take the simple facial
> >> expressions of emotions, for example.
> >Behavior is _not_ mental content.
> No, but it can signal it and these signals help tremendously when one
> wants to represent an emotion.
Except that as noted above, there's no way for you to make
correlations of behavior and mental content, except for your own.
> >I’m not sure what it means to be “united” or “divided” by our human
> >bodies.
> It means that all (at least most) have concepts like hunger, pain,
> etc. These things are built in the human body (its effects are on
> survival) Art can be about such things.
I think art can be done about anything (from the intention side). I'd
agree that not every consumer (as I call art experiencers) is going to
be able to get all possible things from various art (as in some people
might not be able to experience music without emotions arising :-)
> But they can manifest
> themselves in different forms which are cultural or personal. So, the
> essence unites us (the human body and all that it encompasses) but the
> form divides us.
All humans are humans -- I'd agree with that, although I think it's
more about the way we're abstracting things than about natural kinds,
as they're called in ontology (a field of academic philosophy).
> >> If I would show a painting of a human with quite an uneasy postural
> >> balance then most will interpret it right simply because my ideas (in
> >> images) about such a thing is consistent with the ideas of others.
> >LOL re “interpret it right”. What is the right interpretation there?
> >I don’t know. So I wouldn’t interpret it the same way as you are,
> >since you are apparently inferring a whole host of other information
> >from that.
> What you're saying is that if I make a painting of someone trying to
> maintain balance then you might interpret it as a completely stable
> posture. You don't give me much credit here.
I might interpret it that way, sure. Or any number of other things.
For one, remember that one of my concerns is fictions and possible
worlds. I might interpret it as you depicting someone who stands that
way, as a matter of fact.
I'm a good person to use for anyone trying to demonstrate my points in
this thread, as I usually have very different interpretations of
things than other people do. For example, I thought the Sammy Hagar
song "I Can't Drive 55" was about a guy with an old car that wouldn't
go very fast (Seriously, and I thought that for years). Also, as I
mentioned in another thread, it's very rare that I read others'
interpretations of paintings (including in academic texts, art
magazines, popular books on artists, other threads in this newsgroup,
etc.) that I don't wonder, "Where the heck are they getting _that_
from?" It's not just a particular style of art, either. I think that
when I'm reading interpretations of everything from Leonardo to
Rothko. And since I tend to think that, I also notice the
discrepancies in various interpretations more.
Not to mention (again) my personal experiences with comments on my own
artworks, and colleagues experiences with comments on their artwork.
> If someone came to you, asking how to perform such a feat (showing an
> off balance posture) what would you tell such a person?
I would tell them, "think about something that is off-balance to you,
and draw that" . . . in more detail, I might ask them to demonstrate
what is off-balance to them, or show similar examples in other
pictures, etc. and try to help them achieve what they're shooting for,
whether I can "see" it or not. If they asked whether others are
likely to "read" it in the same way, I'd say the same stuff I'm saying
here about varying interpretations, and stress that since it's not
possible (or desirable, in my opinion) to control how others' minds
work, they should shoot for things that work _to them_, that they're
satisfied with, and not worry about what others think (unless it's a
work for hire, etc., in which case they have to try to figure out what
the boss is looking for as well as they can).
This brings up a good point, actually, that I regularly stress on the
Internet. In general, I'm against the idea of posting art online and
encouraging others to give general comments about it, in the way of
constructive criticism (there is an exception to this, which I'll
mention in a moment). In my view, the artist should have some idea of
what they want to do, stylistically and goal-wise (and there's no
problem changing it as time goes on, as many times as one would like),
and then to the best of their present ability, shoot for that "ideal"
so that the final result is as close to it as they can make it.
In general, that should require no comment from others, and in fact,
comment from others can be far more damaging in my opinion than
helpful. Why? Because others, the ones offering the critiques, might
have very different ideals in mind, and they don't usually make them
explicit or optional. They just offer criticism under their
particular assumption, as if the artist necessarily shared the same
ideals/assumptions.
The exception I mentioned would be if an artist knows his own
ideals/goals, but feels that he/she is having a particular technical
problem that he/she can't quite pin down. Then I don't think it's a
bad idea to ask for advice in how to achieve that specific goal,
whatever it is. A good example of this was the person on this
newsgroup who recently asked about achieving impasto and sgraffito
effects with acrylics--he knew exactly what he wanted to do, but was
unsure how to best achieve that, so he sought technical advice on
achieving it.
A good example of what I think is a negative use of criticism is
wetcanvas.com, especially when they had some columnist who would give
advice on users' paintings, without the user stating what they were
shooting for and having a specific problem with, and with the
columnist operating under specific assumptions about what art should
be and not reporing those assumptions or pointing out that one doesn't
have to share them. Helen van Wyk used to do that on her television
show occasionally, too--she'd take a student painting, and change it
in some way so that it matched her assumptions better, then act like
it made the painting objectively better. I often liked the paintings
better before she started manipulating them. Same for the
wetcanvas.com columnist.
> I know what I would tell such a person and they can base paintings on
> that.
You'd probably tell them what looks off balance to you, and have them
try to match that, whether they also believe that is off balance or
not :-p
> >That’s one reason I’m fairly confident that if we did survey a large
> >number of people about interpretations of artworks, we’d get hundreds
> >of different answers, wildly divergent from one another.
> I'm fairly confident of the opposite
Well, in the case I noted, I actually did and published the
research/surveys. We could do some field research in this case,
too--I'd be up for it and would break anonymity for it, but we're a
bit far apart geographically, unfortunately. You're in Europe, I
believe, and I'm in Mani's neighborhood--New York City. I offered to
organize and conduct some field research with Mani not too long ago on
a different topic of disagreement, and he never replied about it.
> but a lot depends on the work of
> art itself. If I would show a painting of an angry man then I doubt
> there will be a plethora of interpretations. Most will agree about
> that it is in fact an angry man. Any speculations as of why he is
> angry might be wildly divergent but, as you can see, there will be
> both agreement and disagreement.
I'll say there'd at least be a lot of agreement that it's a painting
:-) Although I wouldn't place a bet that there'd be 100% agreement
about that.
> You might choose to ignore the
> observation that the audience agrees about one thing (that it is an
> angry man) and see only that the audience disagrees about another
> thing (why he is angry). I choose to see both.
Seriously, I'd be up for doing some of these experiments. The most
difficult thing would probably be getting the subjects together, but
we could just pick people randomly on the street.
> >Honestly, “deep” versus “shallow” are never words I use to talk about
> >art.
> Do you not perceive it out of choice, based on philosophical reasons,
> or do you _really_ not perceive it?
Those aren't terms that I think of anything in. They just don't occur
to me.
> Or are you just not talking about
> it while you perceive it clearly?
A lot of terms that I encounter in discussions of art (books,
magazine, newspapers, newsgroups, etc.) aren't terms that ever occur
to me to use for art, and often don't make much sense to me in that
arena.
> I you choose not to see such a thing then you cannot study it and, as
> such, cannot use it either (at least not willfully). In such a case
> you will only limit yourself.
Yeah, those terms that do not make sense to me in relation to art
aren't things that I would try to use or not . . . I don't have a
problem with that.
> My own convictions are not written in stone. I've been an agnostic all
> of my life but am now studying the Bible, the Quran and works from
> Meher Baba. This is something I would certainly be ridiculed for in
> the environment I am in (mostly programmers and other "techies" that
> are atheist at worst and agnostic at best)
lol--most of the activity on the Internet still seems largely to be
students or computer techs. I keep waiting for it to be a broader
cross-section, but I keep running into people who say they're students
or computer techs :-)
> but I have found that
> spiritualism has a way of moving me. I doubt I will ever become a
> member of any religion but I do not harden my heart because of
> convictions I might have.
If I _had_ to join a pre-existing religion, I'd probably pick the
official Church of Satan (seriously). But I'm an atheist (as was
Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan), and don't have to join a
pre-existing religion :-) Ultimately, I'd probably prefer starting my
own, but it would more resemble Libertarianism with the exception that
I'd have personal love slaves, and might not officially recognize
monogamous marriages. It would be more like a monarchy than a
religion.
> These convictions mean nothing to me because
> I am the one who formed them in the first place and therefor they are
> subject to me and not the other way around. At best, my convictions
> guide me but I will not allow them to limit myself. My convictions are
> therefor always under revision.
> Hmmm....
> The rest of your post seems to have things like "ridiculous",
> "elitist", "parrotting", etc. applied to me.
Yes, I was reading a lot of that into your statements from that point.
Combined with increasing annoyance at myself for spending so much
time on a usenet post instead of working :-)
--King Rundzap
Erik A. Mattila
King Rundzap wrote:
> Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<0kdrj0dr30anks4e5...@4ax.com>...
>
>>On 6 Sep 2004 15:41:25 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>I agree there is no "absolute" way to define art or judge it, but I
>>>think more strongly I'm trying to get people to analyze their own
>>>positions in depth and test whether they're consistent or not.
>
>
>
>>Well, there always seems to be some discrepancy between the "universal
>>meaning" of the word "art" and the ideas an individual has about it.
>
>
> There would definitely be a discrepancy there, as "universal meanings"
> are fictions--there are no such things. In my view (contra-Putnam)
> all meanings are ultimately in the head--they're all ideas that an
> individual has.
Hillary Putnam? But the whole point of his work with "stereotype" was
to show that meaning can be imbedded in language constructions. But I'm
curious...where does Putnam (if that is who you are citing) say meaning
is not in the head. I think Putnam would argue that "existenz" itself
is in the head.
Erik A. Mattila
King Rundzap wrote:
I may be bashing my head against a brick wall...but I'm not sure if it
is Dutch or American bricks. It doesn't seem to me that there are
hermeneutic grounds here. Where's the "translation"? Better yet, what
don't you understand about Breugel's painting? What's not getting
through. Oh, there are some Dutch proverbs that didn't make it across
the great waters, of course. But your argument sounds suspiciously like
some of the arguments coming out of the GOP these days. So what is it?
What are these "same way" things you're talking about. Now, if you
were talking about DuChamp, you might have a strong point.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Paul Mesken wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2004 07:33:26 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm known as a non-essentialist philosophically, and I'm a nominalist
>>(I think no two things are logically identical). So I don't think
>>that "essentially humans are the same".
>
>
> Well, that's the essence of the whole disagreement. You cling to the
> conviction that everything is different. I say that everything is both
> different and the same. Surely you must realise that perception (which
> is the root of all logic) relies both on similarity and difference.
>
> Saying that "all is different" or "all is the same" is an oxymoron in
> itself because the very language that these statements are spoken in
> rely on both similarity and difference. One doesn't make sense without
> the other.
The Polish Count (Alfred Korzybski - General Semantics) nailed the "is"
word as the culprit. His argument was that Einstein proved that the "to
be" verb is distortional, since nothing "is" something else. It
violates his rule against simultaniety. But now we have parallel worlds
in physics, so maybe...
>
> If humans wouldn't be essentially the same then we wouldn't recognize
> them as such and wouldn't even have the word "humans". At least, you
> shouldn't label humans as "humans" because then you are suggesting
> that there is an essential similarity between humans.
I think another line of evidence lies in the parlor game where someone
whispers a short story in the ear of another, and this one whispers it
to another and so on and the last on the list recites the story, which
never is particularly close to the original. It would not be a strong
argument to claim this proves "difference" - as it really shows the
"reader's share" of the narrative, which must exist for any story to be
intelligible. We re-write the story in order to understand it - fill in
all the gaps and personalize it. What this "proves", in my opinion, is
that life would be chaotic and society impossible if there was not a
system of checks and balances to prevent all stories from distorting to
the degree that we become, as a society, a collection of unique
dementia-ridden individuals each with our unique understanding of life
and the world. That "binder" is of course "culture" - or rather that is
one important way to define the rather ambiguous term "culture."
>
> Now, I say "humans don't like pain". Then you say : "not all humans
> are the same and therefor your statement is wrong". But then I would
> say that it would be even more wrong to reject my statement on the
> existence of rare exceptions (and most people don't like pain, I think
> we can safely assume that, it also makes more sense in an evolutionary
> way).
The whips and leather crowd may be much larger than you expect, Paul.
Now, you ought to know that! ;-)
Erik A. Mattila
King Rundzap wrote:
> Well, this ended up being a good example of why I stopped
> participating in usenet--I don't really have hours to spend every day
> writing stuff for usenet that a couple people will read and then
> forget about. Not that I don't enjoy it, but I have to paint and work
> on my other arts!
>
> Anyway, here comes me going "blah blah blah" a lot:
Don't be so cynical, King. One does it for oneself - I mean
conversation and debate are (can be) an end in themselves. I look at it
this way: articulating ideas strengthens one's idea-making equipment.
So it boils down to how important it is for you (regardless of how many
people read your posts or even change their minds by what they read.)
When I get in your position, (a lot of other things to do) I either
absent myself or resort to one-liners that I imagine are very clever.
Erik A. Mattila
Paul Mesken wrote:
> On 08 Sep 2004 23:24:23 GMT, biljowhit...@yahoo.com(Biljo White)
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's abbreviated??
>
>
> Well, it was under a thousand lines now, was it? ;-)
The Smiley Face that launched a thousand lines.
>
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<3nnuj0totjbl563m2...@4ax.com>...
>I don't know what that means "an artificact of the implementation".
Douglas Hofstadter had a nice example of "an artifact of the
implementation" in his book "Godel, Escher, Bach".
In one of his stories there was this grammaphone player that should
play back any sound possible. However, there was always some sound
that would break the player (by resonation or something). Such a
thing is what I would call an artifact of the implementation.
Humans have such "errors" as well. The human eye can be fooled by
optical illusions. Under some conditions, straight lines appear to be
bent, for example.
Here's an example :
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/ang_hering/index.html
This "error" in perception arises from the specifics of our visual
system. Lateral inhibition, for instance, is meant for edge
enhancement but at the same time it can cause us to see images which
aren't really there :
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_scgrid/index.html
>My point was that we don't have to try to mimic the actual world, or
>do any particular thing to have "good art".
Well, you say that taste differs a lot among the individuals. I tend
to agree. You also say that we cannot know the real mental content in
someone's head and I also tend to agree although I am under the
impression that my guesses are often not very far off (of course, I
cannot proof that but the same goes for the opposite notion).
Ergo : the only taste and mental content I can rely upon are my own.
Thus : I can say "this is good art because..." and "this is bad art
because...". And I will use these notions for the production of my own
stuff.
What good would it do me to let go of my own notions of "good art"? I
would lose the only source of reliable information that I have.
And I say : "good art" evokes feelings and it will more succesfully
evoke feelings when it can "lock in" to experiences and these
experiences most often include the real world. I want to see
beautifull young women in trouble, that gives me a hard one, random
streaks of color do not, therefor it doesn't mean anything to me.
Suppose I would take the view of solipsism. In that case my own
notions would be promoted to universal truth.
> I think it's preferable to let everyone get
>their own interpretation of something, whether it resembles anyone
>else's or not.
Well, in that case you will be glad to see me disagreeing with you :-)
>> This belief makes
>> me study how I can more effectively represent certain things.
>
>That's interesting, but you realize that not everyone is trying to do
>that, and therefore shouldn't be judged on that, right?
Yes, I guess one shouldn't be judged for that. But there seems to be
some discrepancy between what _should_ happen and what actually _does_
happen.
I think Clint Eastwood nicely put it in "Unforgiven" : "Deserve has
nothing to do with it". :-)
>> "Not completely the same" does
>> not mean "completely different", I will be happy with "good enough".
>
>> This belief is not a folly.
>
>I think it is, and it is testable.
Actually, it might be testable but the results of tests are also
interpreted. Of course, a test can be carried out but the conclusions
will be different. One conclusion can support my view, the other can
support your view.
>> We are now communicating by words and,
>> even though some slight misunderstandings might creep in, the bulk of
>> what we say to each other is interpreted the way we want to.
>
>There's absolutely no way to know that.
But there's no need to know it either. As long as it produces results.
The radio was made even before anyone knew about electromagnetism
being the principle. "Ether" was postulated. It didn't really matter,
the radio worked nonetheless. One day, even the concept of
electromagnetism might be knocked over and be replaced by a theory
which is more "productive" (in that it is more succesfull in
predicting phenomena).
>In the
>above experiment, for example, we'd know those 1000 persons' behavior,
>not their actual mental content. They could be robots for all we
>know. There is no way to test for it.
Indeed, but OTOH I feel that the notion that one can "second guess"
another one's mental content (believing it to be be like one's own)
produces more fruitfull behaviour (and also has the merit that it is
more intuitively right, at least IMO). Taking out mental content out
of the equation reeks like behaviorism, that notion has its own
particular merits as well, of course.
>> This doesn't mean we expect each other to agree, of course. It simply means
>> that our intentions are relatively clear.
>
>Our _behavior_ is relatively clear. But I'm not a behaviorist, so I
>don't confuse behavior with mental content, and intetion is mental
>content.
Indeed, behaviour and mental content can be very different.
Extrapolating mental content from behaviour doesn't always come up
with the right predictions (not that such predictions are actually
testable). However, this doesn't mean that it will always produce
wrong results. If that would be the case then it could just as easily
produce always right results by simply inverting the prediction.
Let's say a man smiles. I would say that man is happy (refering to his
mental content). Then you would say that I cannot know that. Then I
would say that there is at least a higher probability that he is happy
than being sad (and be irritated because I feel that generalisizing
has some pretty good uses). Then you would probably say that I still
cannot know that. Then I would say #$%&*!!! Let's at least agree that
he is smiling :-)
Oh, I would also point out that my own extrapolations from behaviour
to mental content are not such a rare thing amongst other people and
that a lot of artists use this (it's better than nothing at all).
>> It would very much surprise me if you were reading all of what I write
>> as a recipe of how to make Brownies.
>
>The problem is that you have no way of knowing what my actual mental
>content is. You can only see my behavior. As long as that's
>consistent with the behavior you're expecting, or can understand,
>you'll probably not suspect that some very different mental content is
>underlying the behavior, although it could be.
It could be but I don't assume it. I'm aware that my predictions can
be off but so far they have served me right. As a matter of fact : I
believe they have become better and better over the years. That
doesn't make them equivalent to a "universal truth", of course, but it
does make them usefull to me.
>> This is the communicative side of art. I am of the opinion that the
>> only things worth communicating about in art are the feelings of
>> people so that the people might respond with feelings as well.
>
>Why are you of that opinion, though? That's what I really want to get
>at. Why people have these narrow views of what it's okay to do in
>art, and what it's not okay to do, at least insofar as potentially
>creating "good art". Most of these comments are stated in a way that
>implies the utterer has illusions of objectivity.
Well, I guess I was pretty clear in that I reject the notion of
objectivity, even rejecting logic as being objective (which is often
seen as the most objective, that's why I've chosen that example).
And as of why I am of that (stated) opinion : the opinion is an
intellectual construct, trying to be consistent with the perceived
phenomena they apply to. The phenomena are, of course, that there are
some images (and visual art) that affect me more deeply than others
and are therefor perceived as valuable to me (the belief in "essence"
plays a major role here as well, the search for it can be quite
fruitfull).
The opinion simply tries to explain what it is that moves me. It is
not error free. But neither can it change what moves me. The opinion
is subject to my tastes, not the other way around.
You have different tastes than me, therefor you probably have a
different opinion about what "good art" is. Unless you try to make the
opinion into a universal truth in which case you will try to make it
detached from your own taste. In such a case your opinion will not
necessarily guide you to make art you like yourself. And what's the
use of that?
>I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to "communicate
>feelings" in art, but to make it solely about that seems like a
>feeling fetish to me :-)
Yes, I think you're right about that. I think that's a good thing and
can certainly explain the obsessive nature of some artists. Perhaps
making art is often driven by some obsession. Perhaps art is obsessive
in nature.
>Deep isn't objectively better than non-deep. What would make it so?
Nothing is better or worse _objectively_ (such attributes require a
subject) but subjectively one can certainly be of that opinion. I know
I am. To me, deep is better than shallow and it is one of my guiding
principles. To you, it means nothing, you're probably guided by
principles (if at all) different from mine. They're not better, nor
worse because they are better to you and worse to me.
>> But it mostly is, in my experience.
>
>Where are you getting that from though? Simply from the fact that it
>usually causes feelings to arise in you?
Yes, after all, in the end, I can only rely on myself.
>> Ah! You offer only doubt. I offer certainty.
>
>Certainty where there is none to be had factually doesn't seem very
>attractive to me.
Factually? But facts themselves are highly suspect because they can be
interpreted in many ways.
>I know western culture has had a certainty fetish
>for a long time, but I think it's misguided, and has led to a lot of
>bad philosophy, among many other things.
How about Nietzsche? I love Nietzsche. I also like phenomenology.
Hmmm, the rest of this converstation seems to expound on things that
no longer have to be expounded upon because we both have made our
vision on art crystal clear.
We completely disagree about what "good art" is.
This should make you happy because it underscores your notion that
everyone has a different interpretation. The one not necessarily
better or more correct than the other.
I, too, am happy because I still not have the slightest of doubts
about my own interpretation :-)
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
> I look at it
>this way: articulating ideas strengthens one's idea-making equipment.
Yes, this is very true indeed. Of course, making art is also
articulation : giving form to ideas. Perhaps there's an innate desire
to strengthen one's own equipment for there is joy in using it.
You're also saying that creativity (from which ideas spring) actually
profits from all this.
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>The Polish Count (Alfred Korzybski - General Semantics) nailed the "is"
>word as the culprit. His argument was that Einstein proved that the "to
>be" verb is distortional, since nothing "is" something else. It
>violates his rule against simultaniety. But now we have parallel worlds
>in physics, so maybe...
"A map is not the territory", hmm. Interesting. Yes, perception does
distort, its very function relies on this distortion. The problem is,
of course, that we only have the "map" and assume the existence of the
"territory". This gives rise to all kinds of existentialist doubts :-)
King Rundzap
> On 9 Sep 2004 07:39:41 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
> > I know western culture has had a certainty fetish
> >for a long time, but I think it's misguided, and has led to a lot of
> >bad philosophy, among many other things.
I'm not denying subjective evaluations, am I? Hopefully, you could
figure out that I would mean any evaluation subjectively (or this is
really futile) :-)
> Isn't this very similar to the "bad art" that I, Mani, and others
> speak of?
As long as you always mean them subjectively, it is similar to it. I
have no problem with people saying, "such and such is bad" where they
readily admit it's just their opinion, and that someone else isn't
wrong for having a different opinion.
> OH MY GOD! You're an Elitist as well.
I have likes and dislikes, although I just happen to not really
dislike any art, although as I've mentioned over and over, there is
art I like better than other art. I don't take that as the meaning of
"elitist".
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> >Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<3nnuj0totjbl563m2...@4ax.com>...
> >I don't know what that means "an artificact of the implementation".
> Douglas Hofstadter had a nice example of "an artifact of the
> implementation" in his book "Godel, Escher, Bach".
> In one of his stories there was this grammaphone player that should
> play back any sound possible. However, there was always some sound
> that would break the player (by resonation or something). Such a
> thing is what I would call an artifact of the implementation.
> Humans have such "errors" as well. The human eye can be fooled by
> optical illusions. Under some conditions, straight lines appear to be
> bent, for example.
Ah, supposed phenomena/noumena distinctions. That's a whole other can
of worms that maybe I shouldn't open just now :-)
> Here's an example :
>
> http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/ang_hering/index.html
>
> This "error" in perception arises from the specifics of our visual
> system. Lateral inhibition, for instance, is meant for edge
> enhancement but at the same time it can cause us to see images which
> aren't really there :
Except for the fact that phenomena/noumena distinctions are
conjectural, even if they're the conventional wisdom in certain
arenas.
> >My point was that we don't have to try to mimic the actual world, or
> >do any particular thing to have "good art".
> Well, you say that taste differs a lot among the individuals. I tend
> to agree. You also say that we cannot know the real mental content in
> someone's head and I also tend to agree although I am under the
> impression that my guesses are often not very far off (of course, I
> cannot proof that but the same goes for the opposite notion).
> Ergo : the only taste and mental content I can rely upon are my own.
> Thus : I can say "this is good art because..." and "this is bad art
> because...". And I will use these notions for the production of my own
> stuff.
Yeah, you will have subjective notions of what is good and bad art.
> What good would it do me to let go of my own notions of "good art"? I
> would lose the only source of reliable information that I have.
I just like to stress that they're your notions, and not an objective
fact . . . some people here (not necessarily you) like to talk about
value judgments in aesthetics as if they were talking about objective
facts rather than just subjective views.
> And I say : "good art" evokes feelings and it will more succesfully
> evoke feelings when it can "lock in" to experiences and these
> experiences most often include the real world.
I can understand you like that the best. I remarked somewhere that I
look at it as too bad that you won't give other stuff a chance, too,
but that's up to you. I like all kinds of things (although I have my
favorites, as I noted).
> I want to see
> beautifull young women in trouble, that gives me a hard one,
lol
> random streaks of color do not, therefor it doesn't mean anything to me.
I like both.
> Suppose I would take the view of solipsism. In that case my own
> notions would be promoted to universal truth.
Yeah, but it might be annoying that you keep arguing with yourself
about it :-)
> > I think it's preferable to let everyone get
> >their own interpretation of something, whether it resembles anyone
> >else's or not.
> Well, in that case you will be glad to see me disagreeing with you :-)
I don't mind that. I'm definitely not trying to make everyone the
same.
> >> This belief makes
> >> me study how I can more effectively represent certain things.
> >That's interesting, but you realize that not everyone is trying to do
> >that, and therefore shouldn't be judged on that, right?
> Yes, I guess one shouldn't be judged for that. But there seems to be
> some discrepancy between what _should_ happen and what actually _does_
> happen.
Of course should's are subjective, too.
> I think Clint Eastwood nicely put it in "Unforgiven" : "Deserve has
> nothing to do with it". :-)
> Actually, it might be testable but the results of tests are also
> interpreted.
Oops, I just deleted part of you responding to yourself. That was an
interesting idea.
Anyway, the results could be interpreted, but there would also be the
results non-interpreted, and those would either contain a lot of the
same terms or not.
> Of course, a test can be carried out but the conclusions
> will be different.
Conclusions as "interpretations". That's different than the data
itself.
> One conclusion can support my view, the other can
> support your view.
One could interpret it in a non-falsifiable way if one wanted to,
sure, but if we were doing something academic, we'd have to make it
falsifiable.
> >> We are now communicating by words and,
> >> even though some slight misunderstandings might creep in, the bulk of
> >> what we say to each other is interpreted the way we want to.
> >There's absolutely no way to know that.
> But there's no need to know it either.
Okay. I'm still right, though :-)
> As long as it produces results.
> The radio was made even before anyone knew about electromagnetism
> being the principle. "Ether" was postulated. It didn't really matter,
> the radio worked nonetheless. One day, even the concept of
> electromagnetism might be knocked over and be replaced by a theory
> which is more "productive" (in that it is more succesfull in
> predicting phenomena).
Now that's a tangent ;-) What you're talking about, roughly, is
pragmatism--one of the alternatives to "only acting on certainty".
> >In the
> >above experiment, for example, we'd know those 1000 persons' behavior,
> >not their actual mental content. They could be robots for all we
> >know. There is no way to test for it.
> Indeed, but OTOH I feel that the notion that one can "second guess"
> another one's mental content (believing it to be be like one's own)
> produces more fruitfull behaviour (and also has the merit that it is
> more intuitively right, at least IMO).
Pragmatism is often handy, yes.
> Taking out mental content out
> of the equation reeks like behaviorism, that notion has its own
> particular merits as well, of course.
That I don't agree with as much, at least if we're talking strong
behaviorism instead of weak. It might have a couple uses, but the
99.99-something percent of errors it leads to pretty much negates it
for me.
> >> This doesn't mean we expect each other to agree, of course. It simply means
> >> that our intentions are relatively clear.
> >Our _behavior_ is relatively clear. But I'm not a behaviorist, so I
> >don't confuse behavior with mental content, and intetion is mental
> >content.
> Indeed, behaviour and mental content can be very different.
> Extrapolating mental content from behaviour doesn't always come up
> with the right predictions (not that such predictions are actually
> testable). However, this doesn't mean that it will always produce
> wrong results.
Well, you can test behavior. If you want to add another idea to it
(mental content), for experimental purposes, you can, but you wouldn't
have to. You could just predict behavior and deal only with that.
That's the advantage that weak behaviorism has over strong.
> If that would be the case then it could just as easily
> produce always right results by simply inverting the prediction.
lol--but you're forgetting that there's no way to test mental content,
so you can't tell if you're ever right.
> Let's say a man smiles. I would say that man is happy (refering to his
> mental content). Then you would say that I cannot know that. Then I
> would say that there is at least a higher probability that he is happy
> than being sad
There's no way to know this. Probabilities require correlations of
events (as in "46 out of 100 flips of the coin produced heads" --
you'd need to be able to say, "In 64 out of 100 trials, smiles
correlated with the phenomenal experience 'happy'"). But as I pointed
out, there's no way to correlate behavior with mental content in that
way, since you can't actually check the mental content--you can't know
the outcome of even one trial, unless you're just talking about
yourself. The natural thing to appeal to there is, "well, just have
each person talk about themselves, then we can know". But that begs
the question, since what we're trying to test is whether things like
smiles, the word "happy", etc. correlate to the same phenomenal
experience.
>(and be irritated because I feel that generalisizing
> has some pretty good uses). Then you would probably say that I still
> cannot know that. Then I would say #$%&*!!! Let's at least agree that
> he is smiling :-)
Oops, right. I said that :-)
> Oh, I would also point out that my own extrapolations from behaviour
> to mental content are not such a rare thing amongst other people and
> that a lot of artists use this (it's better than nothing at all).
Most people assume that they can know others' mental contents, right.
The norm isn't to do philosophical analysis of it, and in fact, most
people get so annoyed at the philosophical analysis, they just dismiss
it as B.S. or something. They _want_ to keep believing that they can
know another's mental contents, and something that might lead them to
believe otherwise is a thing they'd rather do without. Calling it
B.S. is one way for them to not feel bad about doing without it.
> >> It would very much surprise me if you were reading all of what I write
> >> as a recipe of how to make Brownies.
> >The problem is that you have no way of knowing what my actual mental
> >content is. You can only see my behavior. As long as that's
> >consistent with the behavior you're expecting, or can understand,
> >you'll probably not suspect that some very different mental content is
> >underlying the behavior, although it could be.
> It could be but I don't assume it.
Well, I try not to assume it one way or the other, and deal more with
behavior only. One reason I do that, I suppose, is because I've had
plenty of past experiences where someone assumed my phenomenal
experience or I assumed their's and we insisted (behaviorally, of
course) that the other's assumption was wrong. One funny, specific,
unfortunately recurrent instance of this is when I say to my wife,
"You're making me upset", and she says, "No I'm not" -- LOL
> I'm aware that my predictions can
> be off but so far they have served me right. As a matter of fact : I
> believe they have become better and better over the years. That
> doesn't make them equivalent to a "universal truth", of course, but it
> does make them usefull to me.
> >> This is the communicative side of art. I am of the opinion that the
> >> only things worth communicating about in art are the feelings of
> >> people so that the people might respond with feelings as well.
> >Why are you of that opinion, though? That's what I really want to get
> >at. Why people have these narrow views of what it's okay to do in
> >art, and what it's not okay to do, at least insofar as potentially
> >creating "good art". Most of these comments are stated in a way that
> >implies the utterer has illusions of objectivity.
> Well, I guess I was pretty clear in that I reject the notion of
> objectivity, even rejecting logic as being objective (which is often
> seen as the most objective, that's why I've chosen that example).
Yeah, I'm a "constructivist" on logic and mathematics, as that term is
used in ontology of logic and mathematics (it's different than the
strictly mathematical sense of "constructivist" ala Brouwer).
Basically, the idea is that logic and mathematics are primarily social
constructions, and not something inherent in the world. Another way
to say it, and maybe a better way since "constructivist" always
confuses the mathematicians and computer scientists, is that I'm an
"intersubjectivist" on logic and mathematics. Which is just
subjectivism with lots of agreement involved. That's the only area
where I'd stress intersubjectivism over subjectivism, since there's an
unusual amount of verbatim agreement in those fields.
> And as of why I am of that (stated) opinion : the opinion is an
> intellectual construct, trying to be consistent with the perceived
> phenomena they apply to. The phenomena are, of course, that there are
> some images (and visual art) that affect me more deeply than others
> and are therefor perceived as valuable to me (the belief in "essence"
> plays a major role here as well, the search for it can be quite
> fruitfull).
But the only things worthwhile to you are your favorite things? I
have favorites, too, but find the stuff that isn't among my favorites
worthwhile, too.
> The opinion simply tries to explain what it is that moves me. It is
> not error free. But neither can it change what moves me. The opinion
> is subject to my tastes, not the other way around.
> You have different tastes than me, therefor you probably have a
> different opinion about what "good art" is.
Well, I have my favorite art, or kinds of art, and there is other art
that I don't like quite as much, but I still like it. But for me,
there isn't any bad art (not only meaning nothing that I think is
"objectively bad art", but nothing that I personally dislike as art,
either)-- so I don't define "good art" either. When I was younger
there was some art (and in fields other than visual art) that I didn't
like, but for whatever reason, as I've gotten older, I started
appreciating all art at least a bit.
> Unless you try to make the
> opinion into a universal truth in which case you will try to make it
> detached from your own taste. In such a case your opinion will not
> necessarily guide you to make art you like yourself. And what's the
> use of that?
There's an interesting point there which would lead nicely into a
discussion about equating normatives in ethics and aesthetics with
personal taste, but this thread is going in enough tangents already.
> >I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to "communicate
> >feelings" in art, but to make it solely about that seems like a
> >feeling fetish to me :-)
> Yes, I think you're right about that. I think that's a good thing and
> can certainly explain the obsessive nature of some artists. Perhaps
> making art is often driven by some obsession. Perhaps art is obsessive
> in nature.
I'm definitely an obsessive/compulsive--I pick subject
matter/categories, media, support size, etc. by lists, I listen to CDs
and watch DVDs in alphabetical order (and chronologically within each
artist), I read books by "schedules", etc. :-) I just don't have the
feeling fetish.
> >Deep isn't objectively better than non-deep. What would make it so?
> Nothing is better or worse _objectively_ (such attributes require a
> subject)
Well, they only occur in minds, yes. Maybe that's the same thing.
> but subjectively one can certainly be of that opinion. I know
> I am. To me, deep is better than shallow and it is one of my guiding
> principles. To you, it means nothing, you're probably guided by
> principles (if at all) different from mine. They're not better, nor
> worse because they are better to you and worse to me.
Yes.
> >> Ah! You offer only doubt. I offer certainty.
> >Certainty where there is none to be had factually doesn't seem very
> >attractive to me.
> Factually? But facts themselves are highly suspect because they can be
> interpreted in many ways.
I think there are facts, however. I separate that from
interpretation. I don't think that _everything_ is interpretive or
subjective. Remember, I don't have the monism fetish :-) I'm okay
with some things being interpretive or subjective and some things not
being so.
> >I know western culture has had a certainty fetish
> >for a long time, but I think it's misguided, and has led to a lot of
> >bad philosophy, among many other things.
> How about Nietzsche? I love Nietzsche. I also like phenomenology.
I'm much more into analytic philosophy. Nietzsche and Husserl are
okay, but I prefer Russell, Moore, Ayers, Nozick, etc.
> We completely disagree about what "good art" is.
I just don't separate art that way. I don't think there is bad art.
> This should make you happy because it underscores your notion that
> everyone has a different interpretation. The one not necessarily
> better or more correct than the other.
Yes :-)
> I, too, am happy because I still not have the slightest of doubts
> about my own interpretation :-)
Cool.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> King Rundzap wrote:
> > Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<0kdrj0dr30anks4e5...@4ax.com>...
> Hillary Putnam? But the whole point of his work with "stereotype" was
> to show that meaning can be imbedded in language constructions. But I'm
> curious...where does Putnam (if that is who you are citing) say meaning
> is not in the head. I think Putnam would argue that "existenz" itself
> is in the head.
That's a famous line in Putnam's paper, "The Meaning of Meaning". It
occurs at the end of the section, "Are Meanings in the Head?"
Putnam's last sentence in that section is, "Cut the pie any way you
like, 'meanings' just ain't in the head!" That paper originally
appeared in the journal _Language, Mind and Knowledge_, Minnesota
Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. VII, 131 - 93, Ed. K.
Gunderson, in 1975. But it's also been widely anthologized since
then. One great anthology was a collection of monographs spawned by
Putnam's paper, entitled _The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of
Reflection on Hilary Putnams "The Meaning of Meaning"_, 1996,
published by M.E. Sharpe, edited by Andrew Pessin and Sanford
Goldberg.
--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>I don't know, but I did hear about someone having a frickin heart attack
>during the movie - others passing out - or confessing to crimes after seeing
>the movie. <major eye roll> It aint' ALL that! All that was on my mind was
>"Why?"
>-Why- did that happen...
>-Why- didn't anyone stop it...
>-Why- would any want to inflict such pain... yadda yadda yadda.
>
>Oh, and -Why- did I watch it three times?
>
>(It gets worse each time you watch it, too. Try it.)
>
>>I simply have to see it so I ordered it. It should arrive in a couple
>>of days. A couple of days ago I also ordered the 2200 page "King
>>James" Bible (a Bible should be BIG, has more authority that way ;-)
>>so I can actually read what the Message was should the movie not
>>answer that question :-)
>
>Well when you get the answer, let me know. Afaik, there was no message.
>Except maybe what the Pope said about the movie: "It is, as it was." But DO
>tell us what you think of the movie!!!
Just saw it (gee, no extras? no audio commentary? wow)
I loved that table joke (chairs around a table? it will never catch
on! LOL :-)
Some "aphex twin" action with the creepy demon kids.
I thought good ole Lucifer was represented a bit weak. Looked more
like the Grim Reaper to me. Jeroen Krabbe in "Jesus" was better, a
suave deceiver in an Armani suit who speaks with complete reason. IMO
that's the face of Evil, a very attractive one, one that can be
believed in easily (because it looks good instead of evil, that's the
whole point : the package looks great but there's nothing in it).
AFAIK the nature of Lucifer is that he doesn't hold any real power
over humans. He needs to resort to "luring" them his way by exploiting
their weaknesses and this requires good marketing, his instruments
being lust, greed, anger and fear. He's not some dumb, demonical
animal but a plotting fallen Archangel who's pissed off that he had to
bow down to humans (pride being his vice).
What I though was good in the movie (apart from being excellent source
material for the depiction of a suffering man) was the portrayal of
certain things like compassion, repentence, cowardice and the bad
guys. The bad guys were completely portrayed as pigs (for lack of a
better word, pigs are actually quite intelligent and social animals, a
lot of the people breeding them in "bio industry" are the real pigs).
Reminded me a bit of the "Abu Grope" prison scenes, same kind of pig
like behaviour being shown there. How can people sink so low and still
consider themselves human?
I thought it was good that no-one did anything about it. It's a little
bit mankind as a microcosmos. The ones considering themselves good
being cowards, the bad ones having a ball. Only a few one being really
good. I think that's why Mary looked so long at the audience at the
end as if asking "Can you tell Good from Evil?", "Do you know the
Truth?" and, especially, "What would you do?" (which was expounded
upon by the Claudia/Pilatus scene). You know, one of those movies that
are meant to do some reflection :-)
Great facial expressions in the movie. Definitely good source material
to do some studies from. I think I saw some good ones from that Roman
Commander (the "What is this Madness?" look :-)
They could have had some more pain in Mary. After all : witnessing
one's own child being whipped to an inch of his life and then being
crucified should get some more reaction.
IMO this made the suffering of Jesus weaker.
But, all in all, a good movie giving some insight in human nature,
both the wavering good part and the low life bad part.
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>DO
>>tell us what you think of the movie!!!
>
>Just saw it (gee, no extras? no audio commentary? wow)
Yeah - I know - I was disappointed about that too!
>I loved that table joke (chairs around a table? it will never catch
>on! LOL :-)
>
>Some "aphex twin" action with the creepy demon kids.
Now *that* I thought was funny. Kids as demons - Lol (ya got that right!)
>I thought good ole Lucifer was represented a bit weak. Looked more
>like the Grim Reaper to me. Jeroen Krabbe in "Jesus" was better, a
>suave deceiver in an Armani suit who speaks with complete reason. IMO
>that's the face of Evil, a very attractive one, one that can be
>believed in easily (because it looks good instead of evil, that's the
>whole point : the package looks great but there's nothing in it).
>AFAIK the nature of Lucifer is that he doesn't hold any real power
>over humans. He needs to resort to "luring" them his way by exploiting
>their weaknesses and this requires good marketing, his instruments
>being lust, greed, anger and fear. He's not some dumb, demonical
>animal but a plotting fallen Archangel who's pissed off that he had to
>bow down to humans (pride being his vice).
I didn't want to post an entire spoiler, but I thought the "monsters" kind
of ruined the supposed seriousness of the flick. And some of the things that
"Lucifer" said didn't make sense. For instance, he questioned Jesus about
his (Jesus') identity, AFTER declaring (taunting) Jesus that he wouldn't be
able to absorb humanity's sins. That was stupid. But back to the "monster"
effect - did you catch the little maggot/worm crawling out of "Lucifer's"
nose? I missed it the first time. OOoooooh. Scary! <rolling eyes>
Lol
>What I though was good in the movie (apart from being excellent source
>material for the depiction of a suffering man) was the portrayal of
>certain things like compassion, repentence, cowardice and the bad
>guys. The bad guys were completely portrayed as pigs (for lack of a
>better word, pigs are actually quite intelligent and social animals, a
>lot of the people breeding them in "bio industry" are the real pigs).
>Reminded me a bit of the "Abu Grope" prison scenes, same kind of pig
>like behaviour being shown there. How can people sink so low and still
>consider themselves human?
Yes, I "appreciated" that characterization too. I absolutely HATE it when
something is so bad, but so well performed, that you just gotta love it.
<grrr> Never once did I think of the actors as actors in this film, and THAT
is (imo) what makes a movie good!
>I thought it was good that no-one did anything about it.
<jaw drop> (and you have the nerve to think *I'm* mean!? - pbpbpbpbpbp)
>It's a little
>bit mankind as a microcosmos. The ones considering themselves good
>being cowards, the bad ones having a ball. Only a few one being really
>good. I think that's why Mary looked so long at the audience at the
>end as if asking "Can you tell Good from Evil?", "Do you know the
>Truth?" and, especially, "What would you do?" (which was expounded
>upon by the Claudia/Pilatus scene). You know, one of those movies that
>are meant to do some reflection :-)
Well if that was the purpose, then it was well done because everybody over
here was discussing it. We came to the conclusion that the entire story is
nothing short of total bullshit - because it's human nature for a mother
and/or brother and/or sister and/or big tough guy in the crowd (there's
ALWAYS one of those) to try to put a stop to what's perceived as an
injustice. By that logic, what was portrayed in this movie was NOT Human
nature at all. And I'm curious as to why Heppy Jesus' father wasn't in the
movie (or story). Maybe that's symbolic of the abuse which was so (feminine)
passively received.
>Great facial expressions in the movie. Definitely good source material
>to do some studies from. I think I saw some good ones from that Roman
>Commander (the "What is this Madness?" look :-)
>
>They could have had some more pain in Mary. After all : witnessing
>one's own child being whipped to an inch of his life and then being
>crucified should get some more reaction.
Yup - **Human Nature**
>IMO this made the suffering of Jesus weaker.
Damn dude. Lol
>But, all in all, a good movie giving some insight in human nature,
>both the wavering good part and the low life bad part.
I agree. I can't stop talking about it. Thanks for letting me know what you
think.
Paul Mesken
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>
>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>But back to the "monster"
>effect - did you catch the little maggot/worm crawling out of "Lucifer's"
>nose? I missed it the first time. OOoooooh. Scary! <rolling eyes>
Oh, that's just disgusting! I wouldn't be deceived by a guy who has a
maggot crawling out of his nose "You ain't the Truth and you ain't the
Way because you got a maggot up your nose!" :-)
>Yes, I "appreciated" that characterization too. I absolutely HATE it when
>something is so bad, but so well performed, that you just gotta love it.
><grrr> Never once did I think of the actors as actors in this film, and THAT
>is (imo) what makes a movie good!
Yes, I also liked that the camera captured some Roman soldiers as well
that thought the whole thing was disgusting. I liked that, it gave a
bit of depth. Some even resolved to do the decent thing in an indecent
situation.
> We came to the conclusion that the entire story is
>nothing short of total bullshit - because it's human nature for a mother
>and/or brother and/or sister and/or big tough guy in the crowd (there's
>ALWAYS one of those) to try to put a stop to what's perceived as an
>injustice. By that logic, what was portrayed in this movie was NOT Human
>nature at all.
Yes, you're right about that. There will always be heroes who do the
Good Thing naturally. At the very least his mother could have
protested more.
The thing did remind me of some cases of "senseless violence"
("Zinloos Geweld" as we call it here in the Netherlands) in which some
unfortunate one is beaten to death or raped in clear daylight,
surrounded by 20 or so witnesses who don't move a muscle. I don't know
what I would do when I would be in such a situation, I think it comes
down to some reflex.
>And I'm curious as to why Heppy Jesus' father wasn't in the
>movie (or story). Maybe that's symbolic of the abuse which was so (feminine)
>passively received.
Give us Joseph! :-) Also, for a movie that cost 30 U$ million I want
to see Jesus walking on water ;-)
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>> We came to the conclusion that the entire story is
>>nothing short of total bullshit - because it's human nature for a mother
>>and/or brother and/or sister and/or big tough guy in the crowd (there's
>>ALWAYS one of those) to try to put a stop to what's perceived as an
>>injustice. By that logic, what was portrayed in this movie was NOT Human
>>nature at all.
>
>Yes, you're right about that. There will always be heroes who do the
>Good Thing naturally. At the very least his mother could have
>protested more.
One thing tho - The movie (story) portrays Heppy Jesus as a "knowing"
victim - that is, "knowing" the event (crucifixion) was going to happen
ahead of time (he was a prophet). Now in the beginning of the movie, Heppy
was praying to God - asking/begging for a different ending - albeit, Heppy
conceded to let the events fold according to God's plan. My problem with
this (particular part of the) -movie- is that Heppy's mom seemed to know
what was going to happen also - but I really don't remember ever hearing of
Mary being a psychic, nor do I remember reading that ol' Heppy shared this
prophetic vision with his mother.
Perhaps Mel "put" that little situation in there to justify the non-action
of her character. That would be a shame - as it may not be what happened at
all - and people will believe it.
>The thing did remind me of some cases of "senseless violence"
>("Zinloos Geweld" as we call it here in the Netherlands) in which some
>unfortunate one is beaten to death or raped in clear daylight,
>surrounded by 20 or so witnesses who don't move a muscle. I don't know
>what I would do when I would be in such a situation, I think it comes
>down to some reflex.
There seems to be only "so much one can take" in such a situation - even as
a viewer. Personally, not I nor any of the people I associate would
passively allow something like that to happen. We're just too hard-headed -
and naturally rebellious - even to our own destruction...
King Rundzap
> Well if that was the purpose, then it was well done because everybody over
> here was discussing it. We came to the conclusion that the entire story is
> nothing short of total bullshit - because it's human nature for a mother
> and/or brother and/or sister and/or big tough guy in the crowd (there's
> ALWAYS one of those) to try to put a stop to what's perceived as an
> injustice. By that logic, what was portrayed in this movie was NOT Human
> nature at all. And I'm curious as to why Heppy Jesus' father wasn't in the
> movie (or story). Maybe that's symbolic of the abuse which was so (feminine)
> passively received.
> >They could have had some more pain in Mary. After all : witnessing
> >one's own child being whipped to an inch of his life and then being
> >crucified should get some more reaction.
> Yup - **Human Nature**
> >But, all in all, a good movie giving some insight in human nature,
> >both the wavering good part and the low life bad part.
> I agree. I can't stop talking about it. Thanks for letting me know what you
> think.
This would be a good place to combat the idea of "human nature" being
something other than the totality of what humans do, whatever that
happens to be and however individualized it may be, but on the other
hand, this thread is a bit long already and I'm trying to basically
stay on-topic :-)
--King Rundzap
Electric Nachos
King Rundzap wrote in message
<425a3330.04091...@posting.google.com>...
>This would be a good place to combat the idea of "human nature" being
>something other than the totality of what humans do, whatever that
>happens to be and however individualized it may be, but on the other
>hand, this thread is a bit long already and I'm trying to basically
>stay on-topic :-)
Yes, human nature is defined by the totality of what humans do, however
since we're entering an era where it's quite vogue to re-define things, I
say human nature is what humans do - regardless of the numbers. Therefore,
it is human nature for a small percentage of a crowd to protest a wrong
doing.
>--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
Yes, I'd also like to add that we also know a thing (a definition) by
its extremities (there can be far more that two, of course). Cruelty
and ruthlesness without bounds like Nazis have shown in concentration
camps is, sadly, human nature. But also acts of great courage and
sacrifice are human nature (it's a bit strange that I have trouble
thinking of a well known historical example :-) It seems to me humans
are a bit overachievers, they can be so extreme in their behaviour :-)
That all these possibilities are within one human at the same time is
something amazing. I believe that's why I think the "conflict" is so
interesting. A human hardly ever seems to be one of those extremes
exclusively (that would be machine like behaviour), there's always the
possibility that he/she changes in an instant.
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
><aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>
>>
>>King Rundzap wrote in message
>><425a3330.04091...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>This would be a good place to combat the idea of "human nature" being
>>>something other than the totality of what humans do, whatever that
>>>happens to be and however individualized it may be, but on the other
>>>hand, this thread is a bit long already and I'm trying to basically
>>>stay on-topic :-)
>>
>>Yes, human nature is defined by the totality of what humans do, however
>>since we're entering an era where it's quite vogue to re-define things, I
>>say human nature is what humans do - regardless of the numbers. Therefore,
>>it is human nature for a small percentage of a crowd to protest a wrong
>>doing.
>
>Yes, I'd also like to add that we also know a thing (a definition) by
>its extremities (there can be far more that two, of course). Cruelty
>and ruthlesness without bounds like Nazis have shown in concentration
>camps is, sadly, human nature. But also acts of great courage and
>sacrifice are human nature (it's a bit strange that I have trouble
>thinking of a well known historical example :-)
Geronimo, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.
>It seems to me humans
>are a bit overachievers, they can be so extreme in their behaviour :-)
>
>That all these possibilities are within one human at the same time is
>something amazing. I believe that's why I think the "conflict" is so
>interesting. A human hardly ever seems to be one of those extremes
>exclusively (that would be machine like behaviour), there's always the
>possibility that he/she changes in an instant.
What's even more amazing (to me) is that sometimes all that's required for
change, is a "re-definition," a 'word,' or a different 'explanation'. I
contend that a lot of disputes arise because of a lack of solid semantics.
A bizarre species we are - one that operates by its own mechanics.
But then again, what else is there to do...
King Rundzap
Right . . . I agree that whatever some humans do is human nature.
There's probably a better way to word what I said earlier--by the
totality of what humans do, I mean everything/anything that any human
does counts.
--King Rundzap
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com...
> "Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
>> From: Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>>
>> >Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
>> >in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course).
>
>
> --King Rundzap
>The idea that all painting has to be realist (has to try to
>say something about the actual world, try to "reflect" it in
>particular ways, etc.) is a very strange one to me, although one that
>many people in this newsgroup seem to hold.
You may be mistaken. What idea they may have is that painting
has to make visual sense by providing recognisable images or symbols,
and further, the painting must make a kind of sense, both visually and in
the narrative.
This allows for quite a range of painting subjects and styles.
Compare a typical (to me) abstract:-
http://www.lsi.usp.br/~artigas/kandinsky/blackviolet.html
and a
Picasso:-
http://www.lsi.usp.br/~artigas/kandinsky/blackviolet.html
This may explain one of the reasons why so many know of and have viewed
repros of Picasso, and read books on, and why he is more popular than many
other "modern" painters.
You can in a good proportion of his works find images which make visual
sense,
(however distorted) but in the Kandinsky (as far as I can detect) there is
complete
abstraction.
Do you think it is presumptuous of people to expect works of art to make
sense
to them, even if they have not paid for them? Perhaps modern works are
painted
for a very small number of intellectuals who can make sense of them, and the
rest
of us should not concern ourselves with them at all?
This would make more sense of the modern art world to me.
Thur
King Rundzap
> "King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com...
> > "Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
> > news:<10jnb27...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> From: Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
> >>
> >> >Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
> >> >in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course).
> Clipped for space
> > --King Rundzap
> >The idea that all painting has to be realist (has to try to
> >say something about the actual world, try to "reflect" it in
> >particular ways, etc.) is a very strange one to me, although one that
> >many people in this newsgroup seem to hold.
> You may be mistaken. What idea they may have is that painting
> has to make visual sense by providing recognisable images or symbols,
> and further, the painting must make a kind of sense, both visually and in
> the narrative.
Yeah, I could be mistaken about that--I certainly wouldn't mind being
wrong--but I keep running into posts where various works are
criticized for not having actual world proportions, perspective, and
so on. The quotations I gave Jane, that were from Paul, are an
example. I can remember other posts in the past picking on Matisse,
Cezanne, etc. for those issues, too. I'm sure more will arise in the
coming weeks.
> This allows for quite a range of painting subjects and styles.
> Compare a typical (to me) abstract:-
> http://www.lsi.usp.br/~artigas/kandinsky/blackviolet.html
> and a
> Picasso:-
> http://www.lsi.usp.br/~artigas/kandinsky/blackviolet.html
Oops, you gave me the Kandinsky link twice.
> This may explain one of the reasons why so many know of and have viewed
> repros of Picasso, and read books on, and why he is more popular than many
> other "modern" painters.
Maybe. Kandinsky is very popular, too. But I agree not near the
"household name" that Picasso is.
> You can in a good proportion of his works find images which make visual
> sense,(however distorted)
Much of Picasso's work is recognizably representationalist, yes. Keep
in mind, for the topic of this post, though, that there have been no
shortage of complaints about Picasso's work in this newsgroup.
> but in the Kandinsky (as far as I can detect) there is
> complete
> abstraction.
In many Kandinsky works, yes, although that particular piece, Black
and Violet, always looked like two figures to me--the one on the left
facing us straight on, with a black circular head, a white circular
eye on our left hand side, the mouth being the rectangle inside the
green rectangle, the body below that, etc., and the second figure on
the right, in a side view, the head being the violet diamond, the eye,
the "open" rectangle with the black circle in it, the mouth composed
of the orange and white triangle on top, and the long multi-colored
rectangle of different colored rectangles on the bottom. I always
thought of it as a conversation--the figure on the right with his/her
mouth wide open, saying something to the figure on the left which is
making the figure on the left open their mouth in astonishment.
I don't think I've ever read an "official" explanation of the
Kandinsky work, so maybe my interpretation is way off what Kandinsky
intended, but I think I tend to see figures in stuff like that because
I'm a _huge_ Miro fan (as well as a fan of Klee and Kandinsky), and he
did a lot of very abstract figural work like that.
> Do you think it is presumptuous of people to expect works of art to make
> sense
> to them, even if they have not paid for them?
No, I don't mind at all if someone only likes representational art, or
whatever makes sense to them. I get more incensed at critiques that
assume someone was going for realism, or some other "art-school
standard"
(some examples of which could be a single focus or subdued
coloration), when the artist may not have been shooting for those
things at all. One reason I get incensed at it is that in my own art,
I'm shooting for completely different objectives than realism and
those other standards, and it would be very wrong-headed to criticize
my work on those grounds. I get even more incensed when the folks
writing those critiques (and not just here, I run into this in
magazines, books, websites, television programs, etc.) write with an
assumption that that is "the only right way" to do things, and
everything else sucks.
> Perhaps modern works are
> painted
> for a very small number of intellectuals who can make sense of them, and the
> rest
> of us should not concern ourselves with them at all?
I think different artists paint with different crowds in mind. In my
own works, I try to please myself first and foremost. My main
underlying criterion is, "Is this the kind of thing I'd want to buy if
a consumer, and this wasn't my work?" I know I may have very unusual
tastes, but those are my tastes, and I want to create stuff (and buy
stuff) that matches them, which also creates a supply for the other
freaky people like me. To steal a famous quote from Frank Zappa, "I'm
creating works that not only please me, but people who enjoy the same
kind of stuff I do". I see my niche as a fairly narrow one of people,
like me, who like the strange things that I do.
> This would make more sense of the modern art world to me.
I can't tell you what each artist's motivation is, or what the crowd
they're shooting for is, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that is
first and foremost creating works for themselves, and incidently, for
the people who enjoy the same kinds of things they do. I'm sure many
others do not mind if that's a small crowd. That might not seem to
make good economic sense, but if you cater to a specialized market in
that way, once you get a fan base/following, they tend to be more
loyal, as Zappa's audience was.
--King Rundzap
Andrew D
kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
> "Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message news:<9Lg1d.557$Vi6.346@newsfe2-
[snip]
> > You may be mistaken. What idea they may have is that painting
> > has to make visual sense by providing recognisable images or symbols,
> > and further, the painting must make a kind of sense, both visually and in
> > the narrative.
I think it has more to do with demonstrative skill. One way of looking at
it might be "if it looks like something a typical five year old might
produce, then (unless it WAS produced by a child) it probably shouldn't be
regarded as "great art"
> Yeah, I could be mistaken about that--I certainly wouldn't mind being
> wrong--but I keep running into posts where various works are
> criticized for not having actual world proportions, perspective, and
> so on. The quotations I gave Jane, that were from Paul, are an
> example. I can remember other posts in the past picking on Matisse,
> Cezanne, etc. for those issues, too. I'm sure more will arise in the
> coming weeks.
The works referred to, more often than not, look like the work of
children. In fact, many people claim that is what makes them great. Keith
O'Connor once suggested that as we grow older, we mange to un-learn how to
make art. Some people, myself included, are insulted by the suggestion
that learning and improving are the antithesis of art.
> > Perhaps modern works are
> > painted
> > for a very small number of intellectuals who can make sense of them,
and the
> > rest
> > of us should not concern ourselves with them at all?
Unless our "learned" politicians spend millions on them and fill OUR
public galleries with them ... for use to enjoy. The Western Australian
Art Gallery has made this an art in itself. Our great historical
collection of art is hidden away in a poorly-signposted building outside
of the big, shiny, purpose-built art gallery which houses a massive
collection of "modern" "art" and indigenous art.
> I think different artists paint with different crowds in mind. In my
> own works, I try to please myself first and foremost. My main
> underlying criterion is, "Is this the kind of thing I'd want to buy if
> a consumer, and this wasn't my work?" I know I may have very unusual
> tastes, but those are my tastes, and I want to create stuff (and buy
> stuff) that matches them, which also creates a supply for the other
> freaky people like me. To steal a famous quote from Frank Zappa, "I'm
> creating works that not only please me, but people who enjoy the same
> kind of stuff I do". I see my niche as a fairly narrow one of people,
> like me, who like the strange things that I do.
Where the commercial side of art is involved, I think your analogy applies
across the board. Chances are that if you like something enough to paint
it, someone else will like it enough to buy it, providing your painting
captures that "something". This could be a red dot on a white canvas - or
the same but without the red dot perhaps. Where ires get raised, I feel,
is when this limited-appeal stuff is foisted on an unsuspecting public as
representative of "great art" while the more skilled works are dismissed
as tourist kitsch.
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.
Thur
"Andrew D" <an...@elsewhere.com> wrote in message
news:andyd-16090...@dip-220-235-36-248.wa.westnet.com.au...
He's (probably) going on about how we should be able to look without
allowing
our brains to compute, and using this to be creative.
Fact is, we all use this, but in an adult, informed and systematic way.
However, one cannot avoid the fact that age is a burden to carry for
the most part. :-)
> Our great historical
> collection of art is hidden away in a poorly-signposted building outside
> of the big, shiny, purpose-built art gallery which houses a massive
> collection of "modern" "art" and indigenous art.
It surprises me that Oz has this problem. A nation of people who make
a point of being blunt and speaking their mind, ending up meekly with
something that they do not want.
Is it possible that most do not want to express an opinion on art, or
perhaps
have no artistic leanings?
That must be how we Brits ended up with the Tate.
Thur
King Rundzap
> > "Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message news:<9Lg1d.557$Vi6.346@newsfe2-
> > > You may be mistaken. What idea they may have is that painting
> > > has to make visual sense by providing recognisable images or symbols,
> > > and further, the painting must make a kind of sense, both visually and in
> > > the narrative.
> I think it has more to do with demonstrative skill. One way of looking at
> it might be "if it looks like something a typical five year old might
> produce, then (unless it WAS produced by a child) it probably shouldn't be
> regarded as "great art"
I know we're repeating ourselves now, but here's my take on that
again: I don't understand for one, why we'd be automatically
dismissing the work of a typical five year old as art.
Two, what is implied there (and this is at least half of Mani's
argument) is something that is technically difficult is artistically
better than something that is technically simple. I'm relatively new
to the visual artworld (I've only been pursuing it full time for a few
years), so that's perhaps why I'm flabbergasted that anyone in the
visual artworld would consider this a good argument--that is, at least
anyone who isn't just someone now learning technique and thus admiring
advanced technique for its own sake (and I don't think that describes
Andrew D, since I know he's been posting here for awhile). Why does
it flabbergast me that anyone considers that a good argument? Well,
artforms that are much younger, like rock music, have already had
people consider that identical argument, and discard it as nonsense
(except for those aforementioned music students learning technique and
thus admiring advanced technique for its own sake), in the space of
less than 20 years. If that field can so easily find the holes in
that reasoning, why are people in the visual arts having so much
problem with it? (And I'm not arguing an ad populum here, just
pointing out that even Average Joes have realized that the argument is
silly).
Here's one form of the development of an analogous argument and what
happened to it in rock music (I already alluded to this, too, in
previous threads, but it seems to have been overlooked). When Van
Halen first came out in the late 70s, one of the things that amazed a
lot of rock fans was Eddie Van Halen's technique. He was amazingly
fast, amazingly "clean" (he wasn't a "sloppy player"), he could blaze
through all kinds of complicated scales, modes, etc. He used a lot of
novel techniques like false harmonics. All of these things are
comparatively difficult to do technically. And of course many, many
people thought that Eddie Van Halen sounded great. In the wake of Van
Halen's popularity, whole legions of rock guitarists started buckling
down on technique, so they too could play as fast, as cleanly, and so
on. In the 80s, this lead in a couple different directions. One,
every commercial-leaning hard rock band, at least, acquired, or was
built around, a technically amazing guitarist. Even bands like Kiss
were acquiring guitarists (Vinnie Vincent, Mark St. John, etc.) who
had chops (a word musicians use for technical proficiency) galore.
The other direction was slightly less commercial bands that for the
most part even forgot about lyrics, and just showed off their chops.
One of the primary examples of these kinds of musicians/bands was a
guy named Yngwie Malmsteen.
Now, using the "more difficult technically is better" argument, all of
this stuff should have kicked the ass of any other guitar-based music,
with the possible exception of some of the most skilled jazz
guitarists. This is including stuff like flamenco guitar, classical
guitar, etc. The things that these guitarists were doing took much
more practice, they were much more difficult. A lot of these guys
shed scales and practiced other techniques for 8 to 12 hours per day,
every day, for years, just to be able to play like that--I was even in
bands with some of them. However, a lot of people started noticing
that this music didn't sound as good to them as Van Halen, say, or
even stuff like Jeff Beck or Neil Young. Fans of bands like Kiss
thought the new stuff might be okay, and it was certainly more
technically proficient, but it just didn't sound as good as the old
stuff, with Ace Frehley on guitar. Gene Simmons later compared the
sound to a bee buzzing around his ear. Something was missing. People
were especially becoming disillusioned with artists like Yngwie
Malmsteen. They thought a lot of his material was, well, boring and
kinda lifeless. Most people said they'd much rather listen to Jeff
Beck or Neil Young solo than Yngwie, although they acknowledged that
Yngwie was much more complicated technically. They realized that
technique didn't correlate to aesthetic quality. Aesthetic quality
was something else.
I bet if I played Yngwie Malmsteen versus other guitarists for most of
the people in this newsgroup, that they too would prefer the other
guitarists over Malmsteen, even though Malmsteen's stuff is probably
more difficult to play (since it's more difficult than most of the
other guitar music out there). Neil Young, for example, is one of my
personal favorites. I don't care if I ever hear Malmsteen again, but
I listen to Neil all the time. I love his guitar solos. But,
technically, they're pretty simple. I could teach many people who
hadn't played guitar before the technique required for many of the
solos in a couple months. But you probably wouldn't play them exactly
the same, with the same "feeling", and you certainly wouldn't be
likely to create them in the way Neil does, if given the framework for
creation. Aesthetic quality isn't the same thing technique.
I wonder why some of the people in the visual arts haven't realized
that technique is not the same as aesthetic worth yet?
> > Yeah, I could be mistaken about that--I certainly wouldn't mind being
> > wrong--but I keep running into posts where various works are
> > criticized for not having actual world proportions, perspective, and
> > so on. The quotations I gave Jane, that were from Paul, are an
> > example. I can remember other posts in the past picking on Matisse,
> > Cezanne, etc. for those issues, too. I'm sure more will arise in the
> > coming weeks.
> The works referred to, more often than not, look like the work of
> children.
Okay, but that doesn't make my comment above not correct.
> In fact, many people claim that is what makes them great.
My personal view is that if I thought they looked like the work of
children, that fact in itself wouldn't make them better or worse.
Aesthetic quality isn't the same thing as technique in either
direction. That is, something isn't aesthetically better simply
because it is more complicated or less complicated.
> Keith
> O'Connor once suggested that as we grow older, we mange to un-learn how to
> make art. Some people, myself included, are insulted by the suggestion
> that learning and improving are the antithesis of art.
But why haven't you realized, if you haven't yet, that technique isn't
the same thing as aesthetic quality?
> Unless our "learned" politicians spend millions on them and fill OUR
> public galleries with them ... for use to enjoy.
I'm a Libertarian (in the sense of that term the U.S. Libertarian
Party uses), so I agree that there shouldn't be government funding of
art.
> The Western Australian
> Art Gallery has made this an art in itself. Our great historical
> collection of art is hidden away in a poorly-signposted building outside
> of the big, shiny, purpose-built art gallery which houses a massive
> collection of "modern" "art" and indigenous art.
Well, I don't think the government should fund _any_ art. Old stuff,
new stuff, native stuff . . . whatever.
> > I think different artists paint with different crowds in mind. In my
> > own works, I try to please myself first and foremost. My main
> > underlying criterion is, "Is this the kind of thing I'd want to buy if
> > a consumer, and this wasn't my work?" I know I may have very unusual
> > tastes, but those are my tastes, and I want to create stuff (and buy
> > stuff) that matches them, which also creates a supply for the other
> > freaky people like me. To steal a famous quote from Frank Zappa, "I'm
> > creating works that not only please me, but people who enjoy the same
> > kind of stuff I do". I see my niche as a fairly narrow one of people,
> > like me, who like the strange things that I do.
> Where the commercial side of art is involved, I think your analogy applies
> across the board. Chances are that if you like something enough to paint
> it, someone else will like it enough to buy it, providing your painting
> captures that "something".
Right.
> This could be a red dot on a white canvas - or
> the same but without the red dot perhaps. Where ires get raised, I feel,
> is when this limited-appeal stuff is foisted on an unsuspecting public as
> representative of "great art" while the more skilled works are dismissed
> as tourist kitsch.
Because you're equating technique with aesthetic worth, lol, and
you're wanting, it seems, to have an "official opinion" that's like
your personal opinion instead of allowing the chips fall where they
may based on individuals' tastes.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> allowing
> our brains to compute, and using this to be creative.
I went on about something else, but it didn't appear yet . . . I'm
sure it will appear soon. Posting through Google Groups is very slow,
although I like the fact that it bunches all posts with the same
subject header together regardless of how old they are.
Anyway, you should look and like whatever you like, whether that's
something that looks to you like a 5-year old did it or not. There's
a lot of art that kids do that I like a lot.
> Fact is, we all use this, but in an adult, informed and systematic way.
> However, one cannot avoid the fact that age is a burden to carry for
> the most part. :-)
>
> > Our great historical
> > collection of art is hidden away in a poorly-signposted building outside
> > of the big, shiny, purpose-built art gallery which houses a massive
> > collection of "modern" "art" and indigenous art.
>
> It surprises me that Oz has this problem. A nation of people who make
> a point of being blunt and speaking their mind, ending up meekly with
> something that they do not want.
> Is it possible that most do not want to express an opinion on art, or
> perhaps
> have no artistic leanings?
> That must be how we Brits ended up with the Tate.
You're doing what Mani tends to do on this account--ignoring the fact
that many people actually like a lot of "modern art", buy it whether
it's from "name" artists or not, etc. I'm sure the Tate has decent
attendance figures.
It's one thing to not like a kind of art and be vocal about that, but
to deny that anyone else likes it in the face of evidence to the
contrary seems very odd.
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli
wrote:
>I know we're repeating ourselves now, but here's my take on that
>again: I don't understand for one, why we'd be automatically
>dismissing the work of a typical five year old as art.
Probably because your work looks like that of a five year old.
>Two, what is implied there (and this is at least half of Mani's
>argument) is something that is technically difficult is artistically
>better than something that is technically simple.
Something which is technically competent is better than something
incompetent.
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
Milton
> Something which is technically competent is better than something
> incompetent.
>
Really?
Bouguereau could render really well but a lot of his works are laughable.
Matisse was never much of a drawer but a great designer.
King Rundzap
> On 16 Sep 2004 12:59:07 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
>
> >I know we're repeating ourselves now, but here's my take on that
> >again: I don't understand for one, why we'd be automatically
> >dismissing the work of a typical five year old as art.
> Probably because your work looks like that of a five year old.
How about some reasoning now why you're dismissing the work of a
typical five year old? Do you actually have any? And you're
wondering why I'm staying anonymous here instead, lol. I know that
instead of actually having a discussion about your claims, you'd
prefer to focus each thread into ragging on someone's work--that
usually easily distracts them into a flame war with you--I've seen you
do this in numerous other threads. I'm not interested in a flame war,
though. I want you to actually think about your claims,
theoretically, to see if they hold water. I don't want to provide you
with easy tangents so you can avoid doing that.
You said in some thread that you have a background in philosophy of
science. Let's put that background to work as we analyze some of
these assumptions (like "The work of a typical five year old does not
have artistic value"). I'm sure you've examined your own claims
before making them public, thinking about possible objections and
developing arguments that meet and overcome the objections, right? So
let's hear some of that material.
> >Two, what is implied there (and this is at least half of Mani's
> >argument) is something that is technically difficult is artistically
> >better than something that is technically simple.
> Something which is technically competent is better than something
> incompetent.
And now here comes the definition of technically competency, as well
as the support for that definition:
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
(I even provided easy blanks for you to fill out) :-)
The sad thing is that it seems like you couldn't care less whether
your claims actually hold water or not. Which is why I'm sure you're
not going to provide any argumentation or support of why the work of a
typical five year old has no artistic worth, or what technical
competency is. It would be interesting to find out why you don't care
about the substance of your claims, but part of your game seems to be
only responding to objections in short, flame-like quips, so you
remain cryptic enough that it's difficult to figure out your
psychology on that matter.
> No skill no art!
Everything conventionally called art displays skill.
--King Rundzap
Andrew D
> "Andrew D" <an...@elsewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:andyd-16090...@dip-220-235-36-248.wa.westnet.com.au...
> > In article <425a3330.04091...@posting.google.com>,
> > kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
[snip]
> > The works referred to, more often than not, look like the work of
> > children.
> > In fact, many people claim that is what makes them great. Keith
> > O'Connor once suggested that as we grow older, we mange to un-learn how to
> > make art.
> > Some people, myself included, are insulted by the suggestion
> > that learning and improving are the antithesis of art.
> He's (probably) going on about how we should be able to look without
> allowing our brains to compute, and using this to be creative.
Yes, I think many people do believe the best art is that which is
apparently brainless.
> > Our great historical
> > collection of art is hidden away in a poorly-signposted building outside
> > of the big, shiny, purpose-built art gallery which houses a massive
> > collection of "modern" "art" and indigenous art.
> It surprises me that Oz has this problem. A nation of people who make
> a point of being blunt and speaking their mind, ending up meekly with
> something that they do not want.
Where did you get the idea Aussies speak their mind? We are might speak
openly (on politics for example) but when it comes to actually doing
something about the things that irk us, we tend, on the whole, to be as
apathetic as many other peoples.
> Is it possible that most do not want to express an opinion on art, or
> perhaps have no artistic leanings?
> That must be how we Brits ended up with the Tate.
I think there's an element of "exhaustion". When complaints are raised
about the worst examples of so-called "art" ("Piss Christ" comes to mind),
that very opposition is then thrown up as a vindication of the piece. It's
a bit like the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian is told
that only the true Messiah would deny his divinity. When Brian then
declares "Okay, I AM the Messiah", his admission is accepted as evidence
that he is indeed the divine one. In the art world, if tripe is hung ina
gallery without public condemnation, then the public are presumed to
accpet it as art. If they protest, then the public are presumed to have
proved it to be art.
Andrew D
> an...@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<andyd-16090...@dip-220-235-36-248.wa.westnet.com.au>...
> > In article <425a3330.04091...@posting.google.com>,
> > kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
>
> > > "Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message news:<9Lg1d.557$Vi6.346@newsfe2-
>
> > > > You may be mistaken. What idea they may have is that painting
> > > > has to make visual sense by providing recognisable images or symbols,
> > > > and further, the painting must make a kind of sense, both visually
and in
> > > > the narrative.
>
> > I think it has more to do with demonstrative skill. One way of looking at
> > it might be "if it looks like something a typical five year old might
> > produce, then (unless it WAS produced by a child) it probably shouldn't be
> > regarded as "great art"
>
> I know we're repeating ourselves now, but here's my take on that
> again: I don't understand for one, why we'd be automatically
> dismissing the work of a typical five year old as art.
I never said we should. When my kids write a short, simple story, I assess
it with regard to their age. If they build a model plane, I do the same.
When they speak (and they do so quite well) I congratulate them and
encourage them as they show improvement. But if an adult were to draw,
build and speak as they do, I wouldn't therefore suggest that adult is
great at those things.
[snip]
> They realized that
> technique didn't correlate to aesthetic quality. Aesthetic quality
> was something else.
But if museums were music galleries, they would be filled with stuff that
sounds like kids beating the hell out of coffee cans - no rhythm, no
melody, no underlying structure - just noise. Now, some people would
consider it to be music just the same, and a few of them would obviously
consider it great (it's in the gallery after all) - but do we necessarily
assume they're right?
> I bet if I played Yngwie Malmsteen versus other guitarists for most of
> the people in this newsgroup, that they too would prefer the other
> guitarists over Malmsteen, even though Malmsteen's stuff is probably
> more difficult to play (since it's more difficult than most of the
> other guitar music out there).
Difficulty, for it's own sake, does not equate with art (my opinion). For
example, putting a brush in your backside, hanging from a trapeze by your
big toe and trying to apply burning oil to a rabid cow in a hurricane
would be difficult (and perhaps interesting television), but that in
itself surely does not mean the finished piece will be great art - though
there's a good chance many modern museums would promote it as such.
> I wonder why some of the people in the visual arts haven't realized
> that technique is not the same as aesthetic worth yet?
I don't think that anyone is arguing that technique is the be-all and
end-all either. Perhaps you're reading too literally without understanding
the point that's being made (easy to do in usenet because many posters
have explained themselves over many years - but at any given point you
only get part of their view)
>
> > In fact, many people claim that is what makes them great.
>
> My personal view is that if I thought they looked like the work of
> children, that fact in itself wouldn't make them better or worse.
> Aesthetic quality isn't the same thing as technique in either
> direction. That is, something isn't aesthetically better simply
> because it is more complicated or less complicated.
For sure. But look at some of Cezanne's stuff and without focussing on the
"childishness", assess their aesthetic quality. All too often it is the
apparent naivety that is heralded as the great part.
> > Keith
> > O'Connor once suggested that as we grow older, we mange to un-learn how to
> > make art. Some people, myself included, are insulted by the suggestion
> > that learning and improving are the antithesis of art.
> But why haven't you realized, if you haven't yet, that technique isn't
> the same thing as aesthetic quality?
Is your "aesthetic quality" quantifiable or assessable in any way or it it
purely individual. If the former, then give us the guidelines. If the
latter, then that's fine - I have no problem with people producing or
purchasing naive paintings or whatever takes their fancy and even if I did
have a prolem with it, I wouldn't expect them to care what I think. I do
have a problem with my public gallery being filled with nothing but and
with the bureaucrats who run the gallery suggesting that anyone who
doesn't appreciate it is some sort of philistine.
[snip]
> > Where the commercial side of art is involved, I think your analogy applies
> > across the board. Chances are that if you like something enough to paint
> > it, someone else will like it enough to buy it, providing your painting
> > captures that "something".
> Right.
> > This could be a red dot on a white canvas - or
> > the same but without the red dot perhaps. Where ires get raised, I feel,
> > is when this limited-appeal stuff is foisted on an unsuspecting public as
> > representative of "great art" while the more skilled works are dismissed
> > as tourist kitsch.
> Because you're equating technique with aesthetic worth, lol, and
> you're wanting, it seems, to have an "official opinion" that's like
> your personal opinion instead of allowing the chips fall where they
> may based on individuals' tastes.
I think you underestimate the potential scope of "technique". It need not
be limited to reproducing Rembrandt's methods ad nauseum. The world is a
changing place and techniques evolve along with it. "Skill" is
demonstrated in everything from Charles Schultz to Norman Rockwell to M.
C. Escher to Rembrandt and DaVinci - but the "techniques" each of these
used differ immensely. But much of what passes for "great art" today is
either just plain ugly or apparently aimed at eliciting a condemning
response for the general public.
Paul Mesken
But design takes skill as well. Technical competence is not the same
as the particular skills that Bouguereau has, it's much broader. Mani
doesn't have a bone to pick with anything that isn't pre-raphaelite
but with anything that isn't made with technical competence. There's
always the idea and the technical competence that brings about its
expression. Having only one of these things doesn't create great art.
Of course, the ones having only ideas can hire people with only
technical competence (or the other way around). This seems a bit of a
strange idea with paintings (in which the artist is typically both
"composer" and "performer"). In other arts this is quite normal
(movies, comics, music, etc.).
Technical competence in any area is not a guarantee for success but a
complete lack of technical competence is a sure way to failure. Of
course, technical competence takes time to develop. It comes from a
variety of sources : experience, experiment and plain and simple
learning. Some don't want to be bothered with such a thing. They want
to be artists now. I say that they don't love their art or craft well
enough in such a case. They show disrespect. They're simply wannabees.
An artist doesn't primarily want to be an artist, an artist wants to
make art. There is an important difference.
The idea of being a great piano player seems attractive to me. But I
can't play the piano (I do know the low notes are on the left and the
high ones are on the right but that's about where my knowledge ends).
If I play piano then it's an attack on the senses (even my own). I
would fool nobody by saying that I'm a great piano player (other than
in the broadest sense of one hitting keys).
In some of the visual arts it seems that one can get away with such a
thing anyway. This doesn't do the art any service. A lot of con men
are celebrated as great artists. It seems important that art is
shrouded in mysticism as much as possible, simply to raise it above
rationalism and skill so that none can touch it (Nietzsche and Wagner
subscribed this but, probably, didn't foresee what it would result
in).
In order to do such a thing some are of the opinion that it must be so
godawfull ugly and incomparable to anything pre-existent (the desire
to be "innovative" which is interpreted as "completely different"
instead of "being better in a new way") that none can judge it because
they don't understand the thing before them. After all, if it can't be
judged then it must be an elevated thing.
Needless to say that such a thing stalls progress. Instead of
improving the art, it is made worse. Ideas and knowledge that took
centuries to develop is simply thrown out of the window. Luckily there
seems to be a change nowadays away from this. Finally, people start to
realize that "the emperor has no clothes".
What Mani does is simply addressing common sense. He could use a
better tone, of course, to "sell" his ideas but the basic premise is
very valid and needed.
King Rundzap
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > Something which is technically competent is better than something
> > incompetent.
> Really?
> Bouguereau could render really well but a lot of his works are laughable.
Just curious--why laughable to you? They don't seem funny to me, lol
> Matisse was never much of a drawer but a great designer.
I don't agree that he wasn't "much of a drawer", though. I like
Matisse's draftsmanship. I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on
your personally, but your statement is a good launching pad for what
I'm trying to get at in this discussion.
A lot of people here would probably agree with you. But what we need
to examine is what makes draftsmanship good or not good. Is it the
number of lines (to simplify, we'll just use lines to refer to the
actions--so we don't have to keep mentioning shading, etc. too, but
that's to be understood as included) that are on the finished piece?
Is it how long it took to make the lines? Is it whether someone else
could copy the lines or not? Is it how physically difficult it is to
make the lines--maybe we're proposing that lines that could only be
made by someone doing a one-fingered "handstand" while balancing three
pencils lined with tiny pins between their toes and drawing on a paper
affixed to the ceiling are the good ones--after all, that would be
extremely difficult to do, wouldn't it? Is it something about the way
the lines are arranged--their relationship to one another? Which
kinds of relationships are good and why? Are we just talking about
the kinds of lines and relationships that we like personally? If so,
why are we expecting others to follow our likes or not?
We've already touched on a lot of these issues in previous threads,
but this is really at the heart of the "No skill no art" and
"technically competent is better than something incompetent" kinds of
claims, isn't it? Just what are we meaning by skill, and why are we
meaning that and not something else? Just what are we meaning by
technical competency, and why are we meaning that and not something
else? If we say just what we're meaning by skill and technical
competency, and someone else says, "No, no no! Skill is blah blah
blah and technical competency is blah blah blah", then how are we
going to support that we "really know" what skill and technical
competency are, and the other guy or gal is wrong? What are we going
to appeal to?
My personal view is that the people who are claiming that what makes
art good or not is some kinds of lines, relationships, level of
difficulty, etc. are not likely to be consistent with that as a
criterion. I would bet that if I showed them a bunch of different art
to see what they think is good and not good, or just observed what
they think is good or not good over time (this would require hanging
out with them in person, really), they're going to end up being
inconsistent from the perspective of the "technical criteria".
They're going to like some things that do not meet their criteria, and
dislike some things that do meet their criteria--hence, they're not
really examining what their criteria are in a way that reflects what
they think is good. There a good reason for this.
Although this will get all of the folks enamored with
enlightenment-era ideals up-in-arms (those folks who like to believe
that there is a step-by-step logical chain (and only traditional
bivalent logic at that) of utterable reasoning for everything they
believe, which ultimately rests on some self-evident axiom or
another), like or dislike of particular art is a deeply psychological
issue, which means that a lot of it is just due to brain physiology,
and often there aren't really "reasons" or anything like consistent
criteria that we're following. Our liking particuluar visual art or
not, as well as liking particular foods, music, movies, etc., is
ultimately a factor of relatively arbitrary facts about our
brains--the particular way in which your brain is structured (on a
fine scale--the relationship of neurons, synapses and so on to one
another) and the way it functions (such as minute differences in the
way electro-chemical events occur).
Further, we're just talking about the kinds of lines and relationships
that we like personally, and there is no reason to expect anyone else
to follow along. They might like something different. There is
nothing that we can appeal to to demonstrate that we're right and the
other guy is wrong.
So, I like Matisse's draftsmanship, and think he was good at it, but
my like of draftsmanship isn't based on some criterion such as how
many lines there are, or how complex they are, or particular
relationships to one another, or whether he had to learn gymnastics to
do it, or whether someone else can do something that someone would say
looks pretty similar or not--if I tried to pick any of these things, I
would quickly be shown to be inconsistent, as some sparse, simple,
etc. drawings I like a lot, and some I don't, and some dense, complex
drawings I like a lot, and some I don't. Rather, it's just about
whether I like the way it looks or not, whether it has some
"resonance" for me or not, and that's ultimately based on how my
particular brain works.
--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <425a3330.04091...@posting.google.com>,
>kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
>> They realized that
>> technique didn't correlate to aesthetic quality. Aesthetic quality
>> was something else.
>
>But if museums were music galleries, they would be filled with stuff that
>sounds like kids beating the hell out of coffee cans - no rhythm, no
>melody, no underlying structure - just noise. Now, some people would
>consider it to be music just the same, and a few of them would obviously
>consider it great (it's in the gallery after all) - but do we necessarily
>assume they're right?
Indeed, some people calling themselves artists (more disturbingly :
being called artists by those who should know better) are more
interested in with what they can get away with whereas others (the
real artists IMO) are more concerned with how they can get better.
The "wannabee artists" seek the broadest possible interpretation of
the qualification "art". Needless to say that its "quality aspect" is
the first to be dropped. That saves the wannabee a lot of troubles. In
such a case it doesn't have to live up to anything.
These wannabees don't seek "artistic freedom" by broadening the
definition of art, they seek freedom from exertion. They seek to turn
art into politics by making it an "equal opportunity thing".
Thankfully, such an idea is not prevalent with surgeons, for example.
>> I wonder why some of the people in the visual arts haven't realized
>> that technique is not the same as aesthetic worth yet?
>
>I don't think that anyone is arguing that technique is the be-all and
>end-all either. Perhaps you're reading too literally without understanding
>the point that's being made (easy to do in usenet because many posters
>have explained themselves over many years - but at any given point you
>only get part of their view)
Yes, some show an "allergical reaction" to the word "technique". They
don't like it because it takes effort. The most basic thing to art is
aesthetics, art is made to be appreciated. Technique might not be the
same thing as aesthetics but the aesthetic property of art is brought
about by technique. The ability to play the piano is not the same
thing as the beauty of the music that is made with it but this ability
is still necessary.
Even the very definition of "technique" will be interpreted in the
broadest possible sense. The mere application of paint might apply.
Not because this will make art better but because it takes less
effort.
Again : wannabee artists only play word games to justify the
sloppiness of their work. Their art is not in the visual work itself
but in the rethorical shrouds they cloth their inferior work with.
Thur
Some painters bring different aspects of art to their works.
I suppose that some can see the sculptor in Michaelangelo's
paintings.
Others develop other aspects of art, such as glassware and
pottery, comic book illustration, etc.
In the case of Matisse, I see him as taking his art away from
art into design.
There are a number of examples of his attempts at drawing
on the 'net and they are not up to much.
His painting seems totally against providing any sense of care,
of craft, or even sense in some of them.
He ends with stylish design, of the sort corporate logos are made.
I provide this selection as an example of my exasperation in
regard to "modern" painting.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/matisse/2figures.jpg
Two Figures Reclining in a Landscape (after being flattened by a
steamroller?)
1921 (150 Kb); 15 x 18 3/8 in; Barnes Foundation
Photograph by Charalambos Amvrosiou
The Moroccan Amido 1912 (Painting, class 1?)
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_3_1_8d.html
Dance (not yet the finished article - wallpaper design, that is)
http://www.artsmia.org/collection/search/art.cfm?id=11466
Jazz 1947 (If I needed a corporate logo, then this would do)
Thur
Paul Mesken
>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/matisse/2figures.jpg
>
>Two Figures Reclining in a Landscape (after being flattened by a
>steamroller?)
>1921 (150 Kb); 15 x 18 3/8 in; Barnes Foundation
>Photograph by Charalambos Amvrosiou
Certainly this can not be a finished work. At best it's a quick study
examplifying "suspicious visual coincidences". The woman at the left
looks like she's lying in some depression because of the full length
curve modulating her body. But the convexity of the green background
seems a hill. My bet is that it was just an experiment (I hope).
>http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-bin/db2www/descrPage.mac/descrPage?selLang=English&indexClass=PICTURE_EN&PID=GJ-7699&numView=1&ID_NUM=2&thumbFile=%2Ftmplobs%2FQO6BWESMY0V%2410EN6.jpg&embViewVer=last&comeFrom=quick&sorting=no&thumbId=6&numResults=64&tmCond=Matisse+Henri&searchIndex=TAGFILEN&author=Matisse%2C%26%2332%3BHenri
>
>The Moroccan Amido 1912 (Painting, class 1?)
Indeed, a common mistake to disregard the feet's relation to the head.
The whole posture is off balance. Mighty long arms as well. Perhaps he
was trying to achieve some effect but fails, for me at least, to
communicate it. All I see is a sloppy grip on postures. Even when
drawing from imagination it shouldn't be so unnatural.
>http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_3_1_8d.html
>
>Dance (not yet the finished article - wallpaper design, that is)
I like the colors (could have been better though). He might have
gotten lucky :-)
>http://www.artsmia.org/collection/search/art.cfm?id=11466
>
>Jazz 1947 (If I needed a corporate logo, then this would do)
It seems so chaotic. At least it strikes some balance although the
legs are somewhat disonnant. I wonder how much such a piece sells for.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli wrote
>>
>> >I know we're repeating ourselves now, but here's my take on that
>> >again: I don't understand for one, why we'd be automatically
>> >dismissing the work of a typical five year old as art.
>
>> Probably because your work looks like that of a five year old.
>
> And you're
>wondering why I'm staying anonymous here instead, lol.
Not in the least. I know exactly why
> I know that
>instead of actually having a discussion about your claims, you'd
>prefer to focus each thread into ragging on someone's work
I've discussed my claims more than most anyone here..
>You said in some thread that you have a background in philosophy of
>science. Let's put that background to work as we analyze some of
>these assumptions (like "The work of a typical five year old does not
>have artistic value"). I'm sure you've examined your own claims
>before making them public, thinking about possible objections and
>developing arguments that meet and overcome the objections, right? So
>let's hear some of that material.
Discussing whether or not five year old artwork like yours is art or
not doesn't interest me. Tell others its art .
>> Something which is technically competent is better than something
>> incompetent.
>
>And now here comes the definition of technically competency, as well
>as the support for that definition:
No it doesn't! I leave you to fret over it.
>The sad thing is that it seems like you couldn't care less whether
>your claims actually hold water or not.
and I don't care what you think of them either.
Others are perfectly capable of comparing art work and deciding for
themselves.
> Which is why I'm sure you're
>not going to provide any argumentation or support of why the work of a
>typical five year old has no artistic worth, or what technical
>competency is.
exactly!
>
>> No skill no art!
>
>Everything conventionally called art displays skill.
except when it doesn't!
Mani Deli
wrote:
>So, I like Matisse's draftsmanship, and think he was good at it, but
>my like of draftsmanship isn't based on some criterion such as how
>many lines there are, or how complex they are, or particular
>relationships to one another, or whether he had to learn gymnastics to
>do it, or whether someone else can do something that someone would say
>looks pretty similar or not
Yes, its based on whether its as good as the work of a five year
old.
>-if I tried to pick any of these things, I
>would quickly be shown to be inconsistent, as some sparse, simple,
>etc. drawings I like a lot, and some I don't, and some dense, complex
>drawings I like a lot, and some I don't.
You mean there is actually work you don't like? Gee tell us why?
Mani Deli
>Bouguereau could render really well but a lot of his works are laughable.
Yes, that's why they sell so well.
>Matisse was never much of a drawer but a great designer.
What really I think of Matisse!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/sillyart.htm
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/who_done_it.jpg
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Works11.jpg
DNALJM
>>not going to provide any argumentation or support of why the work of a
>>typical five year old has no artistic worth, or what technical
>>competency is.
>
>exactly!
Mani addresses both the points of why "mimicking photos is not what realism
is" (constantly brought up in other threads) and "skill alone does not make
artwork" on his excellent site:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/for_students.htm
Few people who take issue with him will investigate the material presented
there. I doubt anyone would want to present the same arguments over and over
when they have already answered them on a personal website.
DNALJM
>>
>>Jazz 1947 (If I needed a corporate logo, then this would do)
>
>It seems so chaotic. At least it strikes some balance although the
>legs are somewhat disonnant. I wonder how much such a piece sells for.
LOLLOL You can ZOOM IN ON IT! I mean, I actually like it, but it's not
like someone's going to say, "I'm so glad I can enlarge it so I can study the
brushwork."
King Rundzap
> But design takes skill as well.
What art doesn't have design though? Again, we're at the problem of
defining these terms, as noted in my other post in this thread about
Matisse and Bouguereau.
> Technical competence is not the same
> as the particular skills that Bouguereau has, it's much broader.
What would you say that technical competence is? That's one of the
shaky foundations of Mani's argument. He mentioned that good art must
have technical competence, but what _is_ technical competence, and why
is it that?
>Mani
> doesn't have a bone to pick with anything that isn't pre-raphaelite
> but with anything that isn't made with technical competence.
We have to know what he thinks technical competence is and why he
thinks it before we can know what he's really talking about though.
> There's
> always the idea and the technical competence that brings about its
> expression.
Is this a suggestion that technical competence is the ability to
"realize" (in the sense of "make material") one's idea? So if
Mondrian's idea was to create Broadway Boogie Woogie, just as it
turned out to be, he had technical competence. Something tells me
that Mani isn't going to agree with this definition.
> Having only one of these things doesn't create great art.
Well, art isn't about technique. Aesthetic value is something
different than technical ability.
> Of course, the ones having only ideas can hire people with only
> technical competence (or the other way around). This seems a bit of a
> strange idea with paintings (in which the artist is typically both
> "composer" and "performer"). In other arts this is quite normal
> (movies, comics, music, etc.)
In some areas of those other arts. A lot of comics authors/creators,
musician/composers, authors, etc. do both, too, not to mention a lot
of other arts.
> Technical competence in any area is not a guarantee for success
Mani's argument is not really about success. Not about financial
success, at least.
> but a
> complete lack of technical competence is a sure way to failure.
You must not mean financial success or failure. At least if we're
talking about Mani. He thinks a lot of stuff that makes money sucks
and is technically incompetent.
> Of
> course, technical competence takes time to develop. It comes from a
> variety of sources : experience, experiment and plain and simple
> learning.
We still don't know what it is, unless you did mean this as a
definition: "technical competence is the ability to 'realize' one's
ideas"
> Some don't want to be bothered with such a thing. They want
> to be artists now.
Well, we'd have to ask people if they're realizing their ideas if
that's how we're defining technical competence. If they say yes, then
they're technically competent.
> I say that they don't love their art or craft well
> enough in such a case. They show disrespect. They're simply wannabees.
> An artist doesn't primarily want to be an artist, an artist wants to
> make art. There is an important difference.
> The idea of being a great piano player seems attractive to me. But I
> can't play the piano (I do know the low notes are on the left and the
> high ones are on the right but that's about where my knowledge ends).
Sure you could play piano. Just not maybe in the way you'd like to.
> If I play piano then it's an attack on the senses (even my own).
That depends on who is listening to it and judging it.
> I
> would fool nobody by saying that I'm a great piano player (other than
> in the broadest sense of one hitting keys).
Some people might think it sounds great. "Fooling" would imply that
you believe something like, "It can be 'not really great' despite what
someone thinks about it".
> In some of the visual arts it seems that one can get away with such a
> thing anyway.
There is a lot of music I could play for you that you'd probably think
sounds kinda like how you'd play piano.
> This doesn't do the art any service. A lot of con men
> are celebrated as great artists.
Do they think they're con men, though, or is it one of those cases of
"It can be 'not really great' despite what someone thinks about it"?
> It seems important that art is
> shrouded in mysticism as much as possible,
It does? That doesn't seem important to me.
> simply to raise it above
> rationalism and skill so that none can touch it (Nietzsche and Wagner
> subscribed this but, probably, didn't foresee what it would result
> in).
> In order to do such a thing some are of the opinion that it must be so
> godawfull ugly and incomparable to anything pre-existent (the desire
> to be "innovative" which is interpreted as "completely different"
> instead of "being better in a new way") that none can judge it because
> they don't understand the thing before them.
Maybe some people think something like "art must be so godawful ugly
and incomparable . . ." lol. I'm not sure who thinks that, though.
> After all, if it can't be
> judged then it must be an elevated thing.
It can be judged, but hopefully you realize that judgments are
subjective. I know you've agreed with that in a lot of other posts
you've written in the past.
> Needless to say that such a thing stalls progress.
"Progress" is a judgment.
> Instead of
> improving the art, it is made worse. Ideas and knowledge that took
> centuries to develop is simply thrown out of the window.
By some people, yes. But not others. I don't think that art that
threw classicism out the window was worse than the art that didn't.
> Luckily there
> seems to be a change nowadays away from this.
I don't know about that. What are you counting as evidence of that?
I'm skeptical both that classicism was ever as "out" in art as is
being claimed here and I'm skeptical that there has been a big change
back to classicism.
> Finally, people start to
> realize that "the emperor has no clothes".
Some people like nudity.
> What Mani does is simply addressing common sense.
Common sense? It's mostly fallacies and non-existent arguments. I
wouldn't call that common sense.
> He could use a
> better tone, of course, to "sell" his ideas but the basic premise is
> very valid and needed.
There's no argument, really. How could it be valid?
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> Some painters bring different aspects of art to their works.
> I suppose that some can see the sculptor in Michaelangelo's
> paintings.
> Others develop other aspects of art, such as glassware and
> pottery, comic book illustration, etc.
> In the case of Matisse, I see him as taking his art away from
> art into design.
Design isn't art? You know I'm going to argue against those elitist
distinctions. It was of course still painting. What would make it
"not art" versus some other kind of painting?
> There are a number of examples of his attempts at drawing
> on the 'net and they are not up to much.
Not up to much? What does that mean?
> His painting seems totally against providing any sense of care,
> of craft, or even sense in some of them.
What exactly do you take to evidence care and craft? Don't give me
examples of things that you think evidence that, tell me what
qualities you use to define that.
> He ends with stylish design, of the sort corporate logos are made.
That's not art? If you don't think so, why not?
> I provide this selection as an example of my exasperation in
> regard to "modern" painting.
What are your specific complaints about those works, and how do those
address the issues in this thread?
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> In article <425a3330.04091...@posting.google.com>,
> kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
> > > I think it has more to do with demonstrative skill. One way of looking at
> > > it might be "if it looks like something a typical five year old might
> > > produce, then (unless it WAS produced by a child) it probably shouldn't be
> > > regarded as "great art"
> >
> > I know we're repeating ourselves now, but here's my take on that
> > again: I don't understand for one, why we'd be automatically
> > dismissing the work of a typical five year old as art.
>
> I never said we should. When my kids write a short, simple story, I assess
> it with regard to their age. If they build a model plane, I do the same.
> When they speak (and they do so quite well) I congratulate them and
> encourage them as they show improvement. But if an adult were to draw,
> build and speak as they do, I wouldn't therefore suggest that adult is
> great at those things.
So you think the the art of a typical five year old can be great for a
typical five your old, but you don't think that it can be as good as
an adult's art (at least not very often). Why do you think that? I
don't see it as dependent on age. But I'm not making the blunder of
equating technical difficulty with aesthetic worth. Later on you
claim to not be making that blunder also. So why can't a five year
old's art be as good as an adult's, normally?
> > They realized that
> > technique didn't correlate to aesthetic quality. Aesthetic quality
> > was something else.
> But if museums were music galleries, they would be filled with stuff that
> sounds like kids beating the hell out of coffee cans - no rhythm, no
> melody, no underlying structure - just noise.
Beating the hell out of coffee cans would necessarily have rhythm. It
might not have "steady" or "regular" rhythm, but that's not implied by
the word "rhythm", at least not in music theory. And it also
necessarily has some structure. Melody is a different, more
complicated issue, since the usual definition has it not occurring
with instruments of "indefinite pitch", but all sounds really have
pitch complexes, even ones with psychologically identifiable "definite
pitch".
But anyway, you're avoiding the comment about technical abilities, in
general, and trying to sidetrack to a discussion about museums and the
art they typically carry. I'm not being that specific. I'm trying to
deal with the general arguments being made about technique.
> Now, some people would
> consider it to be music just the same,
Yes, that includes me. Music is any occurrence of sounds that is
"framed" a particular way by the listener.
> and a few of them would obviously
> consider it great (it's in the gallery after all) - but do we necessarily
> assume they're right?
Value judgments are subjective. There isn't an objective right or
wrong. So you make your own, which do not have to agree with anyone
else's.
There is actually a lot of music that you'd probably think sounds
kinda like what you're describing, and it's not just modern classical.
You'd probably think that the hardcore band A.C. sounds like that for
example.
> > I bet if I played Yngwie Malmsteen versus other guitarists for most of
> > the people in this newsgroup, that they too would prefer the other
> > guitarists over Malmsteen, even though Malmsteen's stuff is probably
> > more difficult to play (since it's more difficult than most of the
> > other guitar music out there).
> Difficulty, for it's own sake, does not equate with art (my opinion).
> For
> example, putting a brush in your backside, hanging from a trapeze by your
> big toe and trying to apply burning oil to a rabid cow in a hurricane
> would be difficult (and perhaps interesting television), but that in
> itself surely does not mean the finished piece will be great art - though
> there's a good chance many modern museums would promote it as such.
Technical difficulty just isn't correlated to aesthetic value for very
many people. That means that it's not good to them just because it's
technically difficult (as you're noting), and it's not bad just
because it's technically simple. Aesthetic value is about something
else.
> > I wonder why some of the people in the visual arts haven't realized
> > that technique is not the same as aesthetic worth yet?
> I don't think that anyone is arguing that technique is the be-all and
> end-all either.
But they're arguing that something isn't good unless it has a certain
kind of technicality to it. What kind? And where are they getting
the argument from? Why isn't anyone even attempting an answer to
those questions?
> Perhaps you're reading too literally
Well, I'm expecting people to think about what they mean to an extent
that they can mean literally what they say on an issue like this (and
I have a lengthy set of motivations for why I'm pushing for that). So
I'm taking claims at face value, yes. If that isn't what someone
means, they should say literally what they mean instead.
> without understanding
> the point that's being made
I'm trying to get people to be literal about their point. (Partially
because I think in some cases they're not actually analyzing their
views very much and I want to encourage that.)
>(easy to do in usenet because many posters
> have explained themselves over many years - but at any given point you
> only get part of their view)
Good point. But I would expect them to realize by now how they're
likely to be misinterpreted then if abbreviating, and be able to spell
out the whole argument, with no steps omitted, all the t's crossed,
i's dotted, etc. If they cannot do that, why are we to believe such
an argument exists?
> For sure. But look at some of Cezanne's stuff and without focussing on the
> "childishness", assess their aesthetic quality.
I've never looked at Cezanne's work and thought it looked "childish".
Maybe some people do that. I never did.
> All too often it is the
> apparent naivety that is heralded as the great part.
I just like the way a lot of Cezanne's art looks. As an interesting
sidenote, I always kinda dismissed Cezanne before I started lurking in
this group awhile ago. I didn't dislike him, exactly, but I thought
more, "Nnnnh . . . typical late 19th Century still lifes" and didn't
pay a lot of attention to his works--at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, for example, I'd usually brush by his stuff pretty quickly to run
back to other artist's works (like Van Gogh) who I like(d) a lot more.
But a number of posts here brought my attention to works of his that
I wasn't really familiar with, or didn't pay sufficient attention to,
but that I discovered I liked a lot. So I've grown to like Cezanne a
lot more because of posts here complaining about him, lol.
> > But why haven't you realized, if you haven't yet, that technique isn't
> > the same thing as aesthetic quality?
> Is your "aesthetic quality" quantifiable or assessable in any way or it it
> purely individual.
Everyone's is purely individual. It's based on how their brains work.
> If the former, then give us the guidelines. If the
> latter, then that's fine - I have no problem with people producing or
> purchasing naive paintings or whatever takes their fancy and even if I did
> have a prolem with it, I wouldn't expect them to care what I think. I do
> have a problem with my public gallery being filled with nothing but and
> with the bureaucrats who run the gallery suggesting that anyone who
> doesn't appreciate it is some sort of philistine.
I have a problem with there being public galleries, period. But I
don't know if there are a lot of public galleries that are only modern
art, where that's it for a particular geogaphic area. In all of the
cases I can think of, the "modern art only" public galleries came
about due to the public gallery's collection exceeding the available
space in a building, and then being split off into two buildings.
Like the Hirshhorn in Washington, D.C. That's the public modern art
museum in that area, but it came about because the public art
collection in that area was too large to fit in one building. In most
places, modern art museums aren't public, although I think all of
them, like all of the museums that aren't exclusively modern art
(which is most) get some kind of government funding. In cities like
New York, we don't have any technically public modern art museums.
MoMA, the Guggenheim, the Whitney, etc. are all private. As long as
we're having public art museums, I think they should have about the
mix they have or modern, classical, and world art. The Metropolitan
is an ideal combo in my view.
> > Because you're equating technique with aesthetic worth, lol, and
> > you're wanting, it seems, to have an "official opinion" that's like
> > your personal opinion instead of allowing the chips fall where they
> > may based on individuals' tastes.
> I think you underestimate the potential scope of "technique".
I doubt it. To me, technique is like rhythm in music. If you're
putting a pencil on paper, a brush on canvas, etc. you're using some
kind of technique. I don't know how I could think of technique as
having a wider scope than I'm thinking of it.
> It need not
> be limited to reproducing Rembrandt's methods ad nauseum. The world is a
> changing place and techniques evolve along with it. "Skill" is
> demonstrated in everything from Charles Schultz to Norman Rockwell to M.
> C. Escher to Rembrandt and DaVinci - but the "techniques" each of these
> used differ immensely.
Don't forget that I'm not focusing primarily on "modern art" or
"academic art" (that's part of why I was complaining earlier about the
museum example). I'm not an elitist at all. I think that the art in
Mad Magazine, say, or the art on Iron Maiden album covers, for another
example, is as good as any "fine art", including da Vinci,
Alma-Tadema, Picasso, Avery, etc. (and I'm just influenced by that
stuff as by "fine art" in my own work). Re skill and technique, yes,
all of those people have skill and technique, as well as Motherwell,
Gerald Scarfe, Stan Lee, Mondrian, Robert Crumb, Matt Groening, etc.
It's impossible to draw something and not use some technique and
skill. That's why I'm ragging on Mani for using those things as
criteria. I want him (and anyone who agrees with him) to be literal
about _what_ kind of skills and techniques he's talking about, and why
those the important one(s). If that is not known, then I want those
people to think about what kind of skills and techniques they are
talking about.
> But much of what passes for "great art" today is
> either just plain ugly
Ugly is the same as non-skilled and not possessing technique to you?
I doubt that. I want us to clarify what qualities we're claiming make
good art or not. Is it that art that is ugly isn't good?
> or apparently aimed at eliciting a condemning
> response for the general public.
Is it that art is controversial isn't good? Let's at least figure out
what we want to claim here, and then analyze that a bit.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
of ridiculous straw men being proposed as the counterarguments.
Wheeee!
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<802mk0ho6pcu0chds...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:38:00 +0800, an...@elsewhere.com (Andrew D)
> wrote:
> >But if museums were music galleries, they would be filled with stuff that
> >sounds like kids beating the hell out of coffee cans - no rhythm, no
> >melody, no underlying structure - just noise. Now, some people would
> >consider it to be music just the same, and a few of them would obviously
> >consider it great (it's in the gallery after all) - but do we necessarily
> >assume they're right?
> Indeed, some people calling themselves artists (more disturbingly :
> being called artists by those who should know better) are more
> interested in with what they can get away with whereas others (the
> real artists IMO) are more concerned with how they can get better.
Different people have different concerns. I agree that at least
sometimes in the past, some people engaging in arts have had the
primary concern of "what can I get away with". In my experience,
that has occurred primarily in two situations, although I'm sure there
are other situations where it occurs, but neither has been exclusively
focused on our demonized "modern art".
The two situations are (1) students who believe that their professors
are asking for something ridiculous and/or wouldn't be aware enough to
notice the student passsing off something that they consider to be
crap for an assignment, and (2) famous people who become disillusioned
with fame/fan worship, who then react in kind of a rebellious way
against that. There are certainly examples of people producing
modernism in these situations, although some of them may be
apocryphal, and some have roots in reality and turn into kinds of
urban legends.
One is the fine arts student turning in their palette for a painting
assignment (an example of (1)). An example of (2) is John Cage
recording fish flopping around inside a piano for a commission (which
arguably he may have had serious intentions about, considering Cage).
But examples of (1) and (2) which are not geared towards modern art
include things like me turning in a first draft, very quickly written
realist fiction short story that I thought was crap for a final exam
in a creative writing class, because the professor hated anything else
I did (all the weird stuff .. . I got an A), and for (2), a very
infamous example--Roger Waters' growing disillusionment with fame,
resulting in spitting on fans at shows, and actions such as the Wall
performances, where the band was behind a large faux brick wall for
most of the show. There are also examples that don't quite fit (1)
and (2), such as the famous Alan Sokal paper submitted to the journal
Social Text.
But while those are interesting stories, and they bring up a lot of
interesting issues, it's not really true that most people creating the
demonized modern art are doing so just "to see what they can get away
with". And the added problem is that aesthetic worth isn't
necessarily tied to intention, anyway.
> The "wannabee artists" seek the broadest possible interpretation of
> the qualification "art".
Well, a lot of people doing art that you'd probably consider not
"wannabe" art seek broad definitions of art, too. And a lot of people
who are just doing aesthetics, and not artists of any stripe, are also
on various sides of the art definition issue.
> Needless to say that its "quality aspect" is
> the first to be dropped.
"Quality" as you're intending it there is just another way of saying
"good" really--"the stuff I like".
> That saves the wannabee a lot of troubles. In
> such a case it doesn't have to live up to anything.
There is no objective standard for art, right. No matter how much we
wish there were, or how much we pretend that there is.
Various people could choose to participate in various
subjective/intersubjective standards.
> These wannabees don't seek "artistic freedom" by broadening the
> definition of art, they seek freedom from exertion.
So wannabe art of that type is only stuff that doesn't require
exertion?
> They seek to turn
> art into politics by making it an "equal opportunity thing".
As opposed to pretending that it's some elitist thing?
> Thankfully, such an idea is not prevalent with surgeons, for example.
I should probably save my extreme Libertarian view on things like
regulations for medicine, law, etc. for another thread.
> >> I wonder why some of the people in the visual arts haven't realized
> >> that technique is not the same as aesthetic worth yet?
> >I don't think that anyone is arguing that technique is the be-all and
> >end-all either. Perhaps you're reading too literally without understanding
> >the point that's being made (easy to do in usenet because many posters
> >have explained themselves over many years - but at any given point you
> >only get part of their view)
> Yes, some show an "allergical reaction" to the word "technique". They
> don't like it because it takes effort.
Actually, technique itself doesn't necessarily take a lot of effort,
just the fact of doing something, some way. Only certain kinds of
techniques take a lot of effort.
> The most basic thing to art is
> aesthetics, art is made to be appreciated. Technique might not be the
> same thing as aesthetics but the aesthetic property of art is brought
> about by technique.
But all of the stuff conventionally called art, including putting fish
in a grand piano, has some kind of technique behind it. There's a
technique to putting fish in a grand piano, recording it, etc.
There's a technique to Roger Waters spitting on audience members.
> The ability to play the piano is not the same
> thing as the beauty of the music that is made with it but this ability
> is still necessary.
Aesthetics is not the same thing as beauty. Playing the piano is the
same thing as "making sounds with the piano". You could do that by
putting fish in a piano, even.
> Even the very definition of "technique" will be interpreted in the
> broadest possible sense.
Yes. It has to be. What is our criterion for excluding certain
actions as technique?
> The mere application of paint might apply.
Yes, it does.
> Not because this will make art better but because it takes less
> effort.
Because it's technique. If we want to exclude that from being
technique, then let's propose some exclusive definitions and see if
they hold water, see if the people proposing them continue to use them
consistently, etc.
> Again : wannabee artists only play word games to justify the
> sloppiness of their work.
A lot of artists whose work you wouldn't think is sloppy would also
argue that applying paint to canvas requires some technique or
another. As would a lot of people doing aesthetics, and not engaging
in any kind of art.
> Their art is not in the visual work itself
> but in the rethorical shrouds they cloth their inferior work with.
You're sounding an awful lot like you think there is some objective
standard for aesthetic worth here.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
dichotomy in it again--realism or abstraction.
A lot of people, including me, do more what I'd call "fictional"
painting . . . kinda like surrealism, but it often has more of a goal
of creating fictions--fictional kinds of beings, fictional physical
facts, etc.
An example of some artists I like a lot who are doing work that is a
bit similar to mine in some way, and whose work I'd consider
"fictional", include (sorry that some of these sites have a lot of
flash and such):
Eddie Breen: http://eddiebreen.com/
Lisa Bethan: http://www.clowncoffins.com/
Bill Mayer: http://www.thebillmayer.com/
Dast: http://www.mondobizzarro.net/gallery/index.html (I think you
have to click on Dast's name in the left-hand menu)
Francois Escalmel: http://www.mondobizzarro.net/gallery/index.html
(same deal as above -- he is a bit more of a realist in some ways, but
I have a lot in common in terms of kinds of subject matter)
Gary Baseman: http://www.garybaseman.com/
Anna Shakeeva: http://www.annashakeeva.com/welcome.htm#
Dan Seagrave: http://www.danseagrave.com/
Bryan Ballinger: http://www.bryanballinger.com/
Diego Manuel: http://diegomanuel.fateback.com/precios/41-109/
Nero Nicholae: http://www.artisticdevil.com/gallery/nero_nicholae.htm
Vladsbyte: http://www.artisticdevil.com/gallery/vladsbyte.htm
This stuff is not realism, and it's not abstraction, but it is
representational. The objective is not to mimic the real world, but
to only use it as a launching pad for fantastic (literally fantasy,
just not the unicorn and fairy kind) creations. It's also not exactly
surrealism, in anything like Breton's sense of that term. In a very
casual sense, I suppose a lot of people would call it surrealism.
There are hundreds more artists working in similar veins, and you can
find examples of it everywhere from album covers to many different
kinds of publications found in comic shops (like Blab, for example)
(sometimes even more mainstream publications--you might recognize some
of Baseman's work, for example) and many other venues . . . not a lot
of it in mainstream museums yet, although it's in some of the more
unusual galleries. That's the kind of stuff that I'm most into, and
what I often have in mind when these arguments are going on.
--King Rundzap
"Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message news:<9Lg1d.557$Vi6...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>...
> "King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:425a3330.04090...@posting.google.com...
> > "Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
> > news:<10jnb27...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> From: Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
> >>
> >> >Well, I think that Good Art should always be about the human condition
> >> >in its many manifestations (just my opinion, of course).
> >
> Clipped for space
> >
> > --King Rundzap
>
> >The idea that all painting has to be realist (has to try to
> >say something about the actual world, try to "reflect" it in
> >particular ways, etc.) is a very strange one to me, although one that
> >many people in this newsgroup seem to hold.
>
> You may be mistaken. What idea they may have is that painting
> has to make visual sense by providing recognisable images or symbols,
> and further, the painting must make a kind of sense, both visually and in
> the narrative.
>
> This allows for quite a range of painting subjects and styles.
>
>
> Compare a typical (to me) abstract:-
> http://www.lsi.usp.br/~artigas/kandinsky/blackviolet.html
> and a
> Picasso:-
> http://www.lsi.usp.br/~artigas/kandinsky/blackviolet.html
>
> This may explain one of the reasons why so many know of and have viewed
> repros of Picasso, and read books on, and why he is more popular than many
> other "modern" painters.
> You can in a good proportion of his works find images which make visual
> sense,
> (however distorted) but in the Kandinsky (as far as I can detect) there is
> complete
> abstraction.
>
> Do you think it is presumptuous of people to expect works of art to make
> sense
> to them, even if they have not paid for them? Perhaps modern works are
> painted
> for a very small number of intellectuals who can make sense of them, and the
> rest
> of us should not concern ourselves with them at all?
> This would make more sense of the modern art world to me.
>
> Thur
King Rundzap
> >So, I like Matisse's draftsmanship, and think he was good at it, but
> >my like of draftsmanship isn't based on some criterion such as how
> >many lines there are, or how complex they are, or particular
> >relationships to one another, or whether he had to learn gymnastics to
> >do it, or whether someone else can do something that someone would say
> >looks pretty similar or not
> Yes, its based on whether its as good as the work of a five year
> old.
Here you go insulting five year olds again. Wait, deja vu. I think
the next step is where you start claiming that other animals can't do
anything with any skill.
Why would I think that you'd actually examine why you dislike
Matisse's drawing, rather than parroting rhetoric like a fundie? And
to think you dislike fundies.
> >-if I tried to pick any of these things, I
> >would quickly be shown to be inconsistent, as some sparse, simple,
> >etc. drawings I like a lot, and some I don't, and some dense, complex
> >drawings I like a lot, and some I don't.
> You mean there is actually work you don't like? Gee tell us why?
Some I don't like a lot. Maybe that means I like them, but not a lot,
no? (Maybe it doesn't imply that, but how did you rule that
possibility out?) Where did you take philosophy of science again?
> No skill no art!
All the stuff conventionally considered art displays skill.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> On 17 Sep 2004 00:27:58 -0700, milt...@hotmail.com (Milton) wrote:
> >Bouguereau could render really well but a lot of his works are laughable.
> Yes, that's why they sell so well.
Wait, Matisse sells well and you think his works are laughable. How
is your argument above working, exactly? Where did you take
philosophy of science again?
> >Matisse was never much of a drawer but a great designer.
> What really I think of Matisse!
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/sillyart.htm
It's a shame you don't like any children's art. Check out this page:
http://www.naturalchild.com/gallery/ some of that stuff really rocks.
I'd buy quite a few things I see there.
> No skill no art!
All the stuff conventionally called art displays skill.
"Rule #3 for writing ArtSpeak: when stating your subjective opinion
make it sound like it is universally accepted as unquestionable
truth." -- Mani Deli
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> (King Rundzap) wrote:
> >Mani Deli wrote
> >> >I know we're repeating ourselves now, but here's my take on that
> >> >again: I don't understand for one, why we'd be automatically
> >> >dismissing the work of a typical five year old as art.
> >> Probably because your work looks like that of a five year old.
> > And you're
> >wondering why I'm staying anonymous here instead, lol.
> Not in the least. I know exactly why
That's weird that you never seem to comprehend sarcasm from others.
> > I know that
> >instead of actually having a discussion about your claims, you'd
> >prefer to focus each thread into ragging on someone's work
> I've discussed my claims more than most anyone here..
So far all I've really seen you do is make barely polysyllabic quips
and copy and paste from your website. And I've dug back pretty far in
the "deja logs".
> >You said in some thread that you have a background in philosophy of
> >science. Let's put that background to work as we analyze some of
> >these assumptions (like "The work of a typical five year old does not
> >have artistic value"). I'm sure you've examined your own claims
> >before making them public, thinking about possible objections and
> >developing arguments that meet and overcome the objections, right? So
> >let's hear some of that material.
> Discussing whether or not five year old artwork like yours is art or
> not doesn't interest me. Tell others its art .
It's pretty obvious that discussing it doesn't interest you. You're
just interested in making claims and not supporting them. Is there
anything you are interested in discussing, or does that not seem like
a worthwhile thing to do in a newsgroup to you?
> >> Something which is technically competent is better than something
> >> incompetent.
> >And now here comes the definition of technically competency, as well
> >as the support for that definition:
> No it doesn't! I leave you to fret over it.
Sarcasm, Mani. Sarcasm.
> >The sad thing is that it seems like you couldn't care less whether
> >your claims actually hold water or not.
> and I don't care what you think of them either.
I'm surprised that you even read this post and bothered to respond to
it, frankly. This is more of a thinking response than you've given in
awhile.
> Others are perfectly capable of comparing art work and deciding for
> themselves.
Yes. People are capable of deciding what they like for themselves. I
wonder why you keep trying to "brainwash" them.
> > Which is why I'm sure you're
> >not going to provide any argumentation or support of why the work of a
> >typical five year old has no artistic worth, or what technical
> >competency is.
> exactly!
Well, at least we agree on that :-) Now, what do you think of
Feyerabend?
> >> No skill no art!
> >Everything conventionally called art displays skill.
> except when it doesn't!
But it always does.
> No skill no art!
Everything conventionally called art displays skill.
. . . and the deprogramming continues . . .
--King Rundzap
Electric Nachos
King Rundzap wrote in message
<425a3330.04091...@posting.google.com>...
> . . . and the deprogramming continues . . .
It aint' gonna happen. Mani is fearful, old, and set in his fearful ways.
>--King Rundzap
Thur
> Design isn't art?
I don't think you can have read and pondered what I have said.
The are a multitude of aspects that can be and mostly are part
of a work of art. Design as the subject I refer to is one of those.
On it's own, it is just design. No more than a design for wallpaper,
or a new road. My point is that he reduces his works of practically
all other aspects that might have made them art, and finishes up
with a design, which however likeable it might be, is not art.
I have not forgotten that you insist that everything is art, so perhaps
you will never "see" what I am getting at.
There is nothing wrong in being a fan of what he produces, just as
I suppose nothing wrong in turning up outside the courthouse and
screaming at Mr.Jackson.
> Not up to much? What does that mean?
It means that they are attempts to represent the real world, but are
failures that a beginner might have made.
> What exactly do you take to evidence care and craft? Don't give me
> examples of things that you think evidence that, tell me what
> qualities you use to define that.
I was going to provide you with a list of URLs here, for you to examine.
As far as painting goes, I have already posted my opinion on the Fauves
and the clearly careless application of paint. I have compared van Gogh
and his carefully placed brush strokes, each taking a full part in the whole
design and the Fauves, whose brushstrokes do not make and design,
are not chosen for their size or angle, or indeeed anything except to fill
a space with paint.
Matisse, on a number of designs outlines the shapes then fails to completely
fill them. Of course, the confidence trickster would sell this as
artistically
deliberate, but we have to have a reference to reality if we are not to be
fooled.
If we go down this path then we are open to people claiming their pallettes
are art, or an accidental splash on their smock is art.
As far as his drawings go, the same carelessness appears, but then you are
not concerned with which one.
> What are your specific complaints about those works, and how do those
> address the issues in this thread?
Drawings can be designs for a painting or can be the finished article.
The drawings I had selected were examples which exhibited neither an
interesting
design, or a clearly crafted finished work, and even suggest that he did not
know
how.
Thur
King Rundzap
Yes. Not deprogramming of Mani--he's the cult leader, lol. I'm
thinking more of (especially new) lurkers with impressionable minds
:-)
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:47:10 GMT, "Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/matisse/2figures.jpg
> >
> >Two Figures Reclining in a Landscape (after being flattened by a
> >steamroller?)
> >1921 (150 Kb); 15 x 18 3/8 in; Barnes Foundation
> >Photograph by Charalambos Amvrosiou
>
> Certainly this can not be a finished work.
Why not? What is the objective criteria for a finished work? Or did
you just mean you wouldn't consider it finished, but for other people,
it might be a finished work?
> At best it's a quick study
Finished works can't be quickly done?
> examplifying "suspicious visual coincidences". The woman at the left
> looks like she's lying in some depression because of the full length
> curve modulating her body. But the convexity of the green background
> seems a hill.
Wait, that could even be realist, which you'd like. Hills aren't just
simple topological surfaces. Haven't you ever been hiking?
> My bet is that it was just an experiment (I hope).
You don't seem that familiar with Matisse's work. Nothing implied
there, it's just an interesting fact to me.
> Indeed, a common mistake to disregard the feet's relation to the head.
What was Matisse trying to do there, though--to have actual world
proportions and perspective just as he observed them? What is your
source for what he was trying to do? Or are you just explaining why
Thur might be interpreting it in a way that isn't related to what
Matisse intended to paint? Is it difficult for you to imagine that
someone would want to do something different than actual world
proportions and perspective?
> The whole posture is off balance.
Ah--this is a good example of something in an earlier conversation
between us, then. It doesn't look off balance to me. I wonder if it
looked off balance to Matisse, what he would have said he was trying
to achieve with the picture, etc.
> Mighty long arms as well.
I've painted people with arms that would be 15 feet long in relation
to the rest of their body. I wonder if I was trying to paint actual
world perspective, or do something different?
> Perhaps he
> was trying to achieve some effect but fails, for me at least, to
> communicate it.
Well, he achieves just the effect he does, at least, right? Maybe he
was trying to disregard the feet's relation to the head, make the
figure seem off balance with very long arms, etc. That much worked
for you.
> All I see is a sloppy grip on postures.
Well, because you seem to be used to thinking about art like this,
focusing on figures, etc. as necessarily having actual world
proportion, perspective etc. as a major concern, even if some small
liberties are taken, I would guess for you, based on pervious comments
you've made, that the liberties should only for the purpose of
expressing some emotion or another. For some reason you're having a
difficult time conceiving of artists wanting to achieve different
things than that, or you're at least having a difficult time judging
the artworks as successful or not based on different criteria than
your own personal criteria.
> Even when
> drawing from imagination it shouldn't be so unnatural.
But a lot of people are _trying_ to go for "unnatural" (a very loaded
term, but I'll ignore that since supposedly you have me on ignore and
won't respond anyway), at least in some respects. Your personal
criteria aren't the world's personal criteria.
> >http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_3_1_8d.html
> >
> >Dance (not yet the finished article - wallpaper design, that is)
> I like the colors (could have been better though). He might have
> gotten lucky :-)
Cool that you like something about one of Matisse's works.
> >http://www.artsmia.org/collection/search/art.cfm?id=11466
> >
> >Jazz 1947 (If I needed a corporate logo, then this would do)
> It seems so chaotic. At least it strikes some balance although the
> legs are somewhat disonnant.
Some people really, really like dissonance. I'm one of them. In all
kinds of arts, especially music.
> I wonder how much such a piece sells for.
Well, for that particular piece, known as "Icarus" ("Jazz" was the
name of the book the piece was done for, and that's what that entry on
the Minneapolis Institute of Arts is for--the book), the original is
"gouache on paper cut-out", and I'm not sure of the provenance of the
original. I don't subscribe to the auction record databases, but
Matisse works have sold for more than 17 million. That was a
"regular" painting, though, and "Icarus" definitely wouldn't be
estimated that high. But Matisse charcoal on paper drawings have sold
for at least 2.7 million, so I'd guess that Icarus might sell
somewhere between those two figures.
--King Rundzap
Paul Mesken
I'm visiting this place for something like 10 years now. Together with
Erik, Chris, Tinman, etc. but Mani was there already before us and
always had the very same message. He's like a force of nature in this
group :-)
Believing one can change Mani's attitude is a gross overestimation of
one's own capabilities. It ain't gonna happen :-)
King Rundzap
> >> Which is why I'm sure you're
> >>not going to provide any argumentation or support of why the work of a
> >>typical five year old has no artistic worth, or what technical
> >>competency is.
> >exactly!
> Mani addresses both the points of why "mimicking photos is not what realism
> is" (constantly brought up in other threads) and "skill alone does not make
> artwork" on his excellent site:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/for_students.htm
I know he has an website, and he keeps copying and pasting from it for
posts here. (Obviously I've read the site if I know that posts are
coming from the text on the site.) What he's not doing is having a
_discussion_ about any of that stuff. I'm interested in discussion,
not preaching. Although in lieu of discussions, I'm perfectly fine to
entertain myself, and diffuse some of the brainwashing intentions
(since then it's more like preaching) towards lurkers with
impressionable minds, by heckling.
The "mimicking photos is not what realism is" isn't as interesting to
me, because I agree with it, and no one is claiming that's what
realism is, at least no one that I see. The points about skill that
I'd like to discuss aren't on Mani's website.
> Few people who take issue with him will investigate the material presented
> there.
Again, obviously I've read through the site. I keep pointing out when
he's copying and pasting material from it.
> I doubt anyone would want to present the same arguments over and over
> when they have already answered them on a personal website.
But the first issue you brought up isn't anything I'm bringing up
here, and the skill page doesn't address what I want to discuss.
There are also interesting things to discuss within the text of the
webpages themselves, as Mani copies and pastes them, as he just did
with his page on Matisse, but he's not interested in a discussion, he
just wants to preach, repeat the rhetoric, etc. Of course no one has
to discuss what I'd like to, but I think they're important points, and
wouldn't hesitate to mention them again as they come up. As everyone
increasingly repeats themselves, then we just make it easier for
everyone, as we can all have a big copy and paste party, which should
make for a really entertaining newsgroup.
--King Rundzap