About art...
Lionel
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :
"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."
Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid great
Inquisitor :
"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."
George M. Middius
Slut gazes at her filthy belly button.
> "Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
> What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
> For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
> belongs to irrational."
From the point of view of the Immortal, or the Creator, or Underlying
Reason For All Things, are you not a joke, Slut?
Sander deWaal
<snip>
What about Art? I've not seen a post by him in a long time.
--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy
Lionel
> Lionel <rf....@lenoil.suipahc> said:
>
> <snip>
>
> What about Art? I've not seen a post by him in a long time.
I'm afraid that he has been subject to denunciation and purge according
to RAO's contributors who participated to politic discussion (I have
been banished from my ISP but also ScottW, Sandman...)
Note this is "funny". I have written incredibly violent insults and
other dirty garbage on this forum without any problems... I guess that
one of our guardian angel cannot stand politic :-)
MINe 109
Lionel <rf....@lenoil.suipahc> wrote:
> What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
Lionel
Gooooood ! :-)
This one is S888wheel :
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/portraiture-11.html
And I dedicace this one for George :
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/unseen-6.html
Lionel
Yes, yes I also know what you would say about this one :
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/unseen-4.html
MINe 109
Lionel <rf....@lenoil.suipahc> wrote:
Just another day at work...
Lionel
I have a book to recommend you Half-man :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/2070376435/wwwlink-software-21/026-2471614-3178010
Perhaps this will give you ideas for your artistic future. ;-)
Michael McKelvy
"Lionel" <rf....@lenoil.suipahc> wrote in message
news:40da8186$0$26997$626a...@news.free.fr...
It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.
The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgments.
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <9KDCc.12218$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>
>
>"Lionel" <rf....@lenoil.suipahc> wrote in message
>news:40da8186$0$26997$626a...@news.free.fr...
>> In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
>> S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
>> S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :
>>
>> "That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong
>> but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
>> as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
>> mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
>> standards in art exist independent of taste."
>>
>> Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
>> been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid great
>> Inquisitor :
>>
>> "Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
>> What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
>> For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
>> belongs to irrational."
>
>It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.
It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE
>
>The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
>Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
>judgments.
>
The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of taste. It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.
>
>
>
>
Michael McKelvy
"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040624131323...@mb-m26.aol.com...
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <C0FCc.12289$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
They are far too many to list. Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?
Lionel
These was my original question.
If you are interested you can join him on RAHE. But be careful, you
should know that in the end you would be a ridiculous idiot...
With S888Wheel the scenario is written in advance. :-(
Michael McKelvy
How about 3?
Do you really not know of any objective
> standards in any genre of art?
You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.
Lionel
IMHO the question concerning S888Wheel so-called "objective standards"
is : why to learn something that you will *need* to forget ?
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/24/2004 1:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ksGCc.25195$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
How about more?
>
>Do you really not know of any objective
>> standards in any genre of art?
>
>You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.
>
You can also answer the question.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Audio Guy
It's very likely your invalid address is the cause of the post
rejection. I found out after asking the moderators what happened to
my posts they don't accept posts without valid addresses.
Also several posts saying much the same thing have been posted, so I
doubt it's a problem with waht you said.
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/24/2004 2:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <g9emd0llrtvg9tt0q...@4ax.com>
>
>"S888Wheel" emitted :
>
>>They are far too many to list. Do you really not know of any objective
>>standards in any genre of art?
>
>significance for *pure* art.
Pure art? What would that be? Here is a hint art and craft are inseperable.
None. Your pronouncement below is
>offensive.
I guess to some.
In it you attack core components of major works of modern
>art, such as composed by Steve Reich (eg. "It's Gonna Rain") or John
>Cage.
Balony. No art is attacked by my assertion other than crap art.
Furthermore, this suggestion that objective standards of art can
>be found in 'any number of text books' is quite repellent in it's
>orthodoxy.
Sorry you find the truth repelling. Your burden.
>
>"That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior.
>Music that does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about
>rhythm. Music that is played with musicians accidentally out of sync
>with each other is objectively inferior. There are so many objective
>standards in music and other arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry
>as the rules in engineering but they do exist. You will find any
>number of text books on them."
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marc Phillips
Well, for a work of art to be considered cubist, there has to be cubes in it.
Boon
Michael McKelvy
George M. Middius
The Artist said:
> >No art is attacked by my assertion other than crap art.
>
> One mans "crap art" is another mans "seminal work".
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/30/nart30.xml
One has to admire the breadth of your interests.
Lionel
> "George M. Middius" emitted :
Oh you are very lucky, for the same kind of answer George wrote me :
"From the point of view of the Immortal, or the Creator, or Underlying
Reason For All Things, are you not a joke, Slut? "
I guess that George want to let us believe that he could have something
intelligent to write on the subject. ;-)
The Devil
wrote:
>For craft, perhaps.. but there are no objective standards of any
>significance for *pure* art. None. Your pronouncement below is
>offensive. In it you attack core components of major works of modern
>art, such as composed by Steve Reich (eg. "It's Gonna Rain") or John
>Cage. Furthermore, this suggestion that objective standards of art can
>be found in 'any number of text books' is quite repellent in it's
>orthodoxy.
>
>"That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior.
>Music that does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about
>rhythm. Music that is played with musicians accidentally out of sync
>with each other is objectively inferior. There are so many objective
>standards in music and other arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry
>as the rules in engineering but they do exist. You will find any
>number of text books on them."
Here's a nightmare to ponder: Eleven-dimension bagpipes.
--
td
The Devil
wrote:
>Art for arts sake alone, would be the simplistic answer.
>
>>Here is a hint art and craft are inseperable.
I have to draw the line at this:
--
td
Marc Phillips
>"Marc Phillips" emitted :
>
>>Well, for a work of art to be considered cubist, there has to be cubes in
>it.
>
>That's a category, not a standard.
>
You wouldn't say that one of the standards of cubism is that it should contain
cubes?
Boon
Sander deWaal
>Here's a nightmare to ponder: Eleven-dimension bagpipes.
If you'd use competent amplifiers, they'd be reduced to 3.
--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy
dave weil
I've got a can opener that I'll sell them for $10,000 US. I thought
about Andy Warhol once while using it.
MINe 109
The Devil <t...@big.sixes> wrote:
That reminds of my old neighborhood, where teens would spontaneously
install Christo-like paper hangings on trees and front porches, usually
just before All Saints Day.
This one's more to my taste. Too bad they didn't use Quads:
http://www.tate.org.uk/liverpool/exhibitions/janetcardiff/
Stephen
Arny Krueger
> S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
> S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :
>
> "That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
> wrong but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may
> doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art.
> Objective standards in art exist independent of taste."
> "Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
> What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
> For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
> belongs to irrational."
Lionel, your points are well taken.
Take art, add objective standards, and you just might have a craft.
To understand S888wheel's position, it might help were he to make his
*profession* known.
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/24/2004 5:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <DqKCc.12636$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art. So do you or don't
you?
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/24/2004 6:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5opmd0litqma3ndd3...@4ax.com>
>
>"S888Wheel" emitted :
>
>>>>They are far too many to list. Do you really not know of any objective
>>>>standards in any genre of art?
>>>
>>>significance for *pure* art.
>>
>
Cite an example of art that is devoid of craft or unaffected by it.
>
>>Here is a hint art and craft are inseperable.
>
>Sure, if you want to be a pedantic git.
Doesn't matter if one wants to be pedantic or pretenteous. It is a fact of art
that craft is an inseperable aspect it.
It could be argued that any
>activity requires a certain amount of proficiency, or "craft". But
>here is a hint: that's not the type of craft I'm talking about.
>[cf., woodworking vs conceptualism.]
I don't really care what "craft" you are talking about I am talking about the
sort of craft that is indespensable in the creation of any given work of art.
>
>> None. Your pronouncement below is
>>>offensive.
>>
>>I guess to some.
>>
>>> In it you attack core components of major works of modern
>>>art, such as composed by Steve Reich (eg. "It's Gonna Rain") or John
>>>Cage.
>>
>>
>>Balony.
>
>Fact.
Prove it.
>
>>No art is attacked by my assertion other than crap art.
>
>One mans "crap art" is another mans "seminal work".
I suppose that can be true. Mediocrity in one can inspire excellence in
another.
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/30/nart30.xml
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said:
> I'm not evading. It would help me to answer your question if you really truly
> don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art. So do you or don't
> you?
Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well as
the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example, to
judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate its
use of color as one component. But the artist might be using horrible
colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't pull
out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to consider
the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since art's
effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual, is
there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/25/2004 7:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Wa6dnTIhLMB...@comcast.com>
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said:
> >To understand S888wheel's position, it might help were he to make his
> >*profession* known.
> You still can't figure it out?
I can help with this. Krooger is inconceivably lame, of course, but even
a gigantic shithead like him can do a multiple choice question.
Mister Wheeler's profession is:
(a) Artist
(b) Writer
(c) Hit Man
(d) University Lecturer
(e) Krooger doesn't know because he's a brain-dead idiot.
Michael McKelvy
How about just 3?
> >> >Do you really not know of any objective
> >> >> standards in any genre of art?
> >> >
> >> >You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You can also answer the question.
> >> >
> >I'll answer after you do. Stop evading.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I'm not evading.
Yes, you are.
It would help me to answer your question if you really truly
> don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art.
It's not neccessary for you to know that answer in order to answer my
question.
So do you or don't
> you?
>
I understand that there are certain conventions that have been agreed upon,
but none of them are cast in stone. In music for example, styles get mixed
and melded into new forms all the time. The same is true for other art
forms, otherwise there would be far less in terms of "new" styles.
Arny Krueger
I only know what I read in the newspapers... ;-)
Lionel
S888Wheel profession ?
I guess he is a kind of "wind salesman" who make money from nothing.
It's not really difficult to understnad since he puts so many barriers
from him and the common human being.
This guys is trying to explain us that art answers to "objective
standards" and he try to make us understand using subjective words like
"bad art"... LOL
It's like if you want to explains the "theory of the cordes" using 1st
degree equation only ! :o)
S888wheel is a living *joke* !
Lionel
> Well, for a work of art to be considered cubist, there has to be cubes in it.
I think that you better shut up on this one. ;-)
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/25/2004 8:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5sgod0t02gthi57km...@4ax.com>
Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding what I am
saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely objective to
every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that there are
objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say DaVinci was
a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they are both
excellent artists by objective standards in art. To take it to the extreme just
to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively better
musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make noise.
It ain't art.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said:
> >Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well as
> >the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example, to
> >judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate its
> >use of color as one component. But the artist might be using horrible
> >colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't pull
> >out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to consider
> >the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since art's
> >effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual, is
> >there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?
>
>
> Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding what I am
> saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely objective to
> every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that there are
> objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say DaVinci was
> a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they are both
> excellent artists by objective standards in art.
Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a purely
subjective arena.
> To take it to the extreme just
> to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively better
> musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make noise.
> It ain't art.
You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
has, maybe.
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/25/2004 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <kovod0tnu6af4jdpp...@4ax.com>
>
>"S888Wheel" emitted :
>
>>>> I'm not evading. It would help me to answer your question if you really
>>>truly
>>>> don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art. So do you or
>>>don't
>>>> you?
>>>
>>>the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example, to
>>>judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate its
>>>use of color as one component. But the artist might be using horrible
>>>colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't pull
>>>out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to consider
>>>the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since art's
>>>effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual, is
>>>there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?
>>
>>Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding what I am
>>saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely objective to
>>every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that there
>are
>>objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say DaVinci
>was
>>a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they are both
>>excellent artists by objective standards in art.
>
That would take quite some time and space. I'll look for some good books for
you to check out for a more in depth look at some of the objective standards in
art. I have already cited some examples in music. you don't really need a list
and description of every standard I know of do you?
>
>>To take it to the extreme just
>>to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively
>better
>>musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make
>noise.
>>It ain't art.
>
>That's one opinion.
Opinions often turn out to be representative of fact.
Bruce J. Richman
From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably set up
objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a piece
of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing a
landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions are
held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
assume the judges apply a set of standards to it. I'm not sure whether the
same type of procedure occurs with paintins. At any rate, I would basically
consider the creation of a work of music or a painting or other art form to be
subjective, since it involves the creative process. However, the performance
might well be judged via various objective criteria.
Bruce J. Richman
S888Wheel
>Message-id: <f82pd01neb9hi509g...@4ax.com>
>
>
>
>S888Wheel said:
>
>> >Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well as
>> >the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example, to
>> >judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate its
>> >use of color as one component. But the artist might be using horrible
>> >colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't pull
>> >out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to consider
>> >the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since art's
>> >effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual, is
>> >there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?
>>
>>
>> Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding what I am
>> saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely objective to
>> every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that there
>are
>> objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say DaVinci
>was
>> a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they are both
>> excellent artists by objective standards in art.
>
>Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a purely
>subjective arena.
It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive it would
random in nature. It isn't. There are reasons why most people like the taste of
chocolate more than dirt. There are reasons why most men are attracted to
certain looks in women and visa versa. These things have causes that are quite
mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature. You put a DaVinci or
a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to piss on
either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they can
talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to respond
to certain aesthetics. Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the standards
have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and error and
creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and objective
standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of artists who are
exploring these conventions and standards and building on what previous artists
have built.
>
>
>> To take it to the extreme just
>> to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively
>better
>> musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make
>noise.
>> It ain't art.
>
>You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
>you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
>something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
>and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
>has, maybe.
>
>
I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes art
work is built on objective common truths. They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to tone is
very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference. There
are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound but never
proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities in
brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to piss on a DaVinci
as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have strong
reactions to certain images well before they are capable of communication of
abstract thought.
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said:
> >Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a purely
> >subjective arena.
>
> It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive it would
> random in nature.
That's ridiculous. We're all acculturated to the idea of relative beauty
even if our standards may vary. There are some things that almost nobody
would say are art, and there are a lot of things that almost everybody
would say are art. That is not "random".
> >You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
> >you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
> >something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
> >and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
> >has, maybe.
> I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes art
> work is built on objective common truths.
Wrong.
> They are objective because they are
> mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the way
> they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
> reacting biologically to a structure.
You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.
> I think the human response to tone is
> very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference. There
> are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound but never
> proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities in
> brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
> aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to piss on a DaVinci
> as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have strong
> reactions to certain images well before they are capable of communication of
> abstract thought.
I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
concept of art.
Michael McKelvy
Because their taste buds are wired a certain way.
There are reasons why most men are attracted to
> certain looks in women and visa versa.
Because they are trained by their culture to like certain types. What is
considered beautiful today was not in Reubens day.
These things have causes that are quite
> mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
\
They are cultural.
You put a DaVinci or
> a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to piss on
> either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they can
> talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to
respond
> to certain aesthetics.
Mostly we are trained by our culture.
Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
> you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the
standards
> have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and error and
> creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and
objective
> standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of artists who
are
> exploring these conventions and standards and building on what previous
artists
> have built.
>
List 3.
> >
> >
> >> To take it to the extreme just
> >> to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively
> >better
> >> musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make
> >noise.
> >> It ain't art.
> >
Yes it is.
> >You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
> >you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
> >something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
> >and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
> >has, maybe.
> >
> >
> I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes
art
> work is built on objective common truths.
Then why do different cultures produce different art.
They are objective because they are
> mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
way
> they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.
Our scale is 7 notes, in India they a 60 note scale as I recal.
We are to some degree
> reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to tone
is
> very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.
Then why isn't Persian or Arabic style music a big hit here? It ain't just
the language barrier.
There
> are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound but
never
> proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities in
> brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
> aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to piss on a
DaVinci
> as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have strong
> reactions to certain images well before they are capable of communication
of
> abstract thought.
>
>
Your dancing. List 3 objective standards for art.
dave weil
<Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote:
>
>
>S888Wheel said:
>
>> >Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well as
>> >the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example, to
>> >judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate its
>> >use of color as one component. But the artist might be using horrible
>> >colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't pull
>> >out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to consider
>> >the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since art's
>> >effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual, is
>> >there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?
>>
>>
>> Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding what I am
>> saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely objective to
>> every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that there are
>> objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say DaVinci was
>> a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they are both
>> excellent artists by objective standards in art.
>
>Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a purely
>subjective arena.
Actually, there are some pretty objective standards, but they are only
ancillary to judging "greatness" and they certainly aren't an
exclusive thing (i.e. they don't preclude the fact that most of
judging art is subjective). I'm referring to putting certain art in
stylistic categories. You can certainly do this to a great degree.
Even though there is art that crosses styles, there are a certain
number of "objective" categories that art can fall under (and much of
it can be defined as what a particular piece of art *isn't*).
Just a quick example. Seurat's Les Poseuses is Post-Impressionistic.
It can be defined even further as Pointilistic. So, objectively, it
would be hard to quarrel with either classification. It is *not*
Pre-Raphaelite, Cubist, Primitive, Folk, Renaissance, Bauhaus, Pop, or
NeoClassic, and it's hard to objectively quarrel with that either. If
someone wanted to be cantakerous, they could cause cause a ruckus and
call it Modern, I suppose, even though it really is just the lead-in
to Modern and virtually nobody calls it that.
The problem comes when you try to decide whether it's a greater work
of art than, say, Gauguin's Portrait of a Woman, with Still Life.
That's when subjectivity comes into play.
But ultimately, art is about 95% subjective and 5% objective. At least
that's my subjectively objective opinion.
dave weil
>From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
>*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably set up
>objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a piece
>of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing a
>landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions are
>held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
>assume the judges apply a set of standards to it. I'm not sure whether the
>same type of procedure occurs with paintins. At any rate, I would basically
>consider the creation of a work of music or a painting or other art form to be
>subjective, since it involves the creative process. However, the performance
>might well be judged via various objective criteria.
And even *these* "objective criteia" can shift with time, mood,
cultural bias, etc. Some art which was judged a certain way in a
certain place and time gets reevaluated in a different place and time.
dave weil
> It could be argued that any
>>activity requires a certain amount of proficiency, or "craft". But
>>here is a hint: that's not the type of craft I'm talking about.
>>[cf., woodworking vs conceptualism.]
>
>I don't really care what "craft" you are talking about I am talking about the
>sort of craft that is indespensable in the creation of any given work of art.
How about art created by paintbrush-wielding elephants? It gets top
dollar you know.
George M. Middius
La Salope mangles common words and phrases (again).
> > And even *these* "objective criteia" can shift with time, mood,
> > cultural bias, etc. Some art which was judged a certain way in a
> > certain place and time gets reevaluated in a different place and time.
>
> So what are you deducing of that ?
You're supposed to be teaching Krooger the value of suicide.
Michael McKelvy
> >From: "Michael McKelvy" desk...@peoplepc.com
> >Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <9KDCc.12218$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
> >
> >
> >"Lionel" <rf....@lenoil.suipahc> wrote in message
> >> In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
> >> S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
> >> S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :
> >>
> >> "That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
> >> but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
> >> mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
> >> standards in art exist independent of taste."
> >>
> >> been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
> >> Inquisitor :
> >>
> >> "Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
> >> What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
> >> For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
> >> belongs to irrational."
> >
>
> It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE
>
>
> >
> >The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
> >Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
> >judgments.
> >
>
> The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
> objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of taste.
It's
> ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.
> >
> >
> >
The definition I gave you is the only objective thing one can say about art.
What constitutes good or bad art varies from culture to culture and from
person to person..
Bruce J. Richman
>"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :
>
>>From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
>>*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably set
>up
>>objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
>piece
>>of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing
>a
>>landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions
>are
>>held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
>>assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.
>
>In that circumstnace expression plays a lesser role - it's as much a
>discipline as it is an art form.
>
Agreed. Of course, *some* musicians are simply more skilled in reproducing the
notes written by a composer than others. That's the sort of thing I had in
mind.
>>I'm not sure whether the
>>same type of procedure occurs with paintins. At any rate, I would basically
>>consider the creation of a work of music or a painting or other art form to
>be
>>subjective, since it involves the creative process. However, the
>performance
>>might well be judged via various objective criteria.
>
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce J. Richman
Lionel
With your new prosthesis your are supposed to be tenor in Paul's
petomanes orchestra. ;-)
http://www.ooze.com/ooze13/petomane.html
Lionel
> I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
> concept of art.
Don't you think he is wasting money in his audio system George ?
Perhaps a good old Teppaz would have been enough for him, no ? ;-)
S888Wheel
>Message-id: <6k7pd0llg870la7s2...@4ax.com>
>
>
>
>S888Wheel said:
>
>> >Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a purely
>> >subjective arena.
>>
>> It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive it would
>> random in nature.
>
>That's ridiculous. We're all acculturated to the idea of relative beauty
>even if our standards may vary. There are some things that almost nobody
>would say are art, and there are a lot of things that almost everybody
>would say are art. That is not "random".
>
Maybe I am not understanding you here but it sounds as if you are agreeing with
me here.
>> >You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
>> >you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
>> >something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
>> >and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
>> >has, maybe.
>
>> I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes art
>> work is built on objective common truths.
>
>Wrong.
We disagree
>
>> They are objective because they are
>> mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the way
>> they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
>> reacting biologically to a structure.
>
>You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.
Art does not bring us pleasure?
>
>> I think the human response to tone is
>> very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.
>There
>> are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound but
>never
>> proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities in
>> brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
>> aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to piss on a
>DaVinci
>> as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have strong
>> reactions to certain images well before they are capable of communication
>of
>> abstract thought.
>
>I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
>concept of art.
I don't see why yo think this. When I say there are objective standards I am
not saying there is no subjectivitiy too. But if there were no biological
mechanisms at work, if there were no objective standards what would keep art
from being nothing but random in nature? Do you think it is a happy accident
that up beat music played in a major scale has a common uplifting affect on
people while music played in minor scales tend to create a sense of melencholy?
This works with most people not knowing the difference between a major and
minor scale.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/25/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <bg1Dc.13576$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
More accurately our taste buds/brains are wired a certain way.
>
> There are reasons why most men are attracted to
>> certain looks in women and visa versa.
>
>Because they are trained by their culture to like certain types. What is
>considered beautiful today was not in Reubens day.
Not exactly. A number of studies have found certain substantial commonalities
in sexual aesthetics spanning all cultures studied.
>
>These things have causes that are quite
>> mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
>\
>They are cultural.
Really? The aesthetics of sexual attraction is purely cultural? I never knew
the birds and the bees were cultured. Besides, where does cultural aesthetics
come from? Is it random?
>
>You put a DaVinci or
>> a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to piss on
>> either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they can
>> talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to
>respond
>> to certain aesthetics.
>
>Mostly we are trained by our culture.
*Mostly*??? Maybe maybe not. At any rate the point is some of it is biological.
>
> Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
>> you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the
>standards
>> have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and error and
>> creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and
>objective
>> standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of artists who
>are
>> exploring these conventions and standards and building on what previous
>artists
>> have built.
>>
>
>List 3.
3 what? Standards of excellence in any given art?
We have to pick a genre of art and then lay out the artist's objectives.
>> >
>> >
>> >> To take it to the extreme just
>> >> to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively
>> >better
>> >> musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make
>> >noise.
>> >> It ain't art.
>> >
>Yes it is.
OK lets go to the begining. What is art?
1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
creation of beautiful objects — usually used in plural b : objects of fine
art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill
Beauty:
1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives
pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit
My banging on musical instruments fails to meet those defenitions for the vast
majority of people because of objective cuase and effect mechanisms.
>
>> >You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
>> >you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
>> >something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
>> >and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
>> >has, maybe.
>> >
>> >
>> I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes
>art
>> work is built on objective common truths.
>
>Then why do different cultures produce different art.
1. The art of different cultures is not *totally* different in nature. In fact
there are remarkable commonalities in the arts of vastly different cultures.
The question to me is why is there so much in common with the arts of such
vastly different cultures? Why do the conventions of the arts of such vastly
different cultures have so much in common?
2. The existance of objective standards in art does not preclude variations of
those objective standards.
>
> They are objective because they are
>> mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
>way
>> they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.
>
>Our scale is 7 notes, in India they a 60 note scale as I recal.
And they both make mathematical sense. They both have a distict mathematical
structure. Is it coincidence that virtually every form of music from every
culture has such scales?
>
>We are to some degree
>> reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to tone
>is
>> very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.
>
>Then why isn't Persian or Arabic style music a big hit here?
It ain't just
>the language barrier.
I'm not really sure what your point is here. Persianand Arabic music is enjoyed
by many western people and visa versa. I am a big fan myself.
>
>There
>> are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound but
>never
>> proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities in
>> brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
>> aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to piss on a
>DaVinci
>> as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have strong
>> reactions to certain images well before they are capable of communication
>of
>> abstract thought.
>>
>>
>Your dancing.
No
List 3 objective standards for art.
Which genre? What are the artists objectives?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said:
> >> They are objective because they are
> >> mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the way
> >> they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
> >> reacting biologically to a structure.
> >
> >You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.
>
> Art does not bring us pleasure?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm surprised you have to ask that.
> >I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
> >concept of art.
>
> I don't see why yo think this. When I say there are objective standards I am
> not saying there is no subjectivitiy too. But if there were no biological
> mechanisms at work, if there were no objective standards what would keep art
> from being nothing but random in nature? Do you think it is a happy accident
> that up beat music played in a major scale has a common uplifting affect on
> people while music played in minor scales tend to create a sense of melencholy?
> This works with most people not knowing the difference between a major and
> minor scale.
The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?
Michael McKelvy
designed a specific way. It is not surprising they react to similar
stimuli. That being said, there are probably more types of sexual
expression than are are types or classes of art.
>
> >These things have causes that are quite
> >> mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
> >\
> >They are cultural.
>
> Really? The aesthetics of sexual attraction is purely cultural?
In large part yes.
I never knew
> the birds and the bees were cultured. Besides, where does cultural
aesthetics
> come from? Is it random?
>
What are the objective standards of art? You're still ducking the question.
> >
> >You put a DaVinci or
> >> a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to piss
on
> >> either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they
can
> >> talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to
> >respond
> >> to certain aesthetics.
> >
> >Mostly we are trained by our culture.
>
> *Mostly*??? Maybe maybe not. At any rate the point is some of it is
biological.
>
Some part, sure. What has this to do with objective standards in art?
> >
> > Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
> >> you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the
> >standards
> >> have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and error
and
> >> creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and
> >objective
> >> standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of artists
who
> >are
> >> exploring these conventions and standards and building on what previous
> >artists
> >> have built.
> >>
> >
> >List 3.
>
> 3 what? Standards of excellence in any given art?
>
You claim there are objective standards for art, yet you have not listed any
that I've seen.
> We have to pick a genre of art and then lay out the artist's objectives.
>
You claimed there were objective standards in art, name 3.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> To take it to the extreme just
> >> >> to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an
objectively
> >> >better
> >> >> musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to
make
> >> >noise.
> >> >> It ain't art.
> >> >
> >Yes it is.
>
> OK lets go to the begining. What is art?
>
I already gave you the only objective dfinition I know of. If you have
another or better one, please say so.
Art is a subjective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgements.
> 1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
> creation of beautiful objects - usually used in plural b : objects of fine
Because they are all done by human beings.
> 2. The existance of objective standards in art does not preclude
variations of
> those objective standards.
>
>
> >
> > They are objective because they are
> >> mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
> >way
> >> they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.
> >
> >Our scale is 7 notes, in India they have a 60 note scale as I recall.
>
> And they both make mathematical sense. They both have a distinct
mathematical
> structure. Is it coincidence that virtually every form of music from every
> culture has such scales?
>
No, since the music is made by human beings who share a common biology.
> >
> >We are to some degree
> >> reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to
tone
> >is
> >> very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.
> >
> >Then why isn't Persian or Arabic style music a big hit here?
> It ain't just
> >the language barrier.
>
> I'm not really sure what your point is here. Persian and Arabic music is
enjoyed
> by many western people and visa versa. I am a big fan myself.
>
The music made by Arabic people or Chinese people or Indian people are
vastly different in their use of tones, their use of scales, etc. They have
little in common with say Western European music.
So while we share a common biology we have vastly differntideas on what
musical art sounds like.
> >
> >There
> >> are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound
but
> >never
> >> proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities
in
> >> brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
> >> aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to piss on a
> >DaVinci
> >> as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have
strong
> >> reactions to certain images well before they are capable of
communication
> >of
> >> abstract thought.
> >>
> >>
> >Your dancing.
>
> No
>
> List 3 objective standards for art.
>
> Which genre? What are the artists objectives?
> >
You said there were objective standards for art, I took that to mean
universally, IOW applicable to any art form.
Bruce J. Richman
>"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :
>
>>>>From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
>>>>*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably
>set up
>>>>objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
>piece
>>>>of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of
>reproducing a
>>>>landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions
>are
>>>>held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
>>>>assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.
>>>
>>>In that circumstnace expression plays a lesser role - it's as much a
>>>discipline as it is an art form.
>>>
>>
>>Agreed. Of course, *some* musicians are simply more skilled in reproducing
>the
>>notes written by a composer than others. That's the sort of thing I had in
>>mind.
>
>True enough.. I'm absolutely fucking useless at playing guitar from a
>*technical* POV, but I've always seen that as an advantage ;-)
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
You can always call it a "jazz ad lib solo" (that's what I used to do when I
played in a Basie-style Big Band and screwed up solos). :)
Bruce J. Richman
Bruce J. Richman
>"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :
>
>>You can always call it a "jazz ad lib solo" (that's what I used to do when
>I
>>played in a Basie-style Big Band and screwed up solos). :)
>
>If you look like you have serious intent when you'r playing jazz,
>pretty much anything will pass. Random chords, anything.. ;-) I tend
>to play with a lot of bends, so bend bum-notes back into tune without
>raising too many eyebrows..
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
Since I played tenor saxophone and clarinet, if anybody noticed anything
negative, I could always blame it on the reeds (or the liquid refreshment taken
between sets). :)
Bruce J. Richman
Marc Phillips
Good point. Art's not meant to give pleasure as much as elicit an emotional
response from others. It's a passage of a particular idea from the mind of one
person to another.
I've also had arguments with people at the other end of the spectrum, those who
feel that everything is art. I think that's lazy thinking. There has to be a
design and a reaction.
Boon
George M. Middius
Marc Phillips said:
> >The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
> >most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
> >such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
> >objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?
>
> Good point. Art's not meant to give pleasure as much as elicit an emotional
> response from others. It's a passage of a particular idea from the mind of one
> person to another.
That's a nice summary.
> I've also had arguments with people at the other end of the spectrum, those who
> feel that everything is art. I think that's lazy thinking. There has to be a
> design and a reaction.
I agree. In fact, if you look at the human race from a certain point of
view, are not our vicissitudes of temperament a form of art? Imagine the
mind of a creator who could design and deliver the Krooborg.....
Marc Phillips
I think of Arny's god, that big invisible guy up in the sky who knows and sees
all, and I'm not surprised at the result.
Boon
Lionel
> I thought *you* were an artist.. apparently not.
Have you read his pseudonym ? It has an heavy artistic charge... LOL !
Lionel
>>I agree. In fact, if you look at the human race from a certain point of
>>view, are not our vicissitudes of temperament a form of art? Imagine the
>>mind of a creator who could design and deliver the Krooborg.....
>
>
> I think of Arny's god, that big invisible guy up in the sky who knows and sees
> all, and I'm not surprised at the result.
Sound to me that you and George are more interested in Krooborg's life
than in artistic expression.
What a pair of morons.
George M. Middius
Snottily sniping from the shadows, Slut makes a big mess.
Gotcherself a big juicy booger, did you? Bon appetit!
Lionel
> I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
> concept of art.
Funny because when I have written the same thing as above you have answered :
"From the point of view of the Immortal, or the Creator, or Underlying
Reason For All Things, are you not a joke, Slut?"
I didn't know that you was an adept of self-mockery ! ;-)
Lionel
> Gotcherself a big juicy booger, did you? Bon appetit!
Thank you to take care of my diet, sperm drinker. Prosit ! ;-)
S888Wheel
>Message-id: <flird0hj4a37ipbgd...@4ax.com>
>
>
>
>S888Wheel said:
>
>> >> They are objective because they are
>> >> mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
>way
>> >> they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
>> >> reacting biologically to a structure.
>> >
>> >You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.
>>
>> Art does not bring us pleasure?
>
>Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm surprised you have to ask that.
Besides when we don't like art. When does it not, in the end, bring us
pleasure? This is not about art having to convey happy thoughts. Not at all. An
excellent production of Hamlet is for me, quite pleasurable. It obviously is
not a happy play. OTOH a crappy production can be most unpleasant. Here is an
example of objectively inferior art. Ever sit through any Shakespeare play in
which it is clear the actors don't even understand the meaning of the text?
>
>
>> >I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
>> >concept of art.
>>
>> I don't see why yo think this. When I say there are objective standards I
>am
>> not saying there is no subjectivitiy too. But if there were no biological
>> mechanisms at work, if there were no objective standards what would keep
>art
>> from being nothing but random in nature? Do you think it is a happy
>accident
>> that up beat music played in a major scale has a common uplifting affect on
>> people while music played in minor scales tend to create a sense of
>melencholy?
>> This works with most people not knowing the difference between a major and
>> minor scale.
>
>The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
>most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
>such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
>objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?
Not at all. But I will say that art that works for it's intended purpose brings
the audience pleasure. that doesn't mean that all art conveys happy messages.
Pleasure also comes from the experience of any number of emotions through art.
I am saying that when one considers the artists intentions and looks at the
work there are some objective standards by which we can meaure the success of
the artist. Some of it is entirely subjective as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/26/2004 11:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ftgrd0h05vlgtrb3g...@4ax.com>
>
>I can't believe you are seriously trotting out trite dictionary
>definitions of "Art". I thought *you* were an artist.. apparently not.
What on earth is an attempt to clarify what is being discussed have to do with
what I am and am not?
>
>
>"S888Wheel" emitted :
>
>>OK lets go to the begining. What is art?
>>
>>1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
>>creation of beautiful objects — usually used in plural b : objects of fine
>>art
>>2 : an activity requiring a fine skill
>>
>>
>>Beauty:
>>
>>1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives
>>pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit
>
>
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/26/2004 1:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3YkDc.29222$Y3.2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Does this mean you are begining to get my point?
That being said, there are probably more types of sexual
>expression than are are types or classes of art.
I'm not sure what this means or what the point may be.
>>
>> >These things have causes that are quite
>> >> mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
>> >\
>> >They are cultural.
>>
>> Really? The aesthetics of sexual attraction is purely cultural?
>
>In large part yes.
Did you understand the question? I said "purely.' How can that be in "large
part"??? It is a yes or no question. I thought you were most comfortable with
black and white situations.
>
> I never knew
>> the birds and the bees were cultured. Besides, where does cultural
>aesthetics
>> come from? Is it random?
>>
>What are the objective standards of art? You're still ducking the question.
You are ducking my questions.
>> >
>> >You put a DaVinci or
>> >> a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to piss
>on
>> >> either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they
>can
>> >> talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to
>> >respond
>> >> to certain aesthetics.
>> >
>> >Mostly we are trained by our culture.
>>
>> *Mostly*??? Maybe maybe not. At any rate the point is some of it is
>biological.
>>
>Some part, sure. What has this to do with objective standards in art?
If some aesthetic values are biological in nature they are not entirely
subjective. There is a biological cause and effect involved.
I don't really know what to say to this one. I guess we can rule out any
discussion of abstract art.
I guess the real question at this point is why the hell am I trying to discuss
art with Mike?
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/25/2004 2:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20040625170900...@mb-m10.aol.com>
>
>From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
>*performance* of art, not the art itself.
There is no art to discuss without the performance or execution of art.
> Of course, one could probably set up
>objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
>piece
>of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing
>a
>landscape or model by an artist).
Well, it does look like you get my point. There is skill involved and the
skills can be assessed objectively.
>For example, when various competitions are
>held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
>assume the judges apply a set of standards to it. I'm not sure whether the
>same type of procedure occurs with paintins.
It can.
At any rate, I would basically
>consider the creation of a work of music or a painting or other art form to
>be
>subjective, since it involves the creative process.
It is both. Some aspects of art involve choices that are purely subjective.
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/25/2004 2:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <gj6pd09ieusv7dp5v...@4ax.com>
>
>"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :
>
>>From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
>up
>>objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
>piece
>>of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing
>a
>are
>>held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
>>assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.
>
>discipline as it is an art form.
WTF??
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/26/2004 2:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ddrrd0lb89kic3eds...@4ax.com>
>
>"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :
>
>>>>From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
>>>>*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably
>set up
>>>>objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
>piece
>>>>of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of
>reproducing a
>>>>landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions
>are
>>>>held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
>>>>assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.
>>>
>>>In that circumstnace expression plays a lesser role - it's as much a
>>>discipline as it is an art form.
>>>
>>
>the
>>notes written by a composer than others. That's the sort of thing I had in
>>mind.
>
>True enough.. I'm absolutely fucking useless at playing guitar from a
>*technical* POV, but I've always seen that as an advantage ;-)
>
That might explain your objections to the notion of objective standards. Shit
happens. If an artist lacks control of his or her medium than he or she is
hoping for good shit via good luck.
Bruce J. Richman
>>From: bjri...@aol.com (Bruce J. Richman)
>>Date: 6/25/2004 2:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20040625170900...@mb-m10.aol.com>
>
>>
>>From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
>>*performance* of art, not the art itself.
>
>There is no art to discuss without the performance or execution of art.
>
Of course. That's why I mentioned the performance, or skill aspect involved.
>> Of course, one could probably set up
>>objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
>>piece
>>of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing
>>a
>>landscape or model by an artist).
>
>Well, it does look like you get my point. There is skill involved and the
>skills can be assessed objectively.
>
I would certainly think so. Agreed. There are sound reasons why Eric Clapton,
John Williams and Andre Segovia are considered guitar virtuosos, for example.
>>For example, when various competitions are
>>held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
>>assume the judges apply a set of standards to it. I'm not sure whether the
>>same type of procedure occurs with paintins.
>
>It can.
>
> At any rate, I would basically
>>consider the creation of a work of music or a painting or other art form to
>>be
>>subjective, since it involves the creative process.
>
>It is both. Some aspects of art involve choices that are purely subjective.
>
> However, the performance
>>might well be judged via various objective criteria.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce J. Richman
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said:
> >> >You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.
> >>
> >> Art does not bring us pleasure?
> >
> >Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm surprised you have to ask that.
>
> Besides when we don't like art. When does it not, in the end, bring us
> pleasure?
Uh... When it does not bring us pleasure?
That's like asking when is it not raining. It's not raining when it's
not raining.
> This is not about art having to convey happy thoughts. Not at all. An
> excellent production of Hamlet is for me, quite pleasurable. It obviously is
> not a happy play. OTOH a crappy production can be most unpleasant. Here is an
> example of objectively inferior art. Ever sit through any Shakespeare play in
> which it is clear the actors don't even understand the meaning of the text?
You're getting all muddled up here. In fact you seem to be making my
point -- that art is not always about bringing pleasure -- and then
doubling back to say that no matter how you one feels in reaction to a
work of art, one feels pleasure.
> >The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
> >most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
> >such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
> >objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?
>
> Not at all. But I will say that art that works for it's intended purpose brings
> the audience pleasure.
That's insupportable. Some art is simply not intended to evoke pleasure,
and it does not do so. Unless your definition of pleasure is "anything
that makes you feel something other than what you were feeling before
you experienced the artwork".
> that doesn't mean that all art conveys happy messages.
> Pleasure also comes from the experience of any number of emotions through art.
That's bizarre. But if that's how you experience the world, so be it.
> I am saying that when one considers the artists intentions and looks at the
> work there are some objective standards by which we can meaure the success of
> the artist.
Defining "the artist's intention" is not always a simple thing. In my
experience, the more provocative a work is, the more multifarious and
elusive "the artist's intention" is. In fact, artists don't necessarily
have "intentions" other than to convey what they feel. Rare is the
artwork that is specifically intended to manipulate the feelings of
viewers.
> Some of it is entirely subjective as well.
You've got some pretty strong hangups on this issue.
Glenn Zelniker
> Defining "the artist's intention" is not always a simple thing. In my
> experience, the more provocative a work is, the more multifarious and
> elusive "the artist's intention" is. In fact, artists don't necessarily
> have "intentions" other than to convey what they feel. Rare is the
> artwork that is specifically intended to manipulate the feelings of
> viewers.
And would you believe that there are many schools of thought
within critical theory where authorial intent is utterly
insignificant? This is a hard thing for many people to wrap
their minds around.
GZ