Is there a phenomenon called ACTING WHITE?
Bradwell Jackson
this phenomenon be described?
Bradwell Jackson
Cobb
On 1 Jun 2004 10:36:48 -0700, bradwel...@yahoo.com (Bradwell
Jackson) wrote:
Cobb - Keepin' It Right - Old School since Day One
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb
Black & Republican & Civil Libertarian & Righteous & Uppity & Global Capitalist & Pro-Commons & Family Oriented & Provocative & Sometimes Worth Reading
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
Acting white
When John McWhorter argued in Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black
America that aspects of African-American culture, such as
anti-intellectualism, were debilitating and counter-productive he was
accused by some of being a self-hating sellout. It's going to be harder
to take that line against Henry Louis Gates, distinguished scholar and
chair of Harvard's African and African American Studies Department.
At a recent talk in Washington to promote his new book, Behind the Color
Line: Dialogues with African Americans, Gates had this to say:
I remember a poll where black kids were asked to list the things
they considered 'acting white. The top three things were: making
straight A's, speaking standard English and going to the Smithsonian.
Now, if anybody had said anything like that when we were growing up in
the '50s, first, your mother would smack you upside the head and second,
they'd check you into a mental institution.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/03/acting_white.html
Riverman
Being an intellectual,exploring diverse previously white cultural
arenas and excelling in all you do is NOT acting white.
Acting white is being a stuck up little snot who sits in his or her
suburban house and derisively comments about"those people"still in the
hood.
And I know a few of those fools!
Riverman
Warning Shot
news:ab128a85.04060...@posting.google.com:
> Is it true that there is a phenomenon of "acting white"? How would
> this phenomenon be described?
>
> Bradwell Jackson
I was often accused of it. My first experience with the accusation was
when my family moved from California to Illinois . Other than immediate
family and occasional visits from relatives, I had little contact with
other Blacks. Prior to the move, my peers had mainly been the Mexican,
Filipino and White kids who lived near me. Due to that environment,
neither my speech nor mannerisms were considered "Black".
Warning Shot
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
"Riverman" <gog...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:b4b2a645.04060...@posting.google.com...
yes
there are a lot of fools in 'the hood'
Prof Marvel
I've accepted the proposition that the black race is determined to
destroy itself. We're too far gone, boys. Our stupidity has become
institutionalized. We actually glorify in it. We've actually reached the
point where the black ideal is the most pristine examples of stupidity
we can find -- 50 cent and Snoop Doggy Dawg.
There's no hope, at least not in you generation and mine. Maybe we have
to self-immolate in order to be reborn, I don't know, but what I do know
is that there is no hope.
prof marvel
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
>> Acting white
>>
>> When John McWhorter argued in Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black
>> America that aspects of African-American culture, such as
>> anti-intellectualism, were debilitating and counter-productive he was
>> accused by some of being a self-hating sellout. It's going to be
>> harder to take that line against Henry Louis Gates, distinguished
>> scholar and chair of Harvard's African and African American Studies
>> Department.
>>
>> At a recent talk in Washington to promote his new book, Behind the
>> Color Line: Dialogues with African Americans, Gates had this to say:
>>
>> I remember a poll where black kids were asked to list the things
>> they considered 'acting white. The top three things were: making
>> straight A's, speaking standard English and going to the Smithsonian.
>> Now, if anybody had said anything like that when we were growing up in
>> the '50s, first, your mother would smack you upside the head and
>> second, they'd check you into a mental institution.
>>
>>
>> http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/03/acting_white.html
>>
>>
>
Prof Marvel wrote:
> I've accepted the proposition that the black race is determined to
> destroy itself. We're too far gone, boys. Our stupidity has become
> institutionalized. We actually glorify in it. We've actually reached the
> point where the black ideal is the most pristine examples of stupidity
> we can find -- 50 cent and Snoop Doggy Dawg.
But was there a point where the course of black history could have been
changed? Was it the death of King or Malcolm X? Or was the present
degeneracy always the only possible destination?
> There's no hope, at least not in you generation and mine. Maybe we have
> to self-immolate in order to be reborn, I don't know, but what I do know
> is that there is no hope.
This view of black culture is not supported by any black leader. Those
who voice it are immediately condemned and repudiated. This suggests
that things have to get much worse before they get better, if ever.
> prof marvel
>
make...@worldnet.att.net
VoiceOfReason wrote:
>
> <garee_...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I remember a poll where black kids were asked to list the things
> >> they considered 'acting white. The top three things were: making
> >> straight A's, speaking standard English and going to the Smithsonian.
> >> Now, if anybody had said anything like that when we were growing up in
> >> the '50s, first, your mother would smack you upside the head and second,
> >> they'd check you into a mental institution.
>
> ...So it looks like we're
> stuck with a thugz-lifestyle generation, even if their mommas were
> smart enough to emulate what their grandmas said 50 years ago .
It must be considered that high-tech society has changed everything.
Most DAFNz are IQ-75 Genetic_Defectivez. They realize in school that
there is no way they will ever be able to compete in the intellectual
marketplace, so they just Drop_Out of school and the labor market.
Fifty years ago, an IQ-75 could get a zombie job on an assembly line,
bring home a paycheck, and more-or-less function in society. No more.
Gotta have something upstairs now days to make it.
Although our garbage man has always been a DAFN, even that job is
more complicated today. Used to be he hand-dumped the garbage pail
in a scoop on the rear of the truck and hit one control to dump it
in the top. Now days, he has to connect up the Toter, actuate the
dumper and *DECIDE* whether or not to activate the vibrator, for
HOW LONG? And *DECIDE* whether or not to activate the compactor,
for HOW LONG? All this complex equipment and decision making
borders on overtaxing the limited capacity DAFN brain.
The next generation of garbage trucks will no doubt have computerized
controls, and a laptop in the cab, requiring even *more* abstract
thought and decision making. At that point, DAFNz will be finished
as garbage men. Have to get a white or Asian.
Or at least a Hispanic...
Time to start the eugenics progarm *now*. Need to limit the rampant
reproduction of more uselezz LOOZerz before the social and criminal
justice systems are totally overwhelmed by the OOW_Breeding onslaught.
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
>Is it true that there is a phenomenon of "acting white"? How would
>this phenomenon be described?
>
For a person of color to assume and act upon the notion that european
historical and cultural aspects are more relevant than their own
historical or cultural aspects without even attempting to explore
their own historical or cultural genres.
It manifests in schools when children of color see that the only way
to achieve good grades is to understand and value the contributions of
european and american artists, writers and great leaders while not
studying anything in the least wrt artists or writers of their own
ancestors.
Case in point: My wife and I homeschool our daughter and when we went
looking for american history books 99% of them start with telling
about the conditions and rationale of the people of europe who came
over here to start america.
WRT africans, well, they were slaves. Nothing about what values,
skills, culture or customs of the countries they may have come from.
Why would I want the first thing for my child to know about her
ancestors is that they were slaves when I know that there is a rich
african history that was occuring at the same time demonstrating the
advancements in those cultures?
With regards to asians, well they helped build the railroads and
started WWII by attacking the US. Other than that, nothing.
With regards to latinos, well the US fought a war with them and took
the lands from Texas to California.
With regards to the indians. Well, some barbarians that got in the
way.
With regards to pacific islanders. Well, more barbarians who got in
the way.
So excelling in school is exceling in european culture and valuing
that knowledge above that of your ancestors who you haven't even
bothered to find out about.
Black people don't say black scholars or cultural icons who speak
well, write and teach about black culture are 'acting white'. They
point at those who demonstrate a clear preference for admiring white
cultural conditions.
von
In an intelligent dialog different does
not mean opposite.
Bradwell Jackson
> > Is it true that there is a phenomenon of "acting white"? How would
> > this phenomenon be described?
> >
> > Bradwell Jackson
>
>
> I was often accused of it. My first experience with the accusation was
> when my family moved from California to Illinois . Other than immediate
> family and occasional visits from relatives, I had little contact with
> other Blacks. Prior to the move, my peers had mainly been the Mexican,
> Filipino and White kids who lived near me. Due to that environment,
> neither my speech nor mannerisms were considered "Black".
>
> Warning Shot
Thank you for your honesty. Do you think there is any way to reverse
this phenomenon?
Brad
Bradwell Jackson
> arenas and excelling in all you do is NOT acting white.
Do you think it is true that very few black people would ever be
interested in going to Florence to see Michealangelo's David?
Brad
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
One way to make it go away is to redefine it, as Riverman and VonBailey
have tried to do. The problem will remain, of course, but the important
thing is that it won't be noticed.
>
> Brad
Von Bailey
Maybe he should have referred to adult discussion about the subject.
Asking 'kids' to discuss a social phenomena that affects more than
just kids is disingenuous.
Riverman
Carter G. Woodson claimed there are two types of education-the one
the system gives you,often a MISeducation, and the one you give
YOURSELF.As a white kid growing up in the suburbs,I was totally kept
in the dark-excuse the pun!-about the role of Black people in US and
World History.Fortunately I had a curious mind and later on discovered
seminal scholars like Clarke,Du Bois,Davidson,Van
Sertima,Bernal,etc.who opened up whole new worlds for me.And I was
lucky to have some dynamic Black professors in
college-Llorens,Ojiaku,etc-who cared about their subjects passionately
and made the Black expereience come alive for me.
Riverman
E Kurtz
It is among kids that the effects are first observed. A reluctance or
refusal to "act white" by black kids is offered as an explanation for
their poor academic performance by, among others, John McWhorter and
John Ogbu. If the phenomenon exists, and can be shown to retard
academic development at an early age, then it makes sense to study it
in the young.
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
It is among kids that the effects are first observed. A reluctance or
refusal to "act white" by black kids is offered as an explanation for
their poor academic performance by, among others, John McWhorter and
John Ogbu. If the phenomenon exists, and can be shown to retard
academic development at an early age, then it makes sense to study it
in the young.
>
Bradwell Jackson
> > this phenomenon?
>
> One way to make it go away is to redefine it, as Riverman and VonBailey
> have tried to do. The problem will remain, of course, but the important
> thing is that it won't be noticed.
Do you think it's true that very few black people would ever be
interested in going to Florence to see Michaelangelo's David?
>
> >
> > Brad
Bradwell Jackson
Thank you for your answer. I don't know what "wrt" means. I was in a
racism class where the white people were challenged with the idea that
blacks aren't allowed to own basketball teams, just play on them.
When someone asserted that Michael Jordan owned one, the black
students responded by saying that they don't really consider Michael
Jordan to be black anymore. Do black people see Michael Jordan as
"acting white"? What about Bill Cosby?
Bradwell Jackson
> Most DAFNz
What is a DAFN?
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
That is my impression; To return to the point about the Smithsonian: an
exhibit of works by Matisse or Holbein would attract white crowds,
whereas an exhibit of African masks or photographs of early jazz and
blues performers would attract both whites and blacks.
>>>Brad
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
>
> Thank you for your answer. I don't know what "wrt" means.
with respect to
I was in a
> racism class
College freshman indocrination? Care to tell us about it?
> where the white people were challenged with the idea that
> blacks aren't allowed to own basketball teams, just play on them.
When was this?
> When someone asserted that Michael Jordan owned one, the black
> students responded by saying that they don't really consider Michael
> Jordan to be black anymore.
Uncomfortable truths defined out of existence, again.
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
>>It must be considered that high-tech society has changed everything.
>>Most DAFNz
>
>
> What is a DAFN?
Derogatory Acronym For Negroes
Von Bailey
While it may be relevant to *study* it among kids it is not to ask
them to define the reasons for it. They don't have the maturity or
experience to explain the phenomena. It is also naive to assume that
it only manifests among kids. It happens among adults and it has
nothing to do with 'grades'.
Also, I challenge the assumption that the phenomena "retards' academic
development" as opposed to there being a disinterest in the subject
matter as presented. If the focus of all history classes was Chinese,
Indian or African history focusing the art, culture and writings of
leaders from those genres and the only focus wrt european history was
presented as a negative, how many whites would care to study it?
The educational systems of the US presents negative aspects for some
to learn about themselves and then wonders why they don't want to
learn it. The 'assumption' that european studies is something that
everyone would be interested in despite their ancestorial lineage is
hubris in an extreme but not even questioned.
E Kurtz
> >... A reluctance or
> >refusal to "act white" by black kids is offered as an explanation for
> >their poor academic performance by, among others, John McWhorter and
> >John Ogbu. If the phenomenon exists, and can be shown to retard
> >academic development at an early age, then it makes sense to study it
> >in the young.
Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> While it may be relevant to *study* it among kids it is not to ask
> them to define the reasons for it.
This is not what happened; they were asked "to list the things they
considered 'acting white'." Asking for examples is not the same thing
as asking for a definition.
> They don't have the maturity or
> experience to explain the phenomena.
They certainly were not asked to explain it.
> It is also naive to assume that
> it only manifests among kids.
Where is that assumption made?
It happens among adults and it has
> nothing to do with 'grades'.
Clearly, since adults are no longer being graded. But since education
is crucial, and has been problematic among blacks for as long as
anyone can remember, it is in kids that the phenomenon should be
studied.
> Also, I challenge the assumption that the phenomena "retards' academic
> development"
It is not an assumption, it is a theory - a theory that attempts to
explain the poor academic performance of black kids.
> as opposed to there being a disinterest in the subject
> matter as presented.
The argument is not lack of interest, exactly; it is lack of
application, an indifference to success, the sense that education is
an imposition.
> If the focus of all history classes was Chinese,
> Indian or African history focusing the art, culture and writings of
> leaders from those genres and the only focus wrt european history was
> presented as a negative, how many whites would care to study it?
You've just described the typical college liberal arts curriculum.
> The educational systems of the US presents negative aspects for some
> to learn about themselves
The purpose of education is to teach what matters; it is not to boost
self-esteem or to feed ethnic self-infatuation. Those who wish can
contemplate the wonder of their ethnic or racial identities in their
spare time, after they've done their homework.
What matters primarily are those disciplines that train the mind and
result in adult success - mathematics, science and english.
History art and literature help, but are secondary.
> and then wonders why they don't want to
> learn it. The 'assumption' that european studies is something that
> everyone would be interested in despite their ancestorial lineage is
> hubris in an extreme but not even questioned.
Nonsense; European ideas in political theory, economic theory and
science dominate the world. They have no rivals. Do you think the new
regime in Iraq will adopt a polity based on an African or a Chinese
model? Of course not; they will use a European model adapted to Iraqi
circumstances. Where in the world is anyone doing African or Chinese
science? Nowhere; all science is European science.
Von Bailey
> EKur...@aol.com (E Kurtz) wrote
> > >... A reluctance or
> > >refusal to "act white" by black kids is offered as an explanation for
> > >their poor academic performance by, among others, John McWhorter and
> > >John Ogbu. If the phenomenon exists, and can be shown to retard
> > >academic development at an early age, then it makes sense to study it
> > >in the young.
>
> Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > While it may be relevant to *study* it among kids it is not to ask
> > them to define the reasons for it.
>
> This is not what happened; they were asked "to list the things they
> considered 'acting white'." Asking for examples is not the same thing
> as asking for a definition.
>
phenomena shouldn't have been used as an example. It does nothing
except give a very superficial definition of the issue and ignores
it's manifestation on blacks as a whole.
> > They don't have the maturity or
> > experience to explain the phenomena.
>
> They certainly were not asked to explain it.
>
But they are most assuredly going to give a superficial explination of
it regardless of what they are asked. That's what kids do.
> > It is also naive to assume that
> > it only manifests among kids.
>
> Where is that assumption made?
>
In limiting the phenomena to their perspective.
> > It happens among adults and it has
> > nothing to do with 'grades'.
>
> Clearly, since adults are no longer being graded. But since education
> is crucial, and has been problematic among blacks for as long as
> anyone can remember, it is in kids that the phenomenon should be
> studied.
>
Wrong. But I can understand your POV. The assumption that the same
curriculm would work regardless of the environment or history that a
child lives in or experiences once removed from the educational
institution is naive at best. As I stated before, WHAT someone is
asked to learn is just as important as anything else within the
process and the resources available when NOT in school is relevant
also. You see nothing wrong with what is offered because it is
tailored to compliment your ancestrial racial type and you ignore how
it ignores or insults the contributions of others. You also don't
have to live in a world where the reverse is present and as such can't
relate to those that do.
> > Also, I challenge the assumption that the phenomena "retards' academic
> > development"
>
> It is not an assumption, it is a theory - a theory that attempts to
> explain the poor academic performance of black kids.
>
Really? Sounds more like a superficial examination of a very complex
subject to give a simple answer to those looking for a simple answer.
> > as opposed to there being a disinterest in the subject
> > matter as presented.
>
> The argument is not lack of interest, exactly; it is lack of
> application, an indifference to success, the sense that education is
> an imposition.
>
Could you please give me a cite to where you are getting this
perspective of yours. It's totally contrary to what I am being told
by black people that I relate to every day of my life. They find that
when they can show a relationship between what you are learning and
your life you pay more attention to it, when you are taught something
that you have little interest in you don't do as well. But it's
simplier to blame the child instead of curiculm because if you blame
the child you don't have to look at other possible reasons for the
failure.
> > If the focus of all history classes was Chinese,
> > Indian or African history focusing the art, culture and writings of
> > leaders from those genres and the only focus wrt european history was
> > presented as a negative, how many whites would care to study it?
>
> You've just described the typical college liberal arts curriculum.
>
So if you're white you get to learn from early education all about
your ancestors and what they have done, but if you're of color you
have to pay for it in college. This not only forces the white
perspective on everyone it allows whites to ignore the contributions
of the others not covered in the elementary levels. A white person
may find nothing wrong with this but somehow I think your tune would
change if you were force fed african history throughout elementary and
high school and had to pay to find out about european and american
history in college.
> > The educational systems of the US presents negative aspects for some
> > to learn about themselves
>
> The purpose of education is to teach what matters; it is not to boost
> self-esteem or to feed ethnic self-infatuation.
Then why are you taught history classes in elementary and high schools
focused on creating heroic figures out of european and american white
cultural and political leaders? Talk about self-infatuation! You
think that has NO affect on white people? Learning that they and they
alone are responsible for the world as it is as you so effectively
point out at the end of this response?
> What matters primarily are those disciplines that train the mind and
> result in adult success - mathematics, science and english.
While math and science are relevant both can be achieved in ANY
language.
> History art and literature help, but are secondary.
>
Then why are they taught and more importantly why are you graded in
them? If they aren't relevant then they should be elective subjects.
History is NOT an elected subject and you must learn a particular set
of events (mostly the engrandisement of white men's accomplishments
via their names and dates of accomplishment) or you will fail and it
affects your overall grades. Art is being taught that the 'masters'
are all white men. Why bother to learn that let alone be graded on
it?
> > and then wonders why they don't want to
> > learn it. The 'assumption' that european studies is something that
> > everyone would be interested in despite their ancestorial lineage is
> > hubris in an extreme but not even questioned.
>
> Nonsense; European ideas in political theory, economic theory and
> science dominate the world. They have no rivals.
Becasue for the past 500+ years europeans have been going about he
world killing people who held other ideas.
> Do you think the new
> regime in Iraq will adopt a polity based on an African or a Chinese
> model?
Neither of them had the hubris (or immaturity) to attack someone who
wasn't a threat and claim it was. I'm sure that if China had the ball
to kill thousands of people in another country just to take over their
resources they would do so and rule it as they see fit. Just like
America is doing now.
> Of course not; they will use a European model adapted to Iraqi
> circumstances.
> Where in the world is anyone doing African or Chinese
> science?
In Africa and China.
> Nowhere; all science is European science.
>
Well that's just ignorant.
Roger Dodger
> Nonsense; European ideas in political theory, economic theory and
> science dominate the world. They have no rivals. Do you think the new
> regime in Iraq will adopt a polity based on an African or a Chinese
> model? Of course not; they will use a European model adapted to Iraqi
> circumstances. Where in the world is anyone doing African or Chinese
> science? Nowhere; all science is European science.
Science is science. It is the purest culture-free intellectual
activity. There is no such thing as "european" or "chinese" science.
If you mean "science developed using principles discovered in
Europe", then you have a point. But the history matters little;
and the body of scientific knowledge has already accumulated much
material of non-European-descended origin.
The scientific principles developed in Europe were as alien to
the traditional world-view of the European peasantry as they were
to the Chinese or African ones.
Roger Dodger
> Do black people see Michael Jordan as
> "acting white"?
I can't speak for Michael Jordan, but Michael *Jackson*
is one black person deserving of that label!
Roger Dodger
> I remember a poll where black kids were asked to list the things
> they considered 'acting white. The top three things were: making
> straight A's, speaking standard English and going to the Smithsonian.
> Now, if anybody had said anything like that when we were growing up in
> the '50s, first, your mother would smack you upside the head and second,
> they'd check you into a mental institution.
If that is "acting white", then Asian immigrants are some of the
whitest people on this planet!
EKurtz
>Where in the world is anyone doing African or Chinese
> > science?
Von Bailey wrote
> In Africa and China.
> EKur...@aol.com (E Kurtz) wrote
> Nowhere; all science is European science.
Von Bailey wrote
> Well that's just ignorant.
"Roger Dodger" <roger...@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Science is science.
I think we can agree on that.
> It is the purest culture-free intellectual
> activity.
There have been recent attempts among non-scientists in academia to deny
this. I think, as you presumably do, that they are entirely without merit.
The attempts, I mean.
>There is no such thing as "european" or "chinese" science.
> If you mean "science developed using principles discovered in
> Europe", then you have a point.
I would make a stronger case than that; not just the "principles" (if by
that you mean the hypothetico-deductive method etc) but all the fundamental
work, what Kuhn called the "revolutionary science", was done by Europeans -
Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck (and all the other
members of the QM pantheon, too numerous to mention), Pasteur, Dalton,
Mendel, Lyell, Darwin, Morgan, Fisher, Watson & Crick, . So, though the
principles of science are universal, everything that matters in science
originated in Europe, in the minds of white males, whether you like it or
not.
When scientific ideas from Europe began to take hold in the Oriental mind,
they did not have to contend with or displace locally developed ideas of
similar sophistication and explanatory power. This is *not* true of
medicine; it is still possible to speak of Chinese as opposed to Western
medicine. In that sense, there is no Chinese science, all science is
European science.
I do not rule out the possibility that a Chinese or Indian will one day
upset the apple-cart with a brand new paradigm; it just hasn't happened yet.
> But the history matters little;
> and the body of scientific knowledge has already accumulated much
> material of non-European-descended origin.
..only recently and only what Kuhn called "normal science". (Chandrasekhar
excepted, perhaps, but he worked in Great Britain).
> The scientific principles developed in Europe were as alien to
> the traditional world-view of the European peasantry as they were
> to the Chinese or African ones.
Given the popularity of Creationism, astrology, numerology, etc, they
probably still are alien to most of the populace.
Roger Dodger
> "Roger Dodger" <roger...@fastmail.fm> wrote
> > It is the purest culture-free intellectual
> > activity.
>
> There have been recent attempts among non-scientists in academia
And in the media, of course.
> to deny this. I think, as you presumably do, that they are
> entirely without merit. The attempts, I mean.
These attempts to smear science as being "white and male" in
origin, with the underlying assumption of being "racist, sexist,
and fascist" are entirely without merit. They are attempts to
replace western civilization with "good" tribalism. Western
civilization eliminated smallpox, and gave women the vote.
Can the same be said for the values of Al-Qaieda - which
really is racist, sexist, and facist.
> >There is no such thing as "european" or "chinese" science.
> > If you mean "science developed using principles discovered in
> > Europe", then you have a point.
>
> I would make a stronger case than that; not just the "principles" (if by
> that you mean the hypothetico-deductive method etc) but all the fundamental
> work, what Kuhn called the "revolutionary science", was done by Europeans -
> Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck (and all the other
> members of the QM pantheon, too numerous to mention), Pasteur, Dalton,
> Mendel, Lyell, Darwin, Morgan, Fisher, Watson & Crick,
Don't forget the philosophical foundations of the ancient Greeks.
> So, though the
> principles of science are universal, everything that matters in science
> originated in Europe, in the minds of white males, whether you like it or
> not.
True.
> When scientific ideas from Europe began to take hold in the Oriental mind,
> they did not have to contend with or displace locally developed ideas of
> similar sophistication and explanatory power. This is *not* true of
> medicine; it is still possible to speak of Chinese as opposed to Western
> medicine.
Even there, there is *modern* western (or scientific) medicine
versus traditional western medicine (mostly herbal).
> In that sense, there is no Chinese science, all science is
> European science.
> I do not rule out the possibility that a Chinese or Indian will one day
> upset the apple-cart with a brand new paradigm; it just hasn't happened yet.
What about fuzzy logic?
> > But the history matters little;
> > and the body of scientific knowledge has already accumulated much
> > material of non-European-descended origin.
>
> ..only recently and only what Kuhn called "normal science". (Chandrasekhar
> excepted, perhaps, but he worked in Great Britain).
There are a good many Third World peoples working in modern Western
countries in science and technology. Most of them have no real
support back home, either material or moral. Abdus Salam wanted to
create an Institute of Theoretical Science in his homeland of
Pakistan, but the military dictators would have no part of it.
I checked the list of Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry.
Most of the prize winners are indeed of European origin, and a
fair number of Japanese based in Japan. There were a few Indians
and Chinese, nearly all of whom were based at Western universities.
The exception was Venkata Raman, who spend nearly all his time
in India, was educated there, and performed his research there
with inexpensive equipment. His Nobel Prize was in 1930, in
a scientific community far more European-dominated than now.
> > The scientific principles developed in Europe were as alien to
> > the traditional world-view of the European peasantry as they were
> > to the Chinese or African ones.
>
> Given the popularity of Creationism, astrology, numerology, etc, they
> probably still are alien to most of the populace.
Agreed.
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> >> There have been recent attempts among non-scientists in academia
"Roger Dodger" <roger...@fastmail.fm> wrote
> And in the media, of course.
Intellectually, they don't count.
> >> to deny this. I think, as you presumably do, that they are
> >> entirely without merit. The attempts, I mean.
>
> These attempts to smear science as being "white and male" in
> origin, with the underlying assumption of being "racist, sexist,
> and fascist" are entirely without merit. They are attempts to
> replace western civilization with "good" tribalism.
This nonsense appears to be slowly petering out.
> Western
> civilization eliminated smallpox, and gave women the vote.
> Can the same be said for the values of Al-Qaieda - which
> really is racist, sexist, and facist.
If they had the chance they would give us all smallpox.
> >>> >There is no such thing as "european" or "chinese" science.
> >>> > If you mean "science developed using principles discovered in
> >>> > Europe", then you have a point.
> >
> >> I would make a stronger case than that; not just the "principles"
(if by
> >> that you mean the hypothetico-deductive method etc) but all the
fundamental
> >> work, what Kuhn called the "revolutionary science", was done by
Europeans -
> >> Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck (and all the other
> >> members of the QM pantheon, too numerous to mention), Pasteur, Dalton,
> >> Mendel, Lyell, Darwin, Morgan, Fisher, Watson & Crick,
>
>
> Don't forget the philosophical foundations of the ancient Greeks.
I'm inclined to believe that the vigor of European science was first and
foremost a reaction to the intellectual absolutism of Medieval
Christianity.
You don't need to immerse yourself in Greek philosophy to be a good
scientist - how many western scientists are Greek scholars?
Nor do Greek philosophical notions have to be embedded in your culture -
otherwise there would be no Chinese or Indian scientists.
All you appear to need is some early exposure and the right sort mind,
and the right sort can be found anywhere.
snip
> >> I do not rule out the possibility that a Chinese or Indian will
one day
> >> upset the apple-cart with a brand new paradigm; it just hasn't
happened yet.
>
> What about fuzzy logic?
Would you call FL science? It seems more like mathematics to me; was it
invented by a non-European?
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> >>> > Also, I challenge the assumption that the phenomena "retards'
academic
> >>> > development"
EKur...@aol.com (E Kurtz) wrote
> >> It is not an assumption, it is a theory - a theory that attempts to
> >> explain the poor academic performance of black kids.
> Really? Sounds more like a superficial examination of a very complex
> subject to give a simple answer to those looking for a simple answer.
You cannot make the a priori assumption that the phenomenon is complex;
its apparent complexity may be the result of your attempt to explain it
with the wrong theory. An attempt to fit a wrong theory to the facts
necessitates the construction of special cases and ad hoc additional
principles, creating the appearance of complexity where there is none.
When you get the right theory, suddenly everything seems simple.
Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >>> > as opposed to there being a disinterest in the subject
> >>> > matter as presented.
EKur...@aol.com (E Kurtz) wrote
> >> The argument is not lack of interest, exactly; it is lack of
> >> application, an indifference to success, the sense that education is
> >> an imposition.
> Could you please give me a cite to where you are getting this
> perspective of yours.
Its not just mine:
I believe the idea first surfaced in the work of Nigerian anthropologist
John Ogbu, and was later invoked by him to explain black academic
underperformance in Shaker Heights, a Cleveland suburb.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2003-05-21/feature.html/1/index.html
It then appeared in John McWhorter's book "Losing the Race:
Self-Sabotage in Black America", as an autobiographical recollection and
as an attempt to explain the indifference and sloppiness of his black
students compared to whites and Asians. (McW is a linguistics prof at UC
Berkeley)
Then I read that Henry Louis Gates Jr had invoked the idea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11831-2004Mar20.html
Gates is chairman of Harvard's African and African American Studies
Department; the idea can now be considered mainstream.
My personal belief is that the phenomenon exists, but is an anticipatory
or after-the-fact rationalization of poor performance, an effect rather
than a cause.
Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> It's totally contrary to what I am being told
> by black people that I relate to every day of my life.
Such impressions are notoriously deceiving. There are over 30 million
blacks in the US; how many have you met? How do you know that those you
met are representative? How do you know that they are not merely telling
you what they sense you want to hear? How do you know that this idea of
yours is attractive not because it is true but because it transfers the
blame for academic failure from blacks to whites, ie is consistent with
the larger principle that sees blacks invariably as victims (see
McWhorter's book for a detailed examination of victimology)?
> They find that
> when they can show a relationship between what you are learning and
> your life you pay more attention to it, when you are taught something
> that you have little interest in you don't do as well.
But how many kids have an interest in geometry or algebra or grammar or
Hamlet? If curricula were decided on what is of interest to children, it
would be all Sesame Street and Spider-Man.
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
>... I can understand your POV. The assumption that the same
> curriculm would work regardless of the environment or history that a
> child lives in or experiences once removed from the educational
> institution is naive at best. As I stated before, WHAT someone is
> asked to learn is just as important as anything else within the
> process and the resources available when NOT in school is relevant
> also. You see nothing wrong with what is offered because it is
> tailored to compliment your ancestrial racial type and you ignore how
> it ignores or insults the contributions of others. You also don't
> have to live in a world where the reverse is present and as such can't
> relate to those that do.
>
> your ancestors and what they have done, but if you're of color you
> have to pay for it in college. This not only forces the white
> perspective on everyone it allows whites to ignore the contributions
> of the others not covered in the elementary levels. A white person
> may find nothing wrong with this but somehow I think your tune would
> change if you were force fed african history throughout elementary and
> high school and had to pay to find out about european and american
> history in college.
> ..why are you taught history classes in elementary and high schools
> focused on creating heroic figures out of european and american white
> cultural and political leaders? Talk about self-infatuation! You
> think that has NO affect on white people? Learning that they and they
> alone are responsible for the world as it is as you so effectively
> point out at the end of this response?
What about Jews, Chinese, Vietnamese? According to your theory, their
performance should be no better than that of blacks, and yet they are
academic superstars.
What about American Indians? Hardly a privileged population, but they
outscore blacks in the SAT by 10 to 11% year in and year out. According
to your theory, this should not happen.
Blacks are acutely politically sensitive to the education issue; but
they are not demanding history curriculum changes; what they want is
either more money spent on public schools or vouchers to enable black
parents to send their kids to private schools; if, as kids, they were
mortified by having to endure endless praise for Washington and
Jefferson, why are they *not* now clamoring for a more Afrocentric
history curriculum, as they would be if your perspective were common?
What about NOI schools, and other schools where all the teachers are
black? Why are they not significantly more successful, as would be
required by your theory?
Black academic underperfomance is a very well studied problem, perhaps
more than any other social issue. How is it that none of the academics,
black or white, who deal with the issue on a full-time basis have
discovered a statistical connection between black perfomance gap and
history curriculum? (Or have they? Your turn to provide a citation).
If blacks are mortified by the depiction of whites as heroic and the
neglect of black heroism, why do they watch so many "white" movies (more
than whites). Do they spend 8 or 9 bucks simply to have their
self-esteem lowered for 2 hours? Or is it possible that heroism is
universal, and anyone can identify with it, no matter what his race?
Bradwell Jackson
Although this is a sensitive topic, I am going to bring it up anyway.
How would you respond to people who say that Michaelangelo's David is
obviously superior to African masks, and that therefore blacks are not
as sophisticated as whites?
>
> >>>Brad
Von Bailey
>Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > >>> > Also, I challenge the assumption that the phenomena "retards'
>academic
> > >>> > development"
>
>EKur...@aol.com (E Kurtz) wrote
> > >> It is not an assumption, it is a theory - a theory that attempts to
> > >> explain the poor academic performance of black kids.
>
> > Really? Sounds more like a superficial examination of a very complex
> > subject to give a simple answer to those looking for a simple answer.
>
>You cannot make the a priori assumption that the phenomenon is complex;
>its apparent complexity may be the result of your attempt to explain it
>with the wrong theory.
But you have obviously made the assumption that it is not complex.
Interesting how you can provide limitations to my perspective but can
run rampant on your unproven assumptions.
>An attempt to fit a wrong theory to the facts
>necessitates the construction of special cases and ad hoc additional
>principles, creating the appearance of complexity where there is none.
An attempt to fit a wrong theory to the facts also necessitates the
construction of simplistic theories so that you can avoid doing any
indepth research on the subject also. It works both ways.
>When you get the right theory, suddenly everything seems simple.
>
Sounds more like you simply found one that you agree with and thus
give it credibility because it fits your assumptions.
>Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > >>> > as opposed to there being a disinterest in the subject
> > >>> > matter as presented.
>
>EKur...@aol.com (E Kurtz) wrote
> > >> The argument is not lack of interest, exactly; it is lack of
> > >> application, an indifference to success, the sense that education is
> > >> an imposition.
>
> > Could you please give me a cite to where you are getting this
> > perspective of yours.
>
>Its not just mine:
>
Which is why I asked for cites. I assumed you were getting this from
somewhere.
>I believe the idea first surfaced in the work of Nigerian anthropologist
>John Ogbu, and was later invoked by him to explain black academic
>underperformance in Shaker Heights, a Cleveland suburb.
>http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2003-05-21/feature.html/1/index.html
>
Interesting one sided study. He studied the blacks in the area and
didn't study the group he was comparing it to (the white population)
to discover if there were any other factors that the white group had
that the blacks didn't. This is a viable study to you? So if he had
no definitive group to compare the blacks to how did he know that his
finding had any merit?
>It then appeared in John McWhorter's book "Losing the Race:
>Self-Sabotage in Black America", as an autobiographical recollection and
>as an attempt to explain the indifference and sloppiness of his black
>students compared to whites and Asians. (McW is a linguistics prof at UC
>Berkeley)
>
Mr. McWhoter's personal experience is not the same as the 'black
community of America'. In fact it has the exact same limitations you
attempt to apply to my annecdotal evidence below.
>Then I read that Henry Louis Gates Jr had invoked the idea.
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11831-2004Mar20.html
>Gates is chairman of Harvard's African and African American Studies
>Department; the idea can now be considered mainstream.
>
>My personal belief is that the phenomenon exists, but is an anticipatory
>or after-the-fact rationalization of poor performance, an effect rather
>than a cause.
>
You mean the guy that replace Cornel West, the head of the African
American Studies Department at Harvard until he started acting to
black? In case you aren't aware of it, I believe Mr. Gates to be a
black man attempting to be black while acting white.
>Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > It's totally contrary to what I am being told
> > by black people that I relate to every day of my life.
>
>Such impressions are notoriously deceiving. There are over 30 million
>blacks in the US; how many have you met?
At least as many as the people that you have used as references and I
get my information from adults.
>How do you know that those you
>met are representative?
You mean like Shaker Heights is supposed to be 'representative' of
Black America?
>How do you know that they are not merely telling
>you what they sense you want to hear?
Because they have no reason to lie. The conversations have been
focused on the educational systems of the US and how that is affecting
our children. And contrary to Mr. Ogbu's 'observations' (He even
admits that he doesn't ask questions or do surveys, he simply puts out
what he observes with the assumption that he is correct) we ask each
other questions not only about what we feel are the problems but what
credible solutions to them are. Millions of African Americans do this
every day contrary to the stereotypes you wish to believe instead.
>How do you know that this idea of
>yours is attractive not because it is true but because it transfers the
>blame for academic failure from blacks to whites, ie is consistent with
>the larger principle that sees blacks invariably as victims (see
>McWhorter's book for a detailed examination of victimology)?
>
Mr McWhorter is full of shit. I am not a victim of anything and
neither are the people that I am speaking of. We are all successful
in our own rights and are perfectly aware of the defective educational
system and have made accomadations to overcome most of them.
> > They find that
> > when they can show a relationship between what you are learning and
> > your life you pay more attention to it, when you are taught something
> > that you have little interest in you don't do as well.
>
>But how many kids have an interest in geometry or algebra or grammar or
>Hamlet?
As with any subject I would assume it depends on the child. I have a
nephew who is 14 years old and is tutoring other kids in his school
because he is so far advanced in the subject. He will be taking
pre-calc next year because he finds numbers facinating (but he still
can't figure out how to get 20 points in dominoes because he hates
thinking about the stratetigic moves involved). I have a 13 year old
neice who hated algebra until she was shown a relationship between
algebra and computer programming. Now she sees a reason to learn it
because it coincides with her almost manic interest in computers
(confounded the hell out of her dad when he found out she know how to
set up her own IP addresses for internet access when he thought he had
taken it from her as a punishment).
I know adults who use poor grammer (the usenet is full of them) and I
never saw anything in the least bit interesting in Hamlet and have
never been called on in any way that affected my life in not knowing
it. So we are back to why are you graded on something that is totally
useless as an adult.
>If curricula were decided on what is of interest to children, it
>would be all Sesame Street and Spider-Man.
Well I think you shouldn't limit people to what were apparently your
interests as a child.. People are different and you'd be suprised at
the variety of interests they have that you may not ever have
considered.
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
"Von Bailey" <red...@nonofyourbusiness.comt> wrote in message
news:9e1ac0dqusvcl20ci...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:37:21 -0400, ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:
>
> >Von Bailey <ovba...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > > >>> > Also, I challenge the assumption that the phenomena "retards'
> >academic
> > > >>> > development"
> >
> >EKur...@aol.com (E Kurtz) wrote
> > > >> It is not an assumption, it is a theory - a theory that attempts to
> > > >> explain the poor academic performance of black kids.
> >
> > > Really? Sounds more like a superficial examination of a very complex
> > > subject to give a simple answer to those looking for a simple answer.
> >
> >You cannot make the a priori assumption that the phenomenon is complex;
> >its apparent complexity may be the result of your attempt to explain it
> >with the wrong theory.
>
> But you have obviously made the assumption that it is not complex.
Really ?
Cite the specific quote where he says that
> Interesting how you can provide limitations to my perspective but can
> run rampant on your unproven assumptions.
von, von, von......you're reaching, boy
>
> >An attempt to fit a wrong theory to the facts
> >necessitates the construction of special cases and ad hoc additional
> >principles, creating the appearance of complexity where there is none.
>
> An attempt to fit a wrong theory to the facts also necessitates the
> construction of simplistic theories so that you can avoid doing any
> indepth research on the subject also. It works both ways.
>
> >When you get the right theory, suddenly everything seems simple.
> >
> Sounds more like you simply found one that you agree with and thus
> give it credibility because it fits your assumptions.
or perhaps it is correct
Von Bailey
That statement seems to imply that there are no black academic
superstars and that's not true. Now if you are saying that ALL Jews,
Chinese, Vietnamese are academic superstars I would like you to
provide some proof of that statement.
>What about American Indians? Hardly a privileged population, but they
>outscore blacks in the SAT by 10 to 11% year in and year out. According
>to your theory, this should not happen.
>
Why?
>Blacks are acutely politically sensitive to the education issue; but
>they are not demanding history curriculum changes;
Well that's just wrong. You are obviously not speaking upon that
which you know or pay any particular attention to. What do you thing
African American history classes are about? What do you thing the
pitiful 'African American Month' is for?
>what they want is
>either more money spent on public schools or vouchers to enable black
>parents to send their kids to private schools;
How do you know 'what they want'? What blacks want are more
alternatives. However many are restrained in choices by economics.
> if, as kids, they were
>mortified by having to endure endless praise for Washington and
>Jefferson, why are they *not* now clamoring for a more Afrocentric
>history curriculum, as they would be if your perspective were common?
>
I don't know what planet you live on but blacks are constantly asking
for changes in the educational system on many levels. Maybe if you
paid more attention you would be aware of this.
>What about NOI schools, and other schools where all the teachers are
>black? Why are they not significantly more successful, as would be
>required by your theory?
>
Are you saying that they don't do well on the standardized tests? If
so, it is quite possibly because the NOI doesn't bother to teach to
the tests.
>Black academic underperfomance is a very well studied problem, perhaps
>more than any other social issue.
If you believe that one sided studies are relevant then you have a
point. However when you compare not only the test scores but the
environments that they are taught in and the resources available you
see more of the problem than you are apparently willing to see.
>How is it that none of the academics,
>black or white, who deal with the issue on a full-time basis have
>discovered a statistical connection between black perfomance gap and
>history curriculum? (Or have they? Your turn to provide a citation).
>
I don't remember limiting it to just history. And I am still waiting
for a study from you to make your points. You provide an article
about a guy that was filled with critics of not just his results but
his methodology.
Regardless, first you would have to acknowledge that black people have
the ability to define their own condition and in said acknowlegement
be able to accept their POV. You have shown a bias against that from
the beginning of this dialog. But here's a place to start reading.
1) The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power in
America,
by Authors: William H. Watkins , Robin D. G. Kelley
2) Mis-Education of the Negro
by Carter G. Woodson
>If blacks are mortified by the depiction of whites as heroic and the
>neglect of black heroism, why do they watch so many "white" movies (more
>than whites).
I didn't say that blacks are 'mortified by the depiction of whites'.
I said that they find it boring and uninteresting given that they are
learning nothing positive about themselves, just what whites have
done. I note that you didn't respond to how interested you would be
in being forced to take classes focused about some other race than
yours.
>Do they spend 8 or 9 bucks simply to have their
>self-esteem lowered for 2 hours?
No. Many do it because it's the only form of air conditioning in
their neighborhood.
>Or is it possible that heroism is
>universal, and anyone can identify with it, no matter what his race?
Depends on how it is done.
Von Bailey
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> How would you respond to people who say that Michaelangelo's David is
> obviously superior to African masks, and that therefore blacks are not
> as sophisticated as whites?
It is probably possible to demonstrate that David is more technically
sophisticated, but whether it is the greater work of art is another
question. Even if your interlocutor were completely rational and
impartial, as no-one actually is, what form of argument could be used to
demonstrate artistic superiority?
On the other hand, there are some cases where superiority across the
board is obvious, and, one feels, only a bigot would dispute it;
consider "Great Zimbabwe", believed by some to demonstrate that Africans
are capable of architecture of European sophistication:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/courses/306/Great%20Zimbabwe.html
compare this to Norwich Cathedral, built somewhat earlier:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~g116/geolau-images-norwich.htm
Or Warwick Castle, built about the same time:
http://www.samingse.org/assets/images/SuttonColdfield_warwick_castle.jpg
>
>>>>>Brad
Bradwell Jackson
If someone says that Gothic architecture is superior to Romanesque
architecture, is that cultural bigotry, or is it just an ovious
example of the natural progression of art? One can look of the
examples of small votive sculptures, if you want to call them that,
that the Goths (ancient Europeans) placed in the peat bogs, and
compare these votives to Michaelangelo's David and say that it is very
obvious that the David is quite superior, and represents an obvious
progression of art through the ages. Isn't it the same case when one
compares African masks to the David? Is there any artistic analysis
that can possibly make the case that the African masks are of an equal
artisitic sophistication to the David? I know that this topic is
sensitive, and that seems to be the problem that gets in the way of an
objective analysis. I'm not trying to prove that white people are
superior to black people through their art, I'm just stating what is
patently obvious, that is, that the David is clearly superior to
African masks. If people argue otherwise, I think they lose their
credibility, and white people will snicker under their breath and not
take black people seriously.
Bradwell Jackson
Will Dwinnell
> one day
> > >> upset the apple-cart with a brand new paradigm; it just hasn't
> happened yet.
> >
> > What about fuzzy logic?
>
> Would you call FL science? It seems more like mathematics to me; was it
> invented by a non-European?
Fuzzy logic was invented by Lotfi Zadeh. Read his own comments on the
subject of being Iranian/American/etc.:
http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/24_folder/24_articles/24_zadeh.html
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
Using that logic you should be able to look at some modern art and
simply because it has evolved from where it when David was created.
The value wrt 'superior art' does not exist outside of the observers
personal interests. "Superior Art", like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder.
Also, liimiting the scope of European art to the Statue of David and
the scope of African Art to African masks does a disservice to both.
> Isn't it the same case when one
>compares African masks to the David?
No. The goals of the artist were not the same. The reasons for
David's creation are not the same as the reasons for african masks any
more than the reason Picasso created cubism is the same as the reason
why Goth's created the sculptures you refer to.
>Is there any artistic analysis
>that can possibly make the case that the African masks are of an equal
>artisitic sophistication to the David?
"Artistic sophistication" is not the same as "Superior Art".
> I know that this topic is
>sensitive, and that seems to be the problem that gets in the way of an
>objective analysis. I'm not trying to prove that white people are
>superior to black people through their art, I'm just stating what is
>patently obvious, that is, that the David is clearly superior to
>African masks.
And this 'patently obvious' observation of yours is based on what
exactly?
> If people argue otherwise, I think they lose their
>credibility, and white people will snicker under their breath and not
>take black people seriously.
>
So what? A snob is a snob regardless of the focus.
von
Karl
> If someone says that Gothic architecture is superior to Romanesque
> architecture, is that cultural bigotry, or is it just an ovious
> example of the natural progression of art? One can look of the
> examples of small votive sculptures, if you want to call them that,
> that the Goths (ancient Europeans) placed in the peat bogs, and
> compare these votives to Michaelangelo's David and say that it is very
> obvious that the David is quite superior, and represents an obvious
> progression of art through the ages.
Red Herring alert!!!
You're trying to compare some unknown mask made by some average Joe (or
Kwesi) to one of the greatest works of Michelangelo.
It's like proving that French cuisine is superior to American by
comparing the finest French chef's output with a Big Mac. What are you
trying to prove?
> Isn't it the same case when one
> compares African masks to the David? Is there any artistic analysis
> that can possibly make the case that the African masks are of an equal
> artisitic sophistication to the David?
Nuff said.
Bradwell Jackson
> >> >Although this is a sensitive topic, I am going to bring it up anyway.
> >> >How would you respond to people who say that Michaelangelo's David is
> >> >obviously superior to African masks, and that therefore blacks are not
> >> >as sophisticated as whites?
> >> >>
> >> Cultural bigotry.
> >>
> >> von
> >
> >If someone says that Gothic architecture is superior to Romanesque
> >architecture, is that cultural bigotry, or is it just an ovious
> >example of the natural progression of art? One can look of the
> >examples of small votive sculptures, if you want to call them that,
> >that the Goths (ancient Europeans) placed in the peat bogs, and
> >compare these votives to Michaelangelo's David and say that it is very
> >obvious that the David is quite superior, and represents an obvious
> >progression of art through the ages.
>
> Using that logic you should be able to look at some modern art and
> simply because it has evolved from where it when David was created.
> The value wrt 'superior art' does not exist outside of the observers
> personal interests. "Superior Art", like beauty, is in the eye of the
> beholder.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "look at some modern art
and simply because it has evolved". What were you trying to
communicate with this part of the sentence?
>
> Also, liimiting the scope of European art to the Statue of David and
> the scope of African Art to African masks does a disservice to both.
One has to choose some example. I don't think I'm the one who brought
up African masks.
>
> > Isn't it the same case when one
> >compares African masks to the David?
>
> No. The goals of the artist were not the same. The reasons for
> David's creation are not the same as the reasons for african masks any
> more than the reason Picasso created cubism is the same as the reason
> why Goth's created the sculptures you refer to.
Point well taken.
>
> >Is there any artistic analysis
> >that can possibly make the case that the African masks are of an equal
> >artisitic sophistication to the David?
>
> "Artistic sophistication" is not the same as "Superior Art".
Very well. You make a good point. I should not have said "superior".
Tell me then what the answer to my above question is.
>
> > I know that this topic is
> >sensitive, and that seems to be the problem that gets in the way of an
> >objective analysis. I'm not trying to prove that white people are
> >superior to black people through their art, I'm just stating what is
> >patently obvious, that is, that the David is clearly superior to
> >African masks.
>
> And this 'patently obvious' observation of yours is based on what
> exactly?
I was wrong to say that the David is clearly "superior", but I do
believe the David is clearly more sophisticated.
>
> > If people argue otherwise, I think they lose their
> >credibility, and white people will snicker under their breath and not
> >take black people seriously.
> >
> So what? A snob is a snob regardless of the focus.
Is it snobbish to think that Mozart is more edifying than M&M?
Bradwell Jackson
> Bradwell Jackson wrote:
> > If someone says that Gothic architecture is superior to Romanesque
> > architecture, is that cultural bigotry, or is it just an ovious
> > example of the natural progression of art? One can look of the
> > examples of small votive sculptures, if you want to call them that,
> > that the Goths (ancient Europeans) placed in the peat bogs, and
> > compare these votives to Michaelangelo's David and say that it is very
> > obvious that the David is quite superior, and represents an obvious
> > progression of art through the ages.
>
> Red Herring alert!!!
>
> You're trying to compare some unknown mask made by some average Joe (or
> Kwesi) to one of the greatest works of Michelangelo.
>
> It's like proving that French cuisine is superior to American by
> comparing the finest French chef's output with a Big Mac. What are you
> trying to prove?
I'm not the one who brought up the African mask. Could you come up
with another example of any African art that is more sophisticated
than the David?
Brad
Bradwell Jackson
> Bradwell Jackson wrote:
> > How would you respond to people who say that Michaelangelo's David is
> > obviously superior to African masks, and that therefore blacks are not
> > as sophisticated as whites?
>
> It is probably possible to demonstrate that David is more technically
> sophisticated, but whether it is the greater work of art is another
> question. Even if your interlocutor were completely rational and
> impartial, as no-one actually is, what form of argument could be used to
> demonstrate artistic superiority?
>
> On the other hand, there are some cases where superiority across the
> board is obvious, and, one feels, only a bigot would dispute it;
> consider "Great Zimbabwe", believed by some to demonstrate that Africans
> are capable of architecture of European sophistication:
If I understand correctly, the Great Enclosure of Great Zimbabwe was
constructed around 1200. Correct me if I'm wrong. Notre Dame de
Paris was constructed before this, and it had pointed arches, ribbed
vaulting, and flying buttresses. This allowed for the emphasis on much
larger windows filled with very complex stained glass. The Great
Enclosure, as well as, to the best of my knowledge, any of the other
structures of Great Zimbabwe, has none of the elements that I
mentioned, and on an analysis of architectural progression, would fall
before the Romanesque period and be no more sophisticated than any of
the structures the Goths were making between 500 and 1000 a.d. The
architectural creations of the Romans are, in fact, more technically
sophisticated than the ruins of Great Zimbabwe. I don't believe the
Great Zimbabwe structures had very large windows, and actually, I
don't even know if they had windows. It should also be noted that
Great Zimbabwe has not stood erect and is now a ruin.
Brad
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Although this is a sensitive topic, I am going to bring it up anyway.
>> >> >How would you respond to people who say that Michaelangelo's David is
>> >> >obviously superior to African masks, and that therefore blacks are not
>> >> >as sophisticated as whites?
>> >> >>
>> >> Cultural bigotry.
>> >>
>> >> von
>> >
>> >If someone says that Gothic architecture is superior to Romanesque
>> >architecture, is that cultural bigotry, or is it just an ovious
>> >example of the natural progression of art? One can look of the
>> >examples of small votive sculptures, if you want to call them that,
>> >that the Goths (ancient Europeans) placed in the peat bogs, and
>> >compare these votives to Michaelangelo's David and say that it is very
>> >obvious that the David is quite superior, and represents an obvious
>> >progression of art through the ages.
>>
>> Using that logic you should be able to look at some modern art and
>> simply because it has evolved from where it when David was created.
>> The value wrt 'superior art' does not exist outside of the observers
>> personal interests. "Superior Art", like beauty, is in the eye of the
>> beholder.
>
>I don't understand what you mean when you say "look at some modern art
>and simply because it has evolved". What were you trying to
>communicate with this part of the sentence?
>
Sorry, I didn't finish the sentence. It should have finished with
"...when David was created it's superior". But you have dropped the
'superior' standard below so this may be a moot point.
>>
>> Also, liimiting the scope of European art to the Statue of David and
>> the scope of African Art to African masks does a disservice to both.
>
>One has to choose some example. I don't think I'm the one who brought
>up African masks.
>>
I didn't see any other reference to them except in your post but I
also haven't read all the posts in this thread. A better sampling
would be like works. There are statuary, busts and other sculpting
works from Africa and comparing the two styles to prove some kind of
superior technique might be relevant. However I can look at the bust
of Nefertiti and see 'sophistication' in the creation just as detailed
and beautiful as the works done by european artists.
>>
>> >Is there any artistic analysis
>> >that can possibly make the case that the African masks are of an equal
>> >artisitic sophistication to the David?
>>
>> "Artistic sophistication" is not the same as "Superior Art".
>
>Very well. You make a good point. I should not have said "superior".
>Tell me then what the answer to my above question is.
>
Define aspects of 'sophistication' that you would find relevant. I am
not one to care HOW a particular piece was created as I am to care
about the finished product. I can see the worth in both the sculpture
of David and African Masks as I see them as having different purposes
wrt art and what the purpose of the artist.
>>
>> > I know that this topic is
>> >sensitive, and that seems to be the problem that gets in the way of an
>> >objective analysis. I'm not trying to prove that white people are
>> >superior to black people through their art, I'm just stating what is
>> >patently obvious, that is, that the David is clearly superior to
>> >African masks.
>>
>> And this 'patently obvious' observation of yours is based on what
>> exactly?
>
>I was wrong to say that the David is clearly "superior", but I do
>believe the David is clearly more sophisticated.
>
But doesn't that assume that the artist cared about the
'sophistication' in the finished piece as opposed to simply creating
art that expressed what they were trying to express? Also, wouldn't
that depend on the culture and what you WANT to get out of the work?
What can someone who collected african masks 'learn' from the statue
of David that would be relevant to their specific tastes if they enjoy
the masks for cultural reasons? What could a person who collects
european sculpture learn from african masks relevant to their tastes
and culture?
>>
>> > If people argue otherwise, I think they lose their
>> >credibility, and white people will snicker under their breath and not
>> >take black people seriously.
>> >
>> So what? A snob is a snob regardless of the focus.
>
>Is it snobbish to think that Mozart is more edifying than M&M?
>>
Yes as a person would listen for different things in both and who is
to say which is more relevant (or edifying) to the listener? I doubt
if the rapper is creating work for Mozart listeners any more than
Mozart concidered rap listeners during his creative process.
Karl
> Karl <petersenk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<40c6dc1a$0$9463$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>...
>
>>Bradwell Jackson wrote:
>>
>>>If someone says that Gothic architecture is superior to Romanesque
>>>architecture, is that cultural bigotry, or is it just an ovious
>>>example of the natural progression of art? One can look of the
>>>examples of small votive sculptures, if you want to call them that,
>>>that the Goths (ancient Europeans) placed in the peat bogs, and
>>>compare these votives to Michaelangelo's David and say that it is very
>>>obvious that the David is quite superior, and represents an obvious
>>>progression of art through the ages.
>>
>>Red Herring alert!!!
>>
>>You're trying to compare some unknown mask made by some average Joe (or
>>Kwesi) to one of the greatest works of Michelangelo.
>>
>>It's like proving that French cuisine is superior to American by
>>comparing the finest French chef's output with a Big Mac. What are you
>>trying to prove?
>
>
> I'm not the one who brought up the African mask. Could you come up
> with another example of any African art that is more sophisticated
> than the David?
I might suggest you check out the Benin Bronzes as these are
particularly famous (at least in Britain, because we stole them).
Beyond that, I have to admit my knowledge of art is wafer-thin. Luckily,
"african art" gives over 0.5m results on Google. Happy reading!
E Kurtz
I'm sure all this is true; but my point has to do with problem of
demonstrating superiority within the context of rational discourse. To
repeat my question - what form of argument could be used to
demonstrate *artistic* superiority? There are recognized forms of
proof in science, mathematics, law - what form could be used in
esthetics? The type of reasoning you are using in the above is based
on technical, not esthetic differences.
It is possible for a cathedral (say) to be technically advanced, but
have no artistic merit - consider this monstrosity:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~bentlema/mexico/san-miguel/gothic-cathedral.jpg
But the extreme relativist or subjectivist position has the problem I
alluded to above - there are some cases where you superiority appears
obvious, so that we would have to wonder at anyone who disputed it.
Bradwell Jackson
Is it an historical fact that the Nefretiti was created by black
people who were black in the same way that a majority of
African-Americans are tody? Is it an historical fact in the same
sense that it is an historical fact that Napoleon died in exile on St.
Helena? Is it possible that the people who created the Nefretiti were
olive skinned, or some other shade between black and white?
>
> >>
> >> >Is there any artistic analysis
> >> >that can possibly make the case that the African masks are of an equal
> >> >artisitic sophistication to the David?
> >>
> >> "Artistic sophistication" is not the same as "Superior Art".
> >
> >Very well. You make a good point. I should not have said "superior".
> >Tell me then what the answer to my above question is.
> >
> Define aspects of 'sophistication' that you would find relevant. I am
> not one to care HOW a particular piece was created as I am to care
> about the finished product. I can see the worth in both the sculpture
> of David and African Masks as I see them as having different purposes
> wrt art and what the purpose of the artist.
Are we jumping to the epistomological level too soon? This phenomenon
has also been called the "new theory of relativity". It is when
people just go ahead and jump to the level of debating semantics
before the real meat of the issue has been properly discussed. You
can ask for a definition of sophisication if you want to, then I could
ask you for a definition of "definition". I could ask you for a
definition of "of". I could say "What is "is" if I want to, but isn't
that silly? I think you know what I'm talking about when I say
"sophistication". It is true that no word can exactly convey the
thought you are trying to communicate, because "words are the freezing
of reality". Does that mean we just pack up and go home? It does if
you believe in the new theory of relativity, which states that
"everything is relative, so there's no use talking about anything".
I think this is another example of the "new theory of relativity".
Perhaps we should define what these terms mean in their most basic
sense. "Edifying" as I understand it, means that it uplifts and
improves the person who is interacting with the stimulus. Of course,
you could respond by saying "we'll, what does 'uplift' mean anyway"?,
but then we are just spinning our wheels and jumping to the
epistomological level, and there is no concrete progress when one does
that. We could sit heare and debate whether or not you even exist if
we want, but what's the point? So, let's start with a very elemental
example to see if we can get on the same page: Is it possible to
assess what it more edifying between listining to a tape of puppies
being tortured or listening to classical music? Don't read any
analogies into this purposely primitive example, please. Just please
answer my question.
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
Sorry, I didn't know that it was necessary to prove that given that I
assumed your arguement was about african art (of which the bust I
reference is representative) and not black people. But to answer
your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense. If
you want to compare African-American art with European art that is an
entirely different genre.
> Is it an historical fact in the same
>sense that it is an historical fact that Napoleon died in exile on St.
>Helena? Is it possible that the people who created the Nefretiti were
>olive skinned, or some other shade between black and white?
>
What difference does it make? If that 'olive skinned' person lived in
africa then they would be african and the art would be a
derivitive(sp) of the culture in which they lived.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >Is there any artistic analysis
>> >> >that can possibly make the case that the African masks are of an equal
>> >> >artisitic sophistication to the David?
>> >>
>> >> "Artistic sophistication" is not the same as "Superior Art".
>> >
>> >Very well. You make a good point. I should not have said "superior".
>> >Tell me then what the answer to my above question is.
>> >
>> Define aspects of 'sophistication' that you would find relevant. I am
>> not one to care HOW a particular piece was created as I am to care
>> about the finished product. I can see the worth in both the sculpture
>> of David and African Masks as I see them as having different purposes
>> wrt art and what the purpose of the artist.
>
>Are we jumping to the epistomological level too soon?
I'm not. But to dismiss the fact that art IS relative in order to
make your arguments has it's problems. We can both look at the same
piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it. If you know
anything about art you should know that. A statue of a nude man will
create different impressions on a man as opposed to a woman. Or a gay
man as opposed to a hetrosexual man. The same wrt a statue of a
woman. Are you denying this?
> This phenomenon
>has also been called the "new theory of relativity".
While it may be 'new' in relation to some philisophical differences
that you aren't being to specific about, but art IS relative. It
always has been.
I will give you a case in point. I did a painting in which the object
was a man standing in a bar where he was drinking a beer in one hand
and manipulating a 3D video game with another in which to charactors
were battling each other with sword and chains. It was inspired by a
Paul Newman movie where he was a lawyer and in one scene he was
drinking a beer and playing a pinball machine (can't remember the name
as it was years go). I had the opportunity to display my work at a
local bank and it was purchased from that viewing.
The person who purchased the painting wanted it because she saw her
husbands drinking problems and the demons and angels that were
battling for his immortal soul. She wanted to purchase it so that her
husband could view it and see what was going on in his life.
Her POV was nothing related to my own. I had no intention of bringing
out any religious feelings in anyone with my painting as I am
anti-religious. Demonstrating that what is garnered from the work (as
with most artwork) is relative to the viewer.
>> >>
>> >> > If people argue otherwise, I think they lose their
>> >> >credibility, and white people will snicker under their breath and not
>> >> >take black people seriously.
>> >> >
>> >> So what? A snob is a snob regardless of the focus.
>> >
>> >Is it snobbish to think that Mozart is more edifying than M&M?
>> >>
>> Yes as a person would listen for different things in both and who is
>> to say which is more relevant (or edifying) to the listener? I doubt
>> if the rapper is creating work for Mozart listeners any more than
>> Mozart concidered rap listeners during his creative process.
>
>I think this is another example of the "new theory of relativity".
I am beginning to believe that you use this 'new theory of relativity'
as a crutch to escape acknowlegding that some things are indeed
relative.
>Perhaps we should define what these terms mean in their most basic
>sense. "Edifying" as I understand it, means that it uplifts and
>improves the person who is interacting with the stimulus. Of course,
>you could respond by saying "we'll, what does 'uplift' mean anyway"?,
>but then we are just spinning our wheels and jumping to the
>epistomological level, and there is no concrete progress when one does
>that. We could sit heare and debate whether or not you even exist if
>we want, but what's the point? So, let's start with a very elemental
>example to see if we can get on the same page: Is it possible to
>assess what it more edifying between listining to a tape of puppies
>being tortured or listening to classical music? Don't read any
>analogies into this purposely primitive example, please. Just please
>answer my question.
>>
First you tell me why such a comparison has any merit from an artistic
perspective. Are you saying that puppies being tortured is some kind
of art form?
Bradwell Jackson
> >> also haven't read all the posts in this thread. A better sampling
> >> would be like works. There are statuary, busts and other sculpting
> >> works from Africa and comparing the two styles to prove some kind of
> >> superior technique might be relevant. However I can look at the bust
> >> of Nefertiti and see 'sophistication' in the creation just as detailed
> >> and beautiful as the works done by european artists.
> >
> >Is it an historical fact that the Nefretiti was created by black
> >people who were black in the same way that a majority of
> >African-Americans are tody?
>
> Sorry, I didn't know that it was necessary to prove that given that I
> assumed your arguement was about african art (of which the bust I
> reference is representative) and not black people.
You are entirely correct about this. This was my error. I meant, all
along to say "Sub-saharin Africa".
But to answer
> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
really black? Is *anybody* really white? Were the ancient Egyptians
black, white or neither?
If
> you want to compare African-American art with European art that is an
> entirely different genre.
You are correct. I should have said Sub-Saharin Africa, but when I
do, that usually starts the debate as to whether ancient Egyptians
were black.
>
> > Is it an historical fact in the same
> >sense that it is an historical fact that Napoleon died in exile on St.
> >Helena? Is it possible that the people who created the Nefretiti were
> >olive skinned, or some other shade between black and white?
> >
>
> What difference does it make? If that 'olive skinned' person lived in
> africa then they would be african and the art would be a
> derivitive(sp) of the culture in which they lived.
It makes a difference in a modern political sense. It seems that
African-Americans are forcibly grafting their racial identity on
ancient Egyptians.
>
> >> Define aspects of 'sophistication' that you would find relevant. I am
> >> not one to care HOW a particular piece was created as I am to care
> >> about the finished product. I can see the worth in both the sculpture
> >> of David and African Masks as I see them as having different purposes
> >> wrt art and what the purpose of the artist.
> >
> >Are we jumping to the epistomological level too soon?
>
> I'm not. But to dismiss the fact that art IS relative in order to
> make your arguments has it's problems.
Isn't *everything* relative if we want to see it that way? Isn't it
true that at some point we have accept what people are talking about
without constantly asking for definitions?
We can both look at the same
> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
If you know
> anything about art you should know that. A statue of a nude man will
> create different impressions on a man as opposed to a woman. Or a gay
> man as opposed to a hetrosexual man. The same wrt a statue of a
> woman. Are you denying this?
No, I don't deny it. One can look at the ruins of Great Zimbabwe and
get more out of it than Chartres. That does not mean that it takes as
much skill to create Great Zimbabwe as it does to create Chartres,
unless you jump to the epistimological level and then ask what "skill"
means. If I choose some other word, you can always ask what *that*
word means as well. Doesn't this get silly after a while. Isn't it
true that you really do know what I am saying without requiring
definitions?
>
> > This phenomenon
> >has also been called the "new theory of relativity".
>
> While it may be 'new' in relation to some philisophical differences
> that you aren't being to specific about, but art IS relative. It
> always has been.
>
> I will give you a case in point. I did a painting in which the object
> was a man standing in a bar where he was drinking a beer in one hand
> and manipulating a 3D video game with another in which to charactors
> were battling each other with sword and chains. It was inspired by a
> Paul Newman movie where he was a lawyer and in one scene he was
> drinking a beer and playing a pinball machine (can't remember the name
> as it was years go). I had the opportunity to display my work at a
> local bank and it was purchased from that viewing.
>
> The person who purchased the painting wanted it because she saw her
> husbands drinking problems and the demons and angels that were
> battling for his immortal soul. She wanted to purchase it so that her
> husband could view it and see what was going on in his life.
>
> Her POV was nothing related to my own. I had no intention of bringing
> out any religious feelings in anyone with my painting as I am
> anti-religious. Demonstrating that what is garnered from the work (as
> with most artwork) is relative to the viewer.
I appreciate your personal example, but you are not talking about
sophistication, skill, or whatever word best describes it. It takes
more skill to create Chartres than it does to creat Great Zimbabwe.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> > If people argue otherwise, I think they lose their
> >> >> >credibility, and white people will snicker under their breath and not
> >> >> >take black people seriously.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So what? A snob is a snob regardless of the focus.
> >> >
> >> >Is it snobbish to think that Mozart is more edifying than M&M?
> >> >>
> >> Yes as a person would listen for different things in both and who is
> >> to say which is more relevant (or edifying) to the listener? I doubt
> >> if the rapper is creating work for Mozart listeners any more than
> >> Mozart concidered rap listeners during his creative process.
> >
> >I think this is another example of the "new theory of relativity".
>
> I am beginning to believe that you use this 'new theory of relativity'
> as a crutch to escape acknowlegding that some things are indeed
> relative.
When something becomes prevelant enough to be on the radar screen, a
name is given to it. There is a tendency nowadays for segements of
society to be relative about everything. I think another similar term
that was used to describe this is "cultural relativsim". The idea
that nothing should be judged as good or bad since everything is
relative.
>
> >Perhaps we should define what these terms mean in their most basic
> >sense. "Edifying" as I understand it, means that it uplifts and
> >improves the person who is interacting with the stimulus. Of course,
> >you could respond by saying "we'll, what does 'uplift' mean anyway"?,
> >but then we are just spinning our wheels and jumping to the
> >epistomological level, and there is no concrete progress when one does
> >that. We could sit heare and debate whether or not you even exist if
> >we want, but what's the point? So, let's start with a very elemental
> >example to see if we can get on the same page: Is it possible to
> >assess what it more edifying between listining to a tape of puppies
> >being tortured or listening to classical music? Don't read any
> >analogies into this purposely primitive example, please. Just please
> >answer my question.
> >>
> First you tell me why such a comparison has any merit from an artistic
> perspective. Are you saying that puppies being tortured is some kind
> of art form?
And there aren't artists that do these things? If we're going to be
relative, shouldn't we include Alice Cooper, Ozzy Ozbourne, Marilyn
Manson, and the group here in Tampa Bay that wanted to stage a live
suicide?
Bradwell Jackson
> > > board is obvious, and, one feels, only a bigot would dispute it;
> > > consider "Great Zimbabwe", believed by some to demonstrate that Africans
> > > are capable of architecture of European sophistication:
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the Great Enclosure of Great Zimbabwe was
> > constructed around 1200. Correct me if I'm wrong. Notre Dame de
> > Paris was constructed before this, and it had pointed arches, ribbed
> > vaulting, and flying buttresses. This allowed for the emphasis on much
> > larger windows filled with very complex stained glass. The Great
> > Enclosure, as well as, to the best of my knowledge, any of the other
> > structures of Great Zimbabwe, has none of the elements that I
> > mentioned, and on an analysis of architectural progression, would fall
> > before the Romanesque period and be no more sophisticated than any of
> > the structures the Goths were making between 500 and 1000 a.d. The
> > architectural creations of the Romans are, in fact, more technically
> > sophisticated than the ruins of Great Zimbabwe. I don't believe the
> > Great Zimbabwe structures had very large windows, and actually, I
> > don't even know if they had windows. It should also be noted that
> > Great Zimbabwe has not stood erect and is now a ruin.
>
> I'm sure all this is true; but my point has to do with problem of
> demonstrating superiority within the context of rational discourse. To
> repeat my question - what form of argument could be used to
> demonstrate *artistic* superiority?
It was my mistake to use the word "superior". I should have said more
technically sophisticated, as I believe you suggested.
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
>> >> I didn't see any other reference to them except in your post but I
>> >> also haven't read all the posts in this thread. A better sampling
>> >> would be like works. There are statuary, busts and other sculpting
>> >> works from Africa and comparing the two styles to prove some kind of
>> >> superior technique might be relevant. However I can look at the bust
>> >> of Nefertiti and see 'sophistication' in the creation just as detailed
>> >> and beautiful as the works done by european artists.
>> >
>> >Is it an historical fact that the Nefretiti was created by black
>> >people who were black in the same way that a majority of
>> >African-Americans are tody?
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't know that it was necessary to prove that given that I
>> assumed your arguement was about african art (of which the bust I
>> reference is representative) and not black people.
>
>You are entirely correct about this. This was my error. I meant, all
>along to say "Sub-saharin Africa".
>
How does that make it not african?
> But to answer
>> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
>> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
>
>One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
>really black? Is *anybody* really white?
I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
>Were the ancient Egyptians
>black, white or neither?
>
Don't know. You would have to put 'ancient' in a specific time period
for me to answer that. It covers a lot of history just as ancient
egypt did.
>>
>> > Is it an historical fact in the same
>> >sense that it is an historical fact that Napoleon died in exile on St.
>> >Helena? Is it possible that the people who created the Nefretiti were
>> >olive skinned, or some other shade between black and white?
>> >
>>
>> What difference does it make? If that 'olive skinned' person lived in
>> africa then they would be african and the art would be a
>> derivitive(sp) of the culture in which they lived.
>
>It makes a difference in a modern political sense. It seems that
>African-Americans are forcibly grafting their racial identity on
>ancient Egyptians.
>
I have read the arguments wrt that however we were discussing artistic
sense, not political sense.
>> >> Define aspects of 'sophistication' that you would find relevant. I am
>> >> not one to care HOW a particular piece was created as I am to care
>> >> about the finished product. I can see the worth in both the sculpture
>> >> of David and African Masks as I see them as having different purposes
>> >> wrt art and what the purpose of the artist.
>> >
>> >Are we jumping to the epistomological level too soon?
>>
>> I'm not. But to dismiss the fact that art IS relative in order to
>> make your arguments has it's problems.
>
>Isn't *everything* relative if we want to see it that way?
Yes, but some things moreso than others. Concepts and/or ideas are
more subjective to experience than facts like is water wet.
> Isn't it
>true that at some point we have accept what people are talking about
>without constantly asking for definitions?
>
Depends on the discussion. In a philosophical discussion questions
are a norm. Whether or not art is 'sophisticated' or 'superior' are
clearly subjective terms. Sophistication is usually an extension of
the needs of the culture refining a necessary technique. So IMO, it
must be referenced within it's environment. For instance, wearing a
suit and tie might imply sophistication in New York but does it make
as much sense when the climate is usually in the upper 90's?
> We can both look at the same
>> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
>
>Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
>does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
>
As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
every european could have created David regardless of being a European
and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
>>If you know
>> anything about art you should know that. A statue of a nude man will
>> create different impressions on a man as opposed to a woman. Or a gay
>> man as opposed to a hetrosexual man. The same wrt a statue of a
>> woman. Are you denying this?
>
>No, I don't deny it. One can look at the ruins of Great Zimbabwe and
>get more out of it than Chartres. That does not mean that it takes as
>much skill to create Great Zimbabwe as it does to create Chartres,
>unless you jump to the epistimological level and then ask what "skill"
>means.
If the people who create Chartres can also build Great Zimbabwe init's
prime (which is in ruins so the comparison seems disingenous as how do
you compare ruins to standing buildings) then I might agree. But I
don't know that any more than I know that the people who created
Ancient Zimbabwe could have created Chartres if they had the
inclination.
>If I choose some other word, you can always ask what *that*
>word means as well. Doesn't this get silly after a while. Isn't it
>true that you really do know what I am saying without requiring
>definitions?
>
Sure I do. But that doesn't change the fact that art is subjective by
nature. Attempting to compare different styles of art, especially to
diverse genres as sculpture and mask making is not a fair comparison.
It's like comparing a car and a truck. While they are both gas
powered vehicles they have different purposes and thus must be
measured within their particular class.
I think a better comparison would be European masks compared to
African masks.
http://www.masksoftheworld.com/
Their doesn't appear to be any special sophistication wrt European
masks compared to any other part of the world IMO. They seem to
reflect the personal tastes of the creator regardless of the region it
comes from. Technique seems to be to find something that will hold up
to time and fit over the face in a decorative manner. Which of the
samples provided in the above post are 'more sophisticated' in your
judgement and why?
>>
>> > This phenomenon
>> >has also been called the "new theory of relativity".
>>
>> While it may be 'new' in relation to some philisophical differences
>> that you aren't being to specific about, but art IS relative. It
>> always has been.
>>
>> I will give you a case in point. I did a painting in which the object
>> was a man standing in a bar where he was drinking a beer in one hand
>> and manipulating a 3D video game with another in which to charactors
>> were battling each other with sword and chains. It was inspired by a
>> Paul Newman movie where he was a lawyer and in one scene he was
>> drinking a beer and playing a pinball machine (can't remember the name
>> as it was years go). I had the opportunity to display my work at a
>> local bank and it was purchased from that viewing.
>>
>> The person who purchased the painting wanted it because she saw her
>> husbands drinking problems and the demons and angels that were
>> battling for his immortal soul. She wanted to purchase it so that her
>> husband could view it and see what was going on in his life.
>>
>> Her POV was nothing related to my own. I had no intention of bringing
>> out any religious feelings in anyone with my painting as I am
>> anti-religious. Demonstrating that what is garnered from the work (as
>> with most artwork) is relative to the viewer.
>
>I appreciate your personal example, but you are not talking about
>sophistication, skill, or whatever word best describes it. It takes
>more skill to create Chartres than it does to creat Great Zimbabwe.
>
Can you prove that the people of Ancient Zimbabwe could not have
created the Chartres if they had the inclination? Can you prove the
people Chartres could have done Ancient Zimbabwe? If not how do you
know the skill level of one is greater than the other? If you can I
would be interested in any evidence to back that up.
>>
>> >Perhaps we should define what these terms mean in their most basic
>> >sense. "Edifying" as I understand it, means that it uplifts and
>> >improves the person who is interacting with the stimulus. Of course,
>> >you could respond by saying "we'll, what does 'uplift' mean anyway"?,
>> >but then we are just spinning our wheels and jumping to the
>> >epistomological level, and there is no concrete progress when one does
>> >that. We could sit heare and debate whether or not you even exist if
>> >we want, but what's the point? So, let's start with a very elemental
>> >example to see if we can get on the same page: Is it possible to
>> >assess what it more edifying between listining to a tape of puppies
>> >being tortured or listening to classical music? Don't read any
>> >analogies into this purposely primitive example, please. Just please
>> >answer my question.
>> >>
>> First you tell me why such a comparison has any merit from an artistic
>> perspective. Are you saying that puppies being tortured is some kind
>> of art form?
>
>And there aren't artists that do these things?
Well, I can honestly say I am not aware of any artist that do this.
And while I am pretty open to 'artistic endeavors' harming living
creatures' is not something that I think has 'artistic' merit.
>If we're going to be
>relative, shouldn't we include Alice Cooper, Ozzy Ozbourne, Marilyn
>Manson, and the group here in Tampa Bay that wanted to stage a live
>suicide?
>>
Since I have never listened to any of their music it would not be fair
of me to judge them. If they do torture animals to reach some
artistic necessity I would have to hear it in the context of the music
to make any judgement and I hasten to add that I am hard pressed to
see how it could be used constructively.
But as I said above, art is relative and they obviously have/had an
audience who did find merit in the work so I can't say it's not art.
Bradwell Jackson
> On 12 Jun 2004 11:04:00 -0700, bradwel...@yahoo.com (Bradwell
> Jackson) wrote:
>
> >> >> I didn't see any other reference to them except in your post but I
> >> >> also haven't read all the posts in this thread. A better sampling
> >> >> would be like works. There are statuary, busts and other sculpting
> >> >> works from Africa and comparing the two styles to prove some kind of
> >> >> superior technique might be relevant. However I can look at the bust
> >> >> of Nefertiti and see 'sophistication' in the creation just as detailed
> >> >> and beautiful as the works done by european artists.
> >> >
> >> >Is it an historical fact that the Nefretiti was created by black
> >> >people who were black in the same way that a majority of
> >> >African-Americans are tody?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I didn't know that it was necessary to prove that given that I
> >> assumed your arguement was about african art (of which the bust I
> >> reference is representative) and not black people.
> >
> >You are entirely correct about this. This was my error. I meant, all
> >along to say "Sub-saharin Africa".
> >
>
> How does that make it not african?
It doesn't make it not African, it makes it Sub-Saharin. The people
above the Saharin are more light skinned than those below.
>
> > But to answer
> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
> >
> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
>
> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
individuals?
>
> >Were the ancient Egyptians
> >black, white or neither?
> >
> Don't know. You would have to put 'ancient' in a specific time period
> for me to answer that. It covers a lot of history just as ancient
> egypt did.
Then, just for the sake of arguement, let's say the Egyptians at the
time of the pyramids.
>
> >>
> >> > Is it an historical fact in the same
> >> >sense that it is an historical fact that Napoleon died in exile on St.
> >> >Helena? Is it possible that the people who created the Nefretiti were
> >> >olive skinned, or some other shade between black and white?
> >> >
> >>
> >> What difference does it make? If that 'olive skinned' person lived in
> >> africa then they would be african and the art would be a
> >> derivitive(sp) of the culture in which they lived.
> >
> >It makes a difference in a modern political sense. It seems that
> >African-Americans are forcibly grafting their racial identity on
> >ancient Egyptians.
> >
> I have read the arguments wrt that however we were discussing artistic
> sense, not political sense.
Art becomes politics when people try to manipulate art to further
their political aims.
>
> >> >> Define aspects of 'sophistication' that you would find relevant. I am
> >> >> not one to care HOW a particular piece was created as I am to care
> >> >> about the finished product. I can see the worth in both the sculpture
> >> >> of David and African Masks as I see them as having different purposes
> >> >> wrt art and what the purpose of the artist.
> >> >
> >> >Are we jumping to the epistomological level too soon?
> >>
> >> I'm not. But to dismiss the fact that art IS relative in order to
> >> make your arguments has it's problems.
> >
> >Isn't *everything* relative if we want to see it that way?
>
> Yes, but some things moreso than others. Concepts and/or ideas are
> more subjective to experience than facts like is water wet.
>
> > Isn't it
> >true that at some point we have accept what people are talking about
> >without constantly asking for definitions?
> >
> Depends on the discussion. In a philosophical discussion questions
> are a norm. Whether or not art is 'sophisticated' or 'superior' are
> clearly subjective terms. Sophistication is usually an extension of
> the needs of the culture refining a necessary technique. So IMO, it
> must be referenced within it's environment. For instance, wearing a
> suit and tie might imply sophistication in New York but does it make
> as much sense when the climate is usually in the upper 90's?
Are the ruins at Great Zimbabwe just as
sophisticated/complex/intricate/elaborate as Chartres? If you *still*
want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
the words.
> > We can both look at the same
> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
> >
> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
> >
> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
>
> >>If you know
> >> anything about art you should know that. A statue of a nude man will
> >> create different impressions on a man as opposed to a woman. Or a gay
> >> man as opposed to a hetrosexual man. The same wrt a statue of a
> >> woman. Are you denying this?
> >
> >No, I don't deny it. One can look at the ruins of Great Zimbabwe and
> >get more out of it than Chartres. That does not mean that it takes as
> >much skill to create Great Zimbabwe as it does to create Chartres,
> >unless you jump to the epistimological level and then ask what "skill"
> >means.
>
> If the people who create Chartres can also build Great Zimbabwe init's
> prime (which is in ruins so the comparison seems disingenous as how do
> you compare ruins to standing buildings) then I might agree. But I
> don't know that any more than I know that the people who created
> Ancient Zimbabwe could have created Chartres if they had the
> inclination.
You can tell a *lot* by a foundation of a building, and at Great
Zimbabwe there is more than a foundation. You can tell whether or not
there were flying buttresses for example. Looking at the ruins of
Great Zimbabwe, I don't recall seeing any windows, as such, for
example.
>
> >If I choose some other word, you can always ask what *that*
> >word means as well. Doesn't this get silly after a while. Isn't it
> >true that you really do know what I am saying without requiring
> >definitions?
> >
> Sure I do. But that doesn't change the fact that art is subjective by
> nature. Attempting to compare different styles of art, especially to
> diverse genres as sculpture and mask making is not a fair comparison.
> It's like comparing a car and a truck. While they are both gas
> powered vehicles they have different purposes and thus must be
> measured within their particular class.
>
> I think a better comparison would be European masks compared to
> African masks.
>
> http://www.masksoftheworld.com/
>
> Their doesn't appear to be any special sophistication wrt European
> masks compared to any other part of the world IMO. They seem to
> reflect the personal tastes of the creator regardless of the region it
> comes from. Technique seems to be to find something that will hold up
> to time and fit over the face in a decorative manner. Which of the
> samples provided in the above post are 'more sophisticated' in your
> judgement and why?
You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
architecture?
Chartres has flying buttresses, pointed arches, ribbed vaulting,
windows large enough to hold very intricate stained glass. Great
Zimbabwe has none of these things.
Is it reasonable to say that the sound of a puppy being tortured is
not as edifying as Beethoven's 9th symphony?
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
>Von Bailey <red...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message news:<7numc0da1e819rh2k...@4ax.com>...
>> On 12 Jun 2004 11:04:00 -0700, bradwel...@yahoo.com (Bradwell
>> Jackson) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I didn't see any other reference to them except in your post but I
>> >> >> also haven't read all the posts in this thread. A better sampling
>> >> >> would be like works. There are statuary, busts and other sculpting
>> >> >> works from Africa and comparing the two styles to prove some kind of
>> >> >> superior technique might be relevant. However I can look at the bust
>> >> >> of Nefertiti and see 'sophistication' in the creation just as detailed
>> >> >> and beautiful as the works done by european artists.
>> >> >
>> >> >Is it an historical fact that the Nefretiti was created by black
>> >> >people who were black in the same way that a majority of
>> >> >African-Americans are tody?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I didn't know that it was necessary to prove that given that I
>> >> assumed your arguement was about african art (of which the bust I
>> >> reference is representative) and not black people.
>> >
>> >You are entirely correct about this. This was my error. I meant, all
>> >along to say "Sub-saharin Africa".
>> >
>>
>> How does that make it not african?
>
>It doesn't make it not African, it makes it Sub-Saharin. The people
>above the Saharin are more light skinned than those below.
>
Skin color is not relevant IMO wrt skillsets. I have seen great works
of art done by many different people regardless of their skin color.
Is your argument that skin color is or may be relevant wrt artistic
skill?
>> > But to answer
>> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
>> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
>> >
>> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
>> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
>>
>> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
>> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
>> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
>> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
>> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
>> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
>> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
>
>Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
>individuals?
>
No. Art is an individual effort. ALL europeans didn't create the
statue of David.
>> >Were the ancient Egyptians
>> >black, white or neither?
>> >
>> Don't know. You would have to put 'ancient' in a specific time period
>> for me to answer that. It covers a lot of history just as ancient
>> egypt did.
>
>Then, just for the sake of arguement, let's say the Egyptians at the
>time of the pyramids.
>
I have no idea. You have something that demonstrates that they were a
particular color? I believe that hieroglyphics of the time have
people of many different colors so I don't know how you would be able
to tell one way or another.
>> >>
>> >> > Is it an historical fact in the same
>> >> >sense that it is an historical fact that Napoleon died in exile on St.
>> >> >Helena? Is it possible that the people who created the Nefretiti were
>> >> >olive skinned, or some other shade between black and white?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> What difference does it make? If that 'olive skinned' person lived in
>> >> africa then they would be african and the art would be a
>> >> derivitive(sp) of the culture in which they lived.
>> >
>> >It makes a difference in a modern political sense. It seems that
>> >African-Americans are forcibly grafting their racial identity on
>> >ancient Egyptians.
>> >
>> I have read the arguments wrt that however we were discussing artistic
>> sense, not political sense.
>
>Art becomes politics when people try to manipulate art to further
>their political aims.
>
But I was not aware that this dialog had gone there. Is that what
your point is in bringing up the subject in that context?
>>
>> > Isn't it
>> >true that at some point we have accept what people are talking about
>> >without constantly asking for definitions?
>> >
>> Depends on the discussion. In a philosophical discussion questions
>> are a norm. Whether or not art is 'sophisticated' or 'superior' are
>> clearly subjective terms. Sophistication is usually an extension of
>> the needs of the culture refining a necessary technique. So IMO, it
>> must be referenced within it's environment. For instance, wearing a
>> suit and tie might imply sophistication in New York but does it make
>> as much sense when the climate is usually in the upper 90's?
>
>Are the ruins at Great Zimbabwe just as
>sophisticated/complex/intricate/elaborate as Chartres?
The *ruins* at Great Zimbabwe are ruins. I don't see how you can
fairly compare ruins to a standing structure.
>If you *still*
>want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
>together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
>explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
>the words.
>
I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
>> > We can both look at the same
>> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
>> >
>> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
>> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
>> >
>> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
>> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
>> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
>> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
>> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
>
>You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
>What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
>
Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
of the individual.
>>
>> >>If you know
>> >> anything about art you should know that. A statue of a nude man will
>> >> create different impressions on a man as opposed to a woman. Or a gay
>> >> man as opposed to a hetrosexual man. The same wrt a statue of a
>> >> woman. Are you denying this?
>> >
>> >No, I don't deny it. One can look at the ruins of Great Zimbabwe and
>> >get more out of it than Chartres. That does not mean that it takes as
>> >much skill to create Great Zimbabwe as it does to create Chartres,
>> >unless you jump to the epistimological level and then ask what "skill"
>> >means.
>>
>> If the people who create Chartres can also build Great Zimbabwe init's
>> prime (which is in ruins so the comparison seems disingenous as how do
>> you compare ruins to standing buildings) then I might agree. But I
>> don't know that any more than I know that the people who created
>> Ancient Zimbabwe could have created Chartres if they had the
>> inclination.
>
>You can tell a *lot* by a foundation of a building, and at Great
>Zimbabwe there is more than a foundation. You can tell whether or not
>there were flying buttresses for example. Looking at the ruins of
>Great Zimbabwe, I don't recall seeing any windows, as such, for
>example.
>>
But what you cannot tell is if there was a reason for 'flying
buttresses' or stain glass windows from the ruins. What reason would
they have had for including those aspects (usually reserved for a
church) in whatever the structures at GZ were used for? Again we get
back to context.
>> >If I choose some other word, you can always ask what *that*
>> >word means as well. Doesn't this get silly after a while. Isn't it
>> >true that you really do know what I am saying without requiring
>> >definitions?
>> >
>> Sure I do. But that doesn't change the fact that art is subjective by
>> nature. Attempting to compare different styles of art, especially to
>> diverse genres as sculpture and mask making is not a fair comparison.
>> It's like comparing a car and a truck. While they are both gas
>> powered vehicles they have different purposes and thus must be
>> measured within their particular class.
>>
>> I think a better comparison would be European masks compared to
>> African masks.
>>
>> http://www.masksoftheworld.com/
>>
>> Their doesn't appear to be any special sophistication wrt European
>> masks compared to any other part of the world IMO. They seem to
>> reflect the personal tastes of the creator regardless of the region it
>> comes from. Technique seems to be to find something that will hold up
>> to time and fit over the face in a decorative manner. Which of the
>> samples provided in the above post are 'more sophisticated' in your
>> judgement and why?
>
>You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
>architecture?
>
That's an entirely different discussion and I only have superficial
knowledge (high school architectural drafting classes) to judge from.
I see that the dialog has changed from art to architechture and I have
no intention of attempting to compare tech in either as I don't know
enough about either to give an informed opinion. However, I can't see
how someone who was able to build the structures at the GZ site
wouldn't be able to be taught the skills to build a Chartres. It is
not the result of a single individual but the work of many different
people of varying skills working together.
I don't know as I have never heard puppies being tortured. However,
as I said above, I would probably be biased as I can't see a relevant
use of tortured puppies in an artistic way.
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
isolated instances are not indicative of the general skill-set of individual
races
> Is your argument that skin color is or may be relevant wrt artistic
> skill?
is your position that it is not ?
>
> >> > But to answer
> >> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
> >> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
> >> >
> >> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
> >> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
> >>
> >> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
> >> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
> >> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
> >> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
> >> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
> >> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
> >> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
> >
> >Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
> >individuals?
> >
> No. Art is an individual effort. ALL europeans didn't create the
> statue of David.
well, one thing is certain...the 'David', the 'Mona Lisa', the 'Pieta', and
the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were not done by blacks
>
> >> >Were the ancient Egyptians
> >> >black, white or neither?
> >> >
> >> Don't know. You would have to put 'ancient' in a specific time period
> >> for me to answer that. It covers a lot of history just as ancient
> >> egypt did.
> >
> >Then, just for the sake of arguement, let's say the Egyptians at the
> >time of the pyramids.
> >
> I have no idea. You have something that demonstrates that they were a
> particular color? I believe that hieroglyphics of the time have
> people of many different colors so I don't know how you would be able
> to tell one way or another.
so you're admitting that there is no proof that 'the Pharohs were black' ??
Well, if the builders of 'Great' Zimbabwe had understood the concept of
interlocking corners, flying butresses, and the stone arch, perhaps they
wouldn't be 'ruins', now would they ????
>
> >If you *still*
> >want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
> >together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
> >explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
> >the words.
> >
>
> I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
> 'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
> create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
> artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
you're correct
Maya Angelou's 'poetry' makes me ill
>
> >> > We can both look at the same
> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
> >> >
> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
> >
> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
>
> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
obviously not
all of Africa produced damned little of it..........
the 'reason' is that the minds that created 'Great Zimbabwe' were not
capable of envisioning the flying butress
>
> >> >If I choose some other word, you can always ask what *that*
> >> >word means as well. Doesn't this get silly after a while. Isn't it
> >> >true that you really do know what I am saying without requiring
> >> >definitions?
> >> >
> >> Sure I do. But that doesn't change the fact that art is subjective by
> >> nature. Attempting to compare different styles of art, especially to
> >> diverse genres as sculpture and mask making is not a fair comparison.
> >> It's like comparing a car and a truck. While they are both gas
> >> powered vehicles they have different purposes and thus must be
> >> measured within their particular class.
> >>
> >> I think a better comparison would be European masks compared to
> >> African masks.
> >>
> >> http://www.masksoftheworld.com/
> >>
> >> Their doesn't appear to be any special sophistication wrt European
> >> masks compared to any other part of the world IMO. They seem to
> >> reflect the personal tastes of the creator regardless of the region it
> >> comes from. Technique seems to be to find something that will hold up
> >> to time and fit over the face in a decorative manner. Which of the
> >> samples provided in the above post are 'more sophisticated' in your
> >> judgement and why?
> >
> >You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
> >architecture?
> >
> That's an entirely different discussion and I only have superficial
> knowledge (high school architectural drafting classes) to judge from.
but...........you just opined that the builders of 'Great Zimbabwe' had no
need for sophisticated structural elements
if the builders of 'Great Zimbabwe' were on a par with the builders of
Chartres, 'Great Zimbabwe' would still be standing
it appears that the 'individuals working together' to build 'Great Zimbabwe'
were amateurs compated to the builders of Chartres
come back, 'von', whenever you need another ass-whooping
Von Bailey
I'd rather not deal with your delusions.
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
> >
> >>
> >> >> > But to answer
> >> >> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
> >> >> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african
sense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
> >> >> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
> >> >> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
> >> >> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I
am
> >> >> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
> >> >> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
> >> >> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
> >> >> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
> >> >
> >> >Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
> >> >individuals?
> >> >
> >> No. Art is an individual effort. ALL europeans didn't create the
> >> statue of David.
> >
> >well, one thing is certain...the 'David', the 'Mona Lisa', the 'Pieta',
and
> >the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were not done by blacks
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
> >
> >>
> >> >> >Were the ancient Egyptians
> >> >> >black, white or neither?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Don't know. You would have to put 'ancient' in a specific time
period
> >> >> for me to answer that. It covers a lot of history just as ancient
> >> >> egypt did.
> >> >
> >> >Then, just for the sake of arguement, let's say the Egyptians at the
> >> >time of the pyramids.
> >> >
> >> I have no idea. You have something that demonstrates that they were a
> >> particular color? I believe that hieroglyphics of the time have
> >> people of many different colors so I don't know how you would be able
> >> to tell one way or another.
> >
> >so you're admitting that there is no proof that 'the Pharohs were black'
??
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
> >
> >>
> >> >If you *still*
> >> >want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
> >> >together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
> >> >explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
> >> >the words.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
> >> 'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
> >> create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
> >> artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
> >
> >you're correct
> >
> >Maya Angelou's 'poetry' makes me ill
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
> >
> >>
> >> >> > We can both look at the same
> >> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
> >> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define
"skill"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
> >> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
> >> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
> >> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a
European
> >> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of
others.
> >> >
> >> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
> >>
> >> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
> >
> >obviously not
> >
> >all of Africa produced damned little of it..........
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
still dodging the tough ones, eh ?
you mean 'I'd rather not answer the tough ones', don't you BOY ?
Von Bailey
> > >
> > >come back, 'von', whenever you need another ass-whooping
> > >
> >
> > I'd rather not deal with your delusions.
>
>
> you mean 'I'd rather not answer the tough ones', don't you BOY ?
What's the difference between a 'tough delusion' and a delusion?
von
Bradwell Jackson
> >> >You are entirely correct about this. This was my error. I meant, all
> >> >along to say "Sub-saharin Africa".
> >> >
> >>
> >> How does that make it not african?
> >
> >It doesn't make it not African, it makes it Sub-Saharin. The people
> >above the Saharin are more light skinned than those below.
> >
> Skin color is not relevant IMO wrt skillsets. I have seen great works
> of art done by many different people regardless of their skin color.
> Is your argument that skin color is or may be relevant wrt artistic
> skill?
No, not skin color, but there are many black people in the USA who are
trying to say that there artistic contributions throughout history
have been just as outstanding as those of the Europeans. Instead of
requiring a definition for "outstanding", can you tell me if you agree
with this?
>
> >> > But to answer
> >> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
> >> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
> >> >
> >> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
> >> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
> >>
> >> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
> >> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
> >> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
> >> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
> >> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
> >> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
> >> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
> >
> >Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
> >individuals?
> >
> No. Art is an individual effort. ALL europeans didn't create the
> statue of David.
Is the creation of David a product of Michealangelo's environment?
Does art exist in a vacuum?
>
> >> >Were the ancient Egyptians
> >> >black, white or neither?
> >> >
> >> Don't know. You would have to put 'ancient' in a specific time period
> >> for me to answer that. It covers a lot of history just as ancient
> >> egypt did.
> >
> >Then, just for the sake of arguement, let's say the Egyptians at the
> >time of the pyramids.
> >
> I have no idea. You have something that demonstrates that they were a
> particular color? I believe that hieroglyphics of the time have
> people of many different colors so I don't know how you would be able
> to tell one way or another.
Do you agree with black people in the United States who say that their
contributions to history are just as important as those of Europeans
because the ancient Egyptians were black?
>
> >> >
> >> >It makes a difference in a modern political sense. It seems that
> >> >African-Americans are forcibly grafting their racial identity on
> >> >ancient Egyptians.
> >> >
> >> I have read the arguments wrt that however we were discussing artistic
> >> sense, not political sense.
> >
> >Art becomes politics when people try to manipulate art to further
> >their political aims.
> >
> But I was not aware that this dialog had gone there. Is that what
> your point is in bringing up the subject in that context?
Yes. I am making the point that black people in the USA are trying to
prove that their contributions to society, including artistic
contributions, are just as
outstanding/complex/intricate/sophisticated/elaborate/technically
skillfull as those of Europeans. Do you agree with this?
>
> >>
>> >
> >Are the ruins at Great Zimbabwe just as
> >sophisticated/complex/intricate/elaborate as Chartres?
>
> The *ruins* at Great Zimbabwe are ruins. I don't see how you can
> fairly compare ruins to a standing structure.
You can tell a *lot* about architecture from the foundations.
>
> >If you *still*
> >want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
> >together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
> >explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
> >the words.
> >
>
> I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
> 'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
> create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
> artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
Does a society influence the individual?
>
> >> > We can both look at the same
> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
> >> >
> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
> >
> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
>
> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
Could *any* Sub-Saharin African have created the David without the
European context? If you took *any* Sub-Saharin African from the
1500's, planted him, for the first time, in Europe, in front of the
David, gave him the appropriate tools and the marble, asked him to
duplicate it, and then left him alone, would he have been able to
creat it?
>
> >What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
> >
> Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
> individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
> Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
> of the individual.
Does art exist in a vacuum?
>
> >> >
> >> >No, I don't deny it. One can look at the ruins of Great Zimbabwe and
> >> >get more out of it than Chartres. That does not mean that it takes as
> >> >much skill to create Great Zimbabwe as it does to create Chartres,
> >> >unless you jump to the epistimological level and then ask what "skill"
> >> >means.
> >>
> >> If the people who create Chartres can also build Great Zimbabwe init's
> >> prime (which is in ruins so the comparison seems disingenous as how do
> >> you compare ruins to standing buildings) then I might agree. But I
> >> don't know that any more than I know that the people who created
> >> Ancient Zimbabwe could have created Chartres if they had the
> >> inclination.
> >
> >You can tell a *lot* by a foundation of a building, and at Great
> >Zimbabwe there is more than a foundation. You can tell whether or not
> >there were flying buttresses for example. Looking at the ruins of
> >Great Zimbabwe, I don't recall seeing any windows, as such, for
> >example.
> >>
> But what you cannot tell is if there was a reason for 'flying
> buttresses' or stain glass windows from the ruins. What reason would
> they have had for including those aspects (usually reserved for a
> church) in whatever the structures at GZ were used for? Again we get
> back to context.
Being able to open up the window space represents an advanced form of
architecture, no matter what the reason for doing so is.
>
> >> >If I choose some other word, you can always ask what *that*
> >> >word means as well. Doesn't this get silly after a while. Isn't it
> >> >true that you really do know what I am saying without requiring
> >> >definitions?
> >> >
> >> Sure I do. But that doesn't change the fact that art is subjective by
> >> nature. Attempting to compare different styles of art, especially to
> >> diverse genres as sculpture and mask making is not a fair comparison.
> >> It's like comparing a car and a truck. While they are both gas
> >> powered vehicles they have different purposes and thus must be
> >> measured within their particular class.
> >>
> >> I think a better comparison would be European masks compared to
> >> African masks.
> >>
> >> http://www.masksoftheworld.com/
> >>
> >> Their doesn't appear to be any special sophistication wrt European
> >> masks compared to any other part of the world IMO. They seem to
> >> reflect the personal tastes of the creator regardless of the region it
> >> comes from. Technique seems to be to find something that will hold up
> >> to time and fit over the face in a decorative manner. Which of the
> >> samples provided in the above post are 'more sophisticated' in your
> >> judgement and why?
> >
> >You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
> >architecture?
> >
> That's an entirely different discussion and I only have superficial
> knowledge (high school architectural drafting classes) to judge from.
I appreciate you going through the trouble to find the masks for
comparison, and you are making a good point, but isn't architecture a
far more complex form of art than masks? I'm not the one who brought
up the example of masks.
Isn't architechture and art form? Isn't it the *highest* form of art?
You have already made your point about masks but isn't architecture
far more complex? In your last sentence in the above statement, are
you saying that it is a whole society that has a lot to do with the
level of artistic achievement that an individual can make? If this is
true, does it make sense to look at the big picture rather than just
the individual?
>
> >>
> >> >>
>> >> >>
> >> Since I have never listened to any of their music it would not be fair
> >> of me to judge them. If they do torture animals to reach some
> >> artistic necessity I would have to hear it in the context of the music
> >> to make any judgement and I hasten to add that I am hard pressed to
> >> see how it could be used constructively.
> >>
> >> But as I said above, art is relative and they obviously have/had an
> >> audience who did find merit in the work so I can't say it's not art.
> >
> >Is it reasonable to say that the sound of a puppy being tortured is
> >not as edifying as Beethoven's 9th symphony?
> >
> I don't know as I have never heard puppies being tortured. However,
> as I said above, I would probably be biased as I can't see a relevant
> use of tortured puppies in an artistic way.
You're just avoiding the question. Is everything relative to the
point that no one can say that *anything* is more edifying than
*anything* else? Can you come up with even *one* example where one
thing might be more edifying than another?
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.04061...@posting.google.com...
your humiliation and surrender is accepted, BOY
Von Bailey
One of those delusions I was referencing before.
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
just more proof of your unwillingness to answer the question of WHY the
builders of 'Great Zimbabwe' never developed interlocking corners in stone
walls, flying buttresses, or the stone arch
it's the pits trying to make excuses for a failed race when all you have in
your aresenal is words like 'liar' and 'delusion', isn't it, BOY ?
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >You are entirely correct about this. This was my error. I meant, all
>> >> >along to say "Sub-saharin Africa".
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> How does that make it not african?
>> >
>> >It doesn't make it not African, it makes it Sub-Saharin. The people
>> >above the Saharin are more light skinned than those below.
>> >
>> Skin color is not relevant IMO wrt skillsets. I have seen great works
>> of art done by many different people regardless of their skin color.
>> Is your argument that skin color is or may be relevant wrt artistic
>> skill?
>
>No, not skin color, but there are many black people in the USA who are
>trying to say that there artistic contributions throughout history
>have been just as outstanding as those of the Europeans. Instead of
>requiring a definition for "outstanding", can you tell me if you agree
>with this?
>
I don't see anything that is not subjective countering the statement.
>>
>> >> > But to answer
>> >> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
>> >> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
>> >> >
>> >> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
>> >> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
>> >>
>> >> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
>> >> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
>> >> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
>> >> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
>> >> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
>> >> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
>> >> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
>> >
>> >Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
>> >individuals?
>> >
>> No. Art is an individual effort. ALL europeans didn't create the
>> statue of David.
>
>Is the creation of David a product of Michealangelo's environment?
No.
>Does art exist in a vacuum?
>
No. But an individual piece is also not the product of a society.
While a social environment may 'inspire' a particular piece of work
it's a far difference between 'inspiration' and 'creation'.
>> >> >Were the ancient Egyptians
>> >> >black, white or neither?
>> >> >
>> >> Don't know. You would have to put 'ancient' in a specific time period
>> >> for me to answer that. It covers a lot of history just as ancient
>> >> egypt did.
>> >
>> >Then, just for the sake of arguement, let's say the Egyptians at the
>> >time of the pyramids.
>> >
>> I have no idea. You have something that demonstrates that they were a
>> particular color? I believe that hieroglyphics of the time have
>> people of many different colors so I don't know how you would be able
>> to tell one way or another.
>
>Do you agree with black people in the United States who say that their
>contributions to history are just as important as those of Europeans
>because the ancient Egyptians were black?
>
No. I don't see a direct connection between black people in the
United States and Egyptians nor am I sure that all ancient egyptians
were black. It is entirely reasonable to assume some were but how
that fact relates to African Americans is not clear.
>> >> >
>> >> >It makes a difference in a modern political sense. It seems that
>> >> >African-Americans are forcibly grafting their racial identity on
>> >> >ancient Egyptians.
>> >> >
>> >> I have read the arguments wrt that however we were discussing artistic
>> >> sense, not political sense.
>> >
>> >Art becomes politics when people try to manipulate art to further
>> >their political aims.
>> >
>> But I was not aware that this dialog had gone there. Is that what
>> your point is in bringing up the subject in that context?
>
>Yes. I am making the point that black people in the USA are trying to
>prove that their contributions to society, including artistic
>contributions, are just as
>outstanding/complex/intricate/sophisticated/elaborate/technically
>skillfull as those of Europeans. Do you agree with this?
>>
Sure. Why not? If the demographics are correct, many black people in
the US have european blood in them. Given that, their ancestors are
just as responsible for great european objects de art as any white
person.
>> >>
>>> >
>> >Are the ruins at Great Zimbabwe just as
>> >sophisticated/complex/intricate/elaborate as Chartres?
>>
>> The *ruins* at Great Zimbabwe are ruins. I don't see how you can
>> fairly compare ruins to a standing structure.
>
>You can tell a *lot* about architecture from the foundations.
>
Not as much as you can wrt a fully constructed building.
>> >If you *still*
>> >want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
>> >together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
>> >explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
>> >the words.
>> >
>>
>> I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
>> 'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
>> create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
>> artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
>
>Does a society influence the individual?
>
Sure. That doesn't make them responsible for the output of the
individual though. The individual is responsible for that.
>> >> > We can both look at the same
>> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
>> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
>> >> >
>> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
>> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
>> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
>> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
>> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
>> >
>> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
>>
>> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
>
>Could *any* Sub-Saharin African have created the David without the
>European context?
Would they have had a reason too?
>If you took *any* Sub-Saharin African from the
>1500's, planted him, for the first time, in Europe, in front of the
>David, gave him the appropriate tools and the marble, asked him to
>duplicate it, and then left him alone, would he have been able to
>creat it?
>
Could you?
>>
>> >What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
>> >
>> Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
>> individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
>> Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
>> of the individual.
>
>Does art exist in a vacuum?
>
No. But it is created by an individual.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >No, I don't deny it. One can look at the ruins of Great Zimbabwe and
>> >> >get more out of it than Chartres. That does not mean that it takes as
>> >> >much skill to create Great Zimbabwe as it does to create Chartres,
>> >> >unless you jump to the epistimological level and then ask what "skill"
>> >> >means.
>> >>
>> >> If the people who create Chartres can also build Great Zimbabwe init's
>> >> prime (which is in ruins so the comparison seems disingenous as how do
>> >> you compare ruins to standing buildings) then I might agree. But I
>> >> don't know that any more than I know that the people who created
>> >> Ancient Zimbabwe could have created Chartres if they had the
>> >> inclination.
>> >
>> >You can tell a *lot* by a foundation of a building, and at Great
>> >Zimbabwe there is more than a foundation. You can tell whether or not
>> >there were flying buttresses for example. Looking at the ruins of
>> >Great Zimbabwe, I don't recall seeing any windows, as such, for
>> >example.
>> >>
>> But what you cannot tell is if there was a reason for 'flying
>> buttresses' or stain glass windows from the ruins. What reason would
>> they have had for including those aspects (usually reserved for a
>> church) in whatever the structures at GZ were used for? Again we get
>> back to context.
>
>Being able to open up the window space represents an advanced form of
>architecture, no matter what the reason for doing so is.
>
And if you put windows in a fortress wall it would be a weak spot.
Now I don't know that GZ was a fortress, AFAIK no one knows what it's
purpose was (but I think 18 foot walls and a tower suggests fortress)
but if it was windows would have been out of charactor for the
building. Until you know more about the purpose of the building
judging it's architectual value is a guessing game without an end.
Architechture CAN be art. It doesn't have to be and not all buildings
are built from an artistic POV. Does a warehouse have artistic value?
It COULD be. It's not necessarily so.
> Isn't it the *highest* form of art?
No.
> You have already made your point about masks but isn't architecture
>far more complex?
Complex doesn't mean artistic.
>In your last sentence in the above statement, are
>you saying that it is a whole society that has a lot to do with the
>level of artistic achievement that an individual can make?
My comments were not referencing artistic accomplishments but
industrial accomplishments.
>If this is
>true, does it make sense to look at the big picture rather than just
>the individual?
>
Depends on what you are measuring.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>> >> Since I have never listened to any of their music it would not be fair
>> >> of me to judge them. If they do torture animals to reach some
>> >> artistic necessity I would have to hear it in the context of the music
>> >> to make any judgement and I hasten to add that I am hard pressed to
>> >> see how it could be used constructively.
>> >>
>> >> But as I said above, art is relative and they obviously have/had an
>> >> audience who did find merit in the work so I can't say it's not art.
>> >
>> >Is it reasonable to say that the sound of a puppy being tortured is
>> >not as edifying as Beethoven's 9th symphony?
>> >
>> I don't know as I have never heard puppies being tortured. However,
>> as I said above, I would probably be biased as I can't see a relevant
>> use of tortured puppies in an artistic way.
>
>You're just avoiding the question.
No. I am giving you an honest answer. I cannot imagine a scenario
where torturing puppies is relative to Classical Music. I cannot
imagine a scenario where torturing anything has artistic merit. Given
that I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no. Art is
more complex than that to me.
>Is everything relative to the
>point that no one can say that *anything* is more edifying than
>*anything* else? Can you come up with even *one* example where one
>thing might be more edifying than another?
>
I would say a conversation is more edifying that a loaf of bread to
the people having the conversation. However a baker may feel
different.
Von Bailey
<jasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Von Bailey" <red...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
>news:8ff4d0t6pfsv8tclu...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:37:00 GMT, "Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD"
>> <jasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>> >news:c1c1301f.04061...@posting.google.com...
>> >> "Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD" <jasp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<bh6Ac.65552$Sw.54692@attbi_s51>...
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >come back, 'von', whenever you need another ass-whooping
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I'd rather not deal with your delusions.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > you mean 'I'd rather not answer the tough ones', don't you BOY ?
>> >>
>> >> What's the difference between a 'tough delusion' and a delusion?
>> >>
>> >
>> >your humiliation and surrender is accepted, BOY
>> >
>> >
>> One of those delusions I was referencing before.
>
>just more proof of your unwillingness to answer the question of WHY the
>builders of 'Great Zimbabwe' never developed interlocking corners in stone
>walls, flying buttresses, or the stone arch
>
Can you prove they never developed them? Can you prove that they even
needed them?
>it's the pits trying to make excuses for a failed race when all you have in
>your aresenal is words like 'liar' and 'delusion', isn't it, BOY ?
>
Not when they are the only words needed to define your argument.
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:02:13 GMT, "Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD"
> <jasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Von Bailey" <red...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> >news:8ff4d0t6pfsv8tclu...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:37:00 GMT, "Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD"
> >> <jasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:c1c1301f.04061...@posting.google.com...
> >> >> "Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD" <jasp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:<bh6Ac.65552$Sw.54692@attbi_s51>...
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >come back, 'von', whenever you need another ass-whooping
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I'd rather not deal with your delusions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > you mean 'I'd rather not answer the tough ones', don't you BOY ?
> >> >>
> >> >> What's the difference between a 'tough delusion' and a delusion?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >your humiliation and surrender is accepted, BOY
> >> >
> >> >
> >> One of those delusions I was referencing before.
> >
> >just more proof of your unwillingness to answer the question of WHY the
> >builders of 'Great Zimbabwe' never developed interlocking corners in
stone
> >walls, flying buttresses, or the stone arch
> >
> Can you prove they never developed them?
can you show any evidence of them ?
>Can you prove that they even
> needed them?
sure can
if they'd used those devices, the structures would still be structures, not
ruins
>
> >it's the pits trying to make excuses for a failed race when all you have
in
> >your aresenal is words like 'liar' and 'delusion', isn't it, BOY ?
> >
> Not when they are the only words needed to define your argument.
if you can't refute the contention that the structures at 'Great Zimbabwe'
were inferior to European structures, just say so
your constant use of the 'liar' and 'delusion' lines is getting tiresome
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
So if Michaelangelo had lived in the middle of the Congo, he could have
produced it ?
are you really this stupid, von ?
what would he have used for raw materials and tools ?
stop waffling and answer the question
a 'fortress' where the walls do not interlock at corners ????
yeah.
right
sure
no, but the walls are tied together at the corners
Von Bailey
<jasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >come back, 'von', whenever you need another ass-whooping
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I'd rather not deal with your delusions.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > you mean 'I'd rather not answer the tough ones', don't you BOY ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's the difference between a 'tough delusion' and a delusion?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >your humiliation and surrender is accepted, BOY
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> One of those delusions I was referencing before.
>> >
>> >just more proof of your unwillingness to answer the question of WHY the
>> >builders of 'Great Zimbabwe' never developed interlocking corners in
>stone
>> >walls, flying buttresses, or the stone arch
>> >
>> Can you prove they never developed them?
>
>can you show any evidence of them ?
>
I don't have to. You are the one saying that they never existed in
that part of the world. Why should I have to prove different when I
never claimed they did?
>>Can you prove that they even
>> needed them?
>
>sure can
>
>if they'd used those devices, the structures would still be structures, not
>ruins
>
Well I didn't expect better than a stupid response from you and I
wasn't disappointed.
>>
>> >it's the pits trying to make excuses for a failed race when all you have
>in
>> >your aresenal is words like 'liar' and 'delusion', isn't it, BOY ?
>> >
>> Not when they are the only words needed to define your argument.
>
>if you can't refute the contention that the structures at 'Great Zimbabwe'
>were inferior to European structures, just say so
>
>your constant use of the 'liar' and 'delusion' lines is getting tiresome
>
Then go away. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts.
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD
no, I enjoy watching you jump through the hoop I hold up
You can't refute even a simple statement that the builders of 'Great
Zimbabwe' failed to use arches or interlocking corners, but keep replying
every time I yank your chain, usually with your 'liar' line
once more, BOY:
Why didn't the stone-stackers who built 'Great Zimbabwe' ever develop the
concept of interlocking the corners or using the arch ???
>
> von
> In an intelligent dialog different does
> not mean opposite.
an intelligent dialog means discussing the points raised, not automatically
calling them lies or delusions
Von Bailey
> > >>
> > >> >it's the pits trying to make excuses for a failed race when all you
> have
> in
> > >> >your aresenal is words like 'liar' and 'delusion', isn't it, BOY ?
> > >> >
> > >> Not when they are the only words needed to define your argument.
> > >
> > >if you can't refute the contention that the structures at 'Great
> Zimbabwe'
> > >were inferior to European structures, just say so
> > >
> > >your constant use of the 'liar' and 'delusion' lines is getting tiresome
> > >
> > Then go away. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts.
>
> no, I enjoy watching you jump through the hoop I hold up
>
> You can't refute even a simple statement that the builders of 'Great
> Zimbabwe' failed to use arches or interlocking corners, but keep replying
> every time I yank your chain, usually with your 'liar' line
>
Well, as I said. You do suffer from delusions.
> once more, BOY:
>
Do you stick your chest out when you say that?
> Why didn't the stone-stackers who built 'Great Zimbabwe' ever develop the
> concept of interlocking the corners or using the arch ???
>
Prove that what you say is true?
>
> >
> > von
> > In an intelligent dialog different does
> > not mean opposite.
>
> an intelligent dialog means discussing the points raised, not automatically
> calling them lies or delusions
So what?
von
Bradwell Jackson
> >> >above the Saharin are more light skinned than those below.
> >> >
> >> Skin color is not relevant IMO wrt skillsets. I have seen great works
> >> of art done by many different people regardless of their skin color.
> >> Is your argument that skin color is or may be relevant wrt artistic
> >> skill?
> >
> >No, not skin color, but there are many black people in the USA who are
> >trying to say that there artistic contributions throughout history
> >have been just as outstanding as those of the Europeans. Instead of
> >requiring a definition for "outstanding", can you tell me if you agree
> >with this?
> >
> I don't see anything that is not subjective countering the statement.
Is there anything that is not subjective?
>
> >>
> >> >> > But to answer
> >> >> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
> >> >> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
> >> >> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
> >> >> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
> >> >> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
> >> >> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
> >> >> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
> >> >> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
> >> >> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
> >> >
> >> >Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
> >> >individuals?
> >> >
> >> No. Art is an individual effort. ALL europeans didn't create the
> >> statue of David.
> >
> >Is the creation of David a product of Michealangelo's environment?
>
> No.
How is the creation of the David not a product of Michaelangelo's
environment?
>
> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
> >
> No. But an individual piece is also not the product of a society.
> While a social environment may 'inspire' a particular piece of work
> it's a far difference between 'inspiration' and 'creation'.
If Michaelangelo spent his entire life on a deserted island, would he
have created the David?
Well then, let's look at Africa, since African Americans often make
this point. Are the artistic contributions of Sub-Saharin Africa as
outstanding/complex/intricate/sophisticated/elaborate/technically
skillfull as those of Europeans?
>
> >> >>
> >>> >
> >> >Are the ruins at Great Zimbabwe just as
> >> >sophisticated/complex/intricate/elaborate as Chartres?
> >>
> >> The *ruins* at Great Zimbabwe are ruins. I don't see how you can
> >> fairly compare ruins to a standing structure.
> >
> >You can tell a *lot* about architecture from the foundations.
> >
> Not as much as you can wrt a fully constructed building.
One is able to tell, for example, that the width to heigth ratio is
much greater than that of Chartres. How wide the foundation of a
building needs to be in order to support the upper part is an
indicator of architechtural progress.
>
> >> >If you *still*
> >> >want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
> >> >together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
> >> >explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
> >> >the words.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
> >> 'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
> >> create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
> >> artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
> >
> >Does a society influence the individual?
> >
> Sure. That doesn't make them responsible for the output of the
> individual though. The individual is responsible for that.
If you took the creators of Great Zimbabwe and transported them to
Europe, would they have to learn a more advanced skill in order to
create Chartres?
>
> >> >> > We can both look at the same
> >> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
> >> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
> >> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
> >> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
> >> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
> >> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
> >> >
> >> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
> >>
> >> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
> >
> >Could *any* Sub-Saharin African have created the David without the
> >European context?
>
> Would they have had a reason too?
The point that I am making is that without the European context, a
Sub-Saharin African would not have been able to create the David.
Aren't you avoiding my question?
>
> >If you took *any* Sub-Saharin African from the
> >1500's, planted him, for the first time, in Europe, in front of the
> >David, gave him the appropriate tools and the marble, asked him to
> >duplicate it, and then left him alone, would he have been able to
> >creat it?
> >
> Could you?
Are you avoiding my question?
>
> >>
> >> >What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
> >> >
> >> Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
> >> individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
> >> Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
> >> of the individual.
> >
> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
> >
> No. But it is created by an individual.
Could Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in
the 600's?
>
> >> >You can tell a *lot* by a foundation of a building, and at Great
> >> >Zimbabwe there is more than a foundation. You can tell whether or not
> >> >there were flying buttresses for example. Looking at the ruins of
> >> >Great Zimbabwe, I don't recall seeing any windows, as such, for
> >> >example.
> >> >>
> >> But what you cannot tell is if there was a reason for 'flying
> >> buttresses' or stain glass windows from the ruins. What reason would
> >> they have had for including those aspects (usually reserved for a
> >> church) in whatever the structures at GZ were used for? Again we get
> >> back to context.
> >
> >Being able to open up the window space represents an advanced form of
> >architecture, no matter what the reason for doing so is.
> >
> And if you put windows in a fortress wall it would be a weak spot.
> Now I don't know that GZ was a fortress, AFAIK no one knows what it's
> purpose was (but I think 18 foot walls and a tower suggests fortress)
> but if it was windows would have been out of charactor for the
> building. Until you know more about the purpose of the building
> judging it's architectual value is a guessing game without an end.
The fact is that the Sub-Saharin Africans *didn't* create a building
as technically skillfull as Chartres. It seems that what you're doing
now is admitting that GZ is not as technically skillfull, and then
explaining the reasons *why* it isn't.
>
> >> >You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
> >> >architecture?
> >> >
> >> That's an entirely different discussion and I only have superficial
> >> knowledge (high school architectural drafting classes) to judge from.
> >
> >I appreciate you going through the trouble to find the masks for
> >comparison, and you are making a good point, but isn't architecture a
> >far more complex form of art than masks? I'm not the one who brought
> >up the example of masks.
> >
> Architechture CAN be art. It doesn't have to be and not all buildings
> are built from an artistic POV. Does a warehouse have artistic value?
Whether or not archtitecture is art does not take away from the point
that I am making, which is that GZ is not as technically skillfull as
Chartres, regardless of whether GZ is intended to be art.
>
> >> >> >I appreciate your personal example, but you are not talking about
> >> >> >sophistication, skill, or whatever word best describes it. It takes
> >> >> >more skill to create Chartres than it does to creat Great Zimbabwe.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Can you prove that the people of Ancient Zimbabwe could not have
> >> >> created the Chartres if they had the inclination? Can you prove the
> >> >> people Chartres could have done Ancient Zimbabwe? If not how do you
> >> >> know the skill level of one is greater than the other? If you can I
> >> >> would be interested in any evidence to back that up.
> >> >
> >> >Chartres has flying buttresses, pointed arches, ribbed vaulting,
> >> >windows large enough to hold very intricate stained glass. Great
> >> >Zimbabwe has none of these things.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I see that the dialog has changed from art to architechture and I have
> >> no intention of attempting to compare tech in either as I don't know
> >> enough about either to give an informed opinion. However, I can't see
> >> how someone who was able to build the structures at the GZ site
> >> wouldn't be able to be taught the skills to build a Chartres.
If they have to be taught the skill, does that mean that their skill
level is lower than that of the Europeans?
>
> > You have already made your point about masks but isn't architecture
> >far more complex?
>
> Complex doesn't mean artistic.
It made sense, at first, to include architecture as a form of art. I
certainly think that Chartres is a work of art. If we have to change
the subject to architecture proper, so be it. The point still
remains, which is that Chartres is more technically skillfull than GZ.
>
> >In your last sentence in the above statement, are
> >you saying that it is a whole society that has a lot to do with the
> >level of artistic achievement that an individual can make?
>
> My comments were not referencing artistic accomplishments but
> industrial accomplishments.
Aren't we just discussing semantics? Does it take a whole society to
create Chartres? Does it take a whole society to create GZ?
>
> >If this is
> >true, does it make sense to look at the big picture rather than just
> >the individual?
> >
> Depends on what you are measuring.
What if you are measuring society as a whole?
> >> >Is it reasonable to say that the sound of a puppy being tortured is
> >> >not as edifying as Beethoven's 9th symphony?
> >> >
> >> I don't know as I have never heard puppies being tortured. However,
> >> as I said above, I would probably be biased as I can't see a relevant
> >> use of tortured puppies in an artistic way.
> >
> >You're just avoiding the question.
>
> No. I am giving you an honest answer. I cannot imagine a scenario
> where torturing puppies is relative to Classical Music. I cannot
> imagine a scenario where torturing anything has artistic merit. Given
> that I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no. Art is
> more complex than that to me.
>
> >Is everything relative to the
> >point that no one can say that *anything* is more edifying than
> >*anything* else? Can you come up with even *one* example where one
> >thing might be more edifying than another?
> >
> I would say a conversation is more edifying that a loaf of bread to
> the people having the conversation. However a baker may feel
> different.
If people are having a conversation about shoestrings, is that just as
edifying as the same people having a conversation about virtue?
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
>> >> >It doesn't make it not African, it makes it Sub-Saharin. The people
>> >> >above the Saharin are more light skinned than those below.
>> >> >
>> >> Skin color is not relevant IMO wrt skillsets. I have seen great works
>> >> of art done by many different people regardless of their skin color.
>> >> Is your argument that skin color is or may be relevant wrt artistic
>> >> skill?
>> >
>> >No, not skin color, but there are many black people in the USA who are
>> >trying to say that there artistic contributions throughout history
>> >have been just as outstanding as those of the Europeans. Instead of
>> >requiring a definition for "outstanding", can you tell me if you agree
>> >with this?
>> >
>> I don't see anything that is not subjective countering the statement.
>
>Is there anything that is not subjective?
>
Given that how can a definitive answer be given to the question? The
fact that all things are subject even the definition of outstanding is
subjective. As I have been saying all along (something which you seem
to be resisting) is that the value of art is relative to the person
viewing it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are attempting are
attempting to make it some kind of objective metric regardless of its
inherent subjectivity.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> > But to answer
>> >> >> >> your question, the majority of African-Americans today are a
>> >> >> >> combination of several races and not 'black' in the african sense.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >One again, isn't this the new theory of relativity? Is *anybody*
>> >> >> >really black? Is *anybody* really white?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I didn't insert or limit the discussion to those terms. You were
>> >> >> originally referencing european and african art. Now it's comparing
>> >> >> skin colors of the people who may or may not have done the work. I am
>> >> >> not one to limit skill to a color but to opportunity. If a black
>> >> >> person were studying sculpture in Europe I don't know what he would
>> >> >> have created any more than I would know what kind of african mask a
>> >> >> white person would create if studying how ot make african masks.
>> >> >
>> >> >Isn't it just as valid to look at groups of people as it is to look at
>> >> >individuals?
>> >> >
>> >> No. Art is an individual effort. ALL europeans didn't create the
>> >> statue of David.
>> >
>> >Is the creation of David a product of Michealangelo's environment?
>>
>> No.
>
>How is the creation of the David not a product of Michaelangelo's
>environment?
>
Because Michaelangelo's talent was not a product of his environment
but the result of his own personal initiative. If it was a product of
the environment then ANYONE should have been able to create the same
object who happened to live in the environment. Are you saying that
ANY european could have achieved the same product that Michaelangelo
did given the same tools?
>> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
>> >
>> No. But an individual piece is also not the product of a society.
>> While a social environment may 'inspire' a particular piece of work
>> it's a far difference between 'inspiration' and 'creation'.
>
>If Michaelangelo spent his entire life on a deserted island, would he
>have created the David?
>
He wouldn't have had the tools or a model to work with.
>>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It makes a difference in a modern political sense. It seems that
>> >> >> >African-Americans are forcibly grafting their racial identity on
>> >> >> >ancient Egyptians.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I have read the arguments wrt that however we were discussing artistic
>> >> >> sense, not political sense.
>> >> >
>> >> >Art becomes politics when people try to manipulate art to further
>> >> >their political aims.
>> >> >
>> >> But I was not aware that this dialog had gone there. Is that what
>> >> your point is in bringing up the subject in that context?
>> >
>> >Yes. I am making the point that black people in the USA are trying to
>> >prove that their contributions to society, including artistic
>> >contributions, are just as
>> >outstanding/complex/intricate/sophisticated/elaborate/technically
>> >skillfull as those of Europeans. Do you agree with this?
>> >>
>>
>> Sure. Why not? If the demographics are correct, many black people in
>> the US have european blood in them. Given that, their ancestors are
>> just as responsible for great european objects de art as any white
>> person.
>
>Well then, let's look at Africa, since African Americans often make
>this point. Are the artistic contributions of Sub-Saharin Africa as
>outstanding/complex/intricate/sophisticated/elaborate/technically
>skillfull as those of Europeans?
>
I believe that Karl pointed out the Benin Bronzes which have their own
brand of outstanding/complex/intricate/sophisticated/elaborate
/technically skillfull aspects of their own. Granted the 'value' of
their contribution is subjective but it was obviously held enough that
the British took it to put in their museums the same honor they give
the european objects of art. Ask the people who thought them good
enough to enshire of their relative value to the art world.
While you may disagree with their 'artistic value' I'm willing to bet
that the the people of Nigeria find them of more value than the
Michaelangelo's David. Thus the subjectivity I was speaking of.
>>
>> >> >>
>> >>> >
>> >> >Are the ruins at Great Zimbabwe just as
>> >> >sophisticated/complex/intricate/elaborate as Chartres?
>> >>
>> >> The *ruins* at Great Zimbabwe are ruins. I don't see how you can
>> >> fairly compare ruins to a standing structure.
>> >
>> >You can tell a *lot* about architecture from the foundations.
>> >
>> Not as much as you can wrt a fully constructed building.
>
>One is able to tell, for example, that the width to heigth ratio is
>much greater than that of Chartres. How wide the foundation of a
>building needs to be in order to support the upper part is an
>indicator of architechtural progress.
>
Fine. I cannot argue that one way or another as I have told you the
limits of my knowledge. *I* cannot determine the value of a buildings
architechtural level based on ruins.
>>
>> >> >If you *still*
>> >> >want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
>> >> >together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
>> >> >explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
>> >> >the words.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
>> >> 'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
>> >> create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
>> >> artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
>> >
>> >Does a society influence the individual?
>> >
>> Sure. That doesn't make them responsible for the output of the
>> individual though. The individual is responsible for that.
>
>If you took the creators of Great Zimbabwe and transported them to
>Europe, would they have to learn a more advanced skill in order to
>create Chartres?
>
I don't know.
>> >> >> > We can both look at the same
>> >> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
>> >> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
>> >> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
>> >> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
>> >> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
>> >> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
>> >> >
>> >> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
>> >>
>> >> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
>> >
>> >Could *any* Sub-Saharin African have created the David without the
>> >European context?
>>
>> Would they have had a reason too?
>
>The point that I am making is that without the European context, a
>Sub-Saharin African would not have been able to create the David.
Why?
>Aren't you avoiding my question?
>
No. I just don't believe that a simple yes or no would represent the
answer that I want to give and I answer with my words to convey my
intent not that of the reader. If the reader wants more information
they can ask. Otherwise I assume I've answered the question.
>>
>> >If you took *any* Sub-Saharin African from the
>> >1500's, planted him, for the first time, in Europe, in front of the
>> >David, gave him the appropriate tools and the marble, asked him to
>> >duplicate it, and then left him alone, would he have been able to
>> >creat it?
>> >
>> Could you?
>
>Are you avoiding my question?
>
No. Now answer my question. You keep saying that a 'sub-saharin'
person couldn't have achieved the same but how relevant is that if
even europeans couldn't do it. If ANY european couldn't have achieved
it then why is it relevant that ANY african couldn't?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
>> >> >
>> >> Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
>> >> individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
>> >> Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
>> >> of the individual.
>> >
>> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
>> >
>> No. But it is created by an individual.
>
>Could Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in
>the 600's?
>
I don't know.
>> >> >You can tell a *lot* by a foundation of a building, and at Great
>> >> >Zimbabwe there is more than a foundation. You can tell whether or not
>> >> >there were flying buttresses for example. Looking at the ruins of
>> >> >Great Zimbabwe, I don't recall seeing any windows, as such, for
>> >> >example.
>> >> >>
>> >> But what you cannot tell is if there was a reason for 'flying
>> >> buttresses' or stain glass windows from the ruins. What reason would
>> >> they have had for including those aspects (usually reserved for a
>> >> church) in whatever the structures at GZ were used for? Again we get
>> >> back to context.
>> >
>> >Being able to open up the window space represents an advanced form of
>> >architecture, no matter what the reason for doing so is.
>> >
>> And if you put windows in a fortress wall it would be a weak spot.
>> Now I don't know that GZ was a fortress, AFAIK no one knows what it's
>> purpose was (but I think 18 foot walls and a tower suggests fortress)
>> but if it was windows would have been out of charactor for the
>> building. Until you know more about the purpose of the building
>> judging it's architectual value is a guessing game without an end.
>
>The fact is that the Sub-Saharin Africans *didn't* create a building
>as technically skillfull as Chartres. It seems that what you're doing
>now is admitting that GZ is not as technically skillfull, and then
>explaining the reasons *why* it isn't.
>
No. I am attempting to put forth the arguement that technology is
determined by need. If there was no need to create something like
Chartres what good is developing the skills to do so? Your assumption
that unless they traveled down the road of european art the art is
somehow lessor is what I originally called it. Cultural bigotry. You
judge the works of others using european art as the standard instead
of objectively looking at the objects themselves.
>
>> >> >You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
>> >> >architecture?
>> >> >
>> >> That's an entirely different discussion and I only have superficial
>> >> knowledge (high school architectural drafting classes) to judge from.
>> >
>> >I appreciate you going through the trouble to find the masks for
>> >comparison, and you are making a good point, but isn't architecture a
>> >far more complex form of art than masks? I'm not the one who brought
>> >up the example of masks.
>> >
>> Architechture CAN be art. It doesn't have to be and not all buildings
>> are built from an artistic POV. Does a warehouse have artistic value?
>
>Whether or not archtitecture is art does not take away from the point
>that I am making, which is that GZ is not as technically skillfull as
>Chartres, regardless of whether GZ is intended to be art.
>
So a warehouse (built for utility) should be compared to a church
(built to incorporate a certain sense of style to represent the
creator of the universe). Somehow that sounds a lot like masks and
statues to me.
Why don't you compare Chartres with african churches made in the same
time period? That would be much more comparable. Also take into
consideration that the architects had to use for materials and the
ways in which each may have approached issues like multi-floors,
stairways, columns, etc?
>>
>> >> >> >I appreciate your personal example, but you are not talking about
>> >> >> >sophistication, skill, or whatever word best describes it. It takes
>> >> >> >more skill to create Chartres than it does to creat Great Zimbabwe.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Can you prove that the people of Ancient Zimbabwe could not have
>> >> >> created the Chartres if they had the inclination? Can you prove the
>> >> >> people Chartres could have done Ancient Zimbabwe? If not how do you
>> >> >> know the skill level of one is greater than the other? If you can I
>> >> >> would be interested in any evidence to back that up.
>> >> >
>> >> >Chartres has flying buttresses, pointed arches, ribbed vaulting,
>> >> >windows large enough to hold very intricate stained glass. Great
>> >> >Zimbabwe has none of these things.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I see that the dialog has changed from art to architechture and I have
>> >> no intention of attempting to compare tech in either as I don't know
>> >> enough about either to give an informed opinion. However, I can't see
>> >> how someone who was able to build the structures at the GZ site
>> >> wouldn't be able to be taught the skills to build a Chartres.
>
>If they have to be taught the skill, does that mean that their skill
>level is lower than that of the Europeans?
>
Since Michelangelo didn't do work in bronze, if he had to be taught
the skill to create the same thing that the Africans did would that
mean that Michelangelo's skill level is lower than that of the
africans?
>>
>> > You have already made your point about masks but isn't architecture
>> >far more complex?
>>
>> Complex doesn't mean artistic.
>
>It made sense, at first, to include architecture as a form of art. I
>certainly think that Chartres is a work of art. If we have to change
>the subject to architecture proper, so be it. The point still
>remains, which is that Chartres is more technically skillfull than GZ.
>
I still can't see how you can objectively make that determination
without knowing what the purpose of the GZ ruins were. It assumes
that the ruins were the epitome of their architectual skills and there
is nothing to suggest that as there is other examples of their work to
judge from.
>> >In your last sentence in the above statement, are
>> >you saying that it is a whole society that has a lot to do with the
>> >level of artistic achievement that an individual can make?
>>
>> My comments were not referencing artistic accomplishments but
>> industrial accomplishments.
>
>Aren't we just discussing semantics?
I'm not.
>Does it take a whole society to
>create Chartres?
We know that it took more than a single person.
>Does it take a whole society to create GZ?
>
I don't know.
>> >If this is
>> >true, does it make sense to look at the big picture rather than just
>> >the individual?
>> >
>> Depends on what you are measuring.
>
>What if you are measuring society as a whole?
>
I don't do that with the assumed skill levels of the artists within
that society. IMO, society 'as a whole' is not measured simply by
it's artistic output or the buildings it was able to create.
>>
>> >Is everything relative to the
>> >point that no one can say that *anything* is more edifying than
>> >*anything* else? Can you come up with even *one* example where one
>> >thing might be more edifying than another?
>> >
>> I would say a conversation is more edifying that a loaf of bread to
>> the people having the conversation. However a baker may feel
>> different.
>
>If people are having a conversation about shoestrings, is that just as
>edifying as the same people having a conversation about virtue?
>
Edifying to who?
Bradwell Jackson
> On 19 Jun 2004 11:20:06 -0700, bradwel...@yahoo.com (Bradwell
> Jackson) wrote:
>
> >> >> >It doesn't make it not African, it makes it Sub-Saharin. The people
> >> >> >above the Saharin are more light skinned than those below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Skin color is not relevant IMO wrt skillsets. I have seen great works
> >> >> of art done by many different people regardless of their skin color.
> >> >> Is your argument that skin color is or may be relevant wrt artistic
> >> >> skill?
> >> >
> >> >No, not skin color, but there are many black people in the USA who are
> >> >trying to say that there artistic contributions throughout history
> >> >have been just as outstanding as those of the Europeans. Instead of
> >> >requiring a definition for "outstanding", can you tell me if you agree
> >> >with this?
> >> >
> >> I don't see anything that is not subjective countering the statement.
> >
> >Is there anything that is not subjective?
> >
> Given that how can a definitive answer be given to the question? The
> fact that all things are subject even the definition of outstanding is
> subjective. As I have been saying all along (something which you seem
> to be resisting) is that the value of art is relative to the person
> viewing it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are attempting are
> attempting to make it some kind of objective metric regardless of its
> inherent subjectivity.
It seems to me that we have reached a point where we have to decide if
*anything* can be compared. Let's start with something that *can* be
compared and go from there. What if we compared the torture-death of
Damiens in 1757 to the pardon that Pope John-Paul II gave to his
would-be assassin. What if we were to choose the word "mercy", and
what if we asked whether or not you could compare these two events to
determine which was more merciful. Would it be possible to compare
these two events to decide which one was more merciful?
It seems that we are separating nature vs. nurture as though the two
things are mutually exclusive. If you accept the nature argument,
then you would believe that some people, like Michaelangelo, are
gifted. Now, if you took someone with Michaelangelo's natural gift
and raised him only in Zimbabwe, would he have been able to create the
David?
>
> >> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
> >> >
> >> No. But an individual piece is also not the product of a society.
> >> While a social environment may 'inspire' a particular piece of work
> >> it's a far difference between 'inspiration' and 'creation'.
> >
> >If Michaelangelo spent his entire life on a deserted island, would he
> >have created the David?
> >
> He wouldn't have had the tools or a model to work with.
If he had spent his life only in Zimbabwe, would he have created the
David?
>
> >>
> >> >> >> >
Anyone can say "I don't know" to any question. If you ask whether art
is a product of the individual, I could say "I don't know", but I'm
trying to answer your questions since I believe that you are sincere.
Now will you please give me your answer, based on what you know, to
the above question?
>
> >> >> >> > We can both look at the same
> >> >> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
> >> >> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
> >> >> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
> >> >> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
> >> >> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
> >> >> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
> >> >
> >> >Could *any* Sub-Saharin African have created the David without the
> >> >European context?
> >>
> >> Would they have had a reason too?
> >
> >The point that I am making is that without the European context, a
> >Sub-Saharin African would not have been able to create the David.
>
> Why?
Could you please answer my above question without just saying "why"?
The question was "Could any Sub-Saharin African have created the David
without the European context". I could answer all of your questions
by just saying "why" if I wanted to. This is a common tactic of
polemics. It puts the other person on the defensive. I choose not to
answer all of your questions by just saying "why" or 'for what reason'
because I want to treat you with sincerity based on the importance of
this dialogue. So will you please answer this question without simply
firing back a "why" or a "would they have a reason to"?
>
> >Aren't you avoiding my question?
> >
> No. I just don't believe that a simple yes or no would represent the
> answer that I want to give and I answer with my words to convey my
> intent not that of the reader. If the reader wants more information
> they can ask. Otherwise I assume I've answered the question.
>
> >>
> >> >If you took *any* Sub-Saharin African from the
> >> >1500's, planted him, for the first time, in Europe, in front of the
> >> >David, gave him the appropriate tools and the marble, asked him to
> >> >duplicate it, and then left him alone, would he have been able to
> >> >creat it?
> >> >
> >> Could you?
> >
> >Are you avoiding my question?
> >
> No.
How are you not avoiding my question?
Now answer my question.
Aren't you doing the same thing as above, that is, simply answering a
question with a "why" or a "could you" just to maintain the offensive?
You keep saying that a 'sub-saharin'
> person couldn't have achieved the same but how relevant is that if
> even europeans couldn't do it.
I don't think that I "keep saying" that. Actually, I'm asking you
your opinion on whether *you* think they could do it.
If ANY european couldn't have achieved
> it then why is it relevant that ANY african couldn't?
If you took Bernini, at age 30 (in the above example, the Sub-Saharing
African could have been any age), and put him in front of
Michaelangelo's David for the first time, with the appropriate tools
and marble, could he have created the David?
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
> >> >> individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
> >> >> Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
> >> >> of the individual.
> >> >
> >> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
> >> >
> >> No. But it is created by an individual.
> >
> >Could Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in
> >the 600's?
> >
> I don't know.
I myself don't "know" anything necessarilly for sure, but I try to
answer based on what I *do* know. Based on what you *do* know, could
Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in the
600's?
>
Was there any "need" for the Europeans to create Chartres?
Your assumption
> that unless they traveled down the road of european art the art is
> somehow lessor is what I originally called it. Cultural bigotry. You
> judge the works of others using european art as the standard instead
> of objectively looking at the objects themselves.
Can one judge the technical skill of one building to another?
>
> >
> >> >> >You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
> >> >> >architecture?
> >> >> >
> >> >> That's an entirely different discussion and I only have superficial
> >> >> knowledge (high school architectural drafting classes) to judge from.
> >> >
> >> >I appreciate you going through the trouble to find the masks for
> >> >comparison, and you are making a good point, but isn't architecture a
> >> >far more complex form of art than masks? I'm not the one who brought
> >> >up the example of masks.
> >> >
> >> Architechture CAN be art. It doesn't have to be and not all buildings
> >> are built from an artistic POV. Does a warehouse have artistic value?
> >
> >Whether or not archtitecture is art does not take away from the point
> >that I am making, which is that GZ is not as technically skillfull as
> >Chartres, regardless of whether GZ is intended to be art.
> >
>
> So a warehouse (built for utility) should be compared to a church
> (built to incorporate a certain sense of style to represent the
> creator of the universe). Somehow that sounds a lot like masks and
> statues to me.
>
> Why don't you compare Chartres with african churches made in the same
> time period? That would be much more comparable. Also take into
> consideration that the architects had to use for materials and the
> ways in which each may have approached issues like multi-floors,
> stairways, columns, etc?
Very well, plese give me an example of a Sub-Saharin church from the
same period>
>
> >>
> >> >> >> >I appreciate your personal example, but you are not talking about
> >> >> >> >sophistication, skill, or whatever word best describes it. It takes
> >> >> >> >more skill to create Chartres than it does to creat Great Zimbabwe.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Can you prove that the people of Ancient Zimbabwe could not have
> >> >> >> created the Chartres if they had the inclination? Can you prove the
> >> >> >> people Chartres could have done Ancient Zimbabwe? If not how do you
> >> >> >> know the skill level of one is greater than the other? If you can I
> >> >> >> would be interested in any evidence to back that up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Chartres has flying buttresses, pointed arches, ribbed vaulting,
> >> >> >windows large enough to hold very intricate stained glass. Great
> >> >> >Zimbabwe has none of these things.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I see that the dialog has changed from art to architechture and I have
> >> >> no intention of attempting to compare tech in either as I don't know
> >> >> enough about either to give an informed opinion. However, I can't see
> >> >> how someone who was able to build the structures at the GZ site
> >> >> wouldn't be able to be taught the skills to build a Chartres.
> >
> >If they have to be taught the skill, does that mean that their skill
> >level is lower than that of the Europeans?
> >
> Since Michelangelo didn't do work in bronze, if he had to be taught
> the skill to create the same thing that the Africans did would that
> mean that Michelangelo's skill level is lower than that of the
> africans?
Aren't you talkig about the different skills with respect to mediums
rather than the difference in the level of technology?
>
> >>
> >> > You have already made your point about masks but isn't architecture
> >> >far more complex?
> >>
> >> Complex doesn't mean artistic.
> >
> >It made sense, at first, to include architecture as a form of art. I
> >certainly think that Chartres is a work of art. If we have to change
> >the subject to architecture proper, so be it. The point still
> >remains, which is that Chartres is more technically skillfull than GZ.
> >
> I still can't see how you can objectively make that determination
> without knowing what the purpose of the GZ ruins were. It assumes
> that the ruins were the epitome of their architectual skills and there
> is nothing to suggest that as there is other examples of their work to
> judge from.
Can you name any architecture in Sub-Saharin Africa that is more
technologically skilled than GZ?
How do you define "edifying"?
Von Bailey
Jackson) wrote:
I don't agree unless you assume my perspective is that ALL things are
subjective instead of simply limiting it to creative endeavors.
Artwork, by it's nature and purpose, is subjective. Art is only
relevant as to how it makes the creator and observer feel when
creating or interacting with it.
>Let's start with something that *can* be
>compared and go from there. What if we compared the torture-death of
>Damiens in 1757 to the pardon that Pope John-Paul II gave to his
>would-be assassin. What if we were to choose the word "mercy", and
>what if we asked whether or not you could compare these two events to
>determine which was more merciful. Would it be possible to compare
>these two events to decide which one was more merciful?
>
Given that only one was meant to convey mercy and the other was not it
is easy to say the actions of the Pope was more merciful. However I
ask you to note that in making the decision I also included what I
considered the "intent" of those involved. This is not as easily done
with artwork.
I don't know that I would call them 'gifted' but I get your gist.
> Now, if you took someone with Michaelangelo's natural gift
>and raised him only in Zimbabwe, would he have been able to create the
>David?
>
Not without the same tools and education. But there is nothing to say
that he wouldn't have created great works of art utilizing whatever
resources that were available to him there.
>> >> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
>> >> >
>> >> No. But an individual piece is also not the product of a society.
>> >> While a social environment may 'inspire' a particular piece of work
>> >> it's a far difference between 'inspiration' and 'creation'.
>> >
>> >If Michaelangelo spent his entire life on a deserted island, would he
>> >have created the David?
>> >
>> He wouldn't have had the tools or a model to work with.
>
>If he had spent his life only in Zimbabwe, would he have created the
>David?
>
The question assumes that the David is some kind of measure of great
art that exceeds the abilities of others. I don't agree. Given the
same resources and motivation I think that someone as dedicated to his
art as Michaelangelo could have created something just as impressive.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> >If you *still*
>> >> >> >want a definition of all these words, take all the definitions
>> >> >> >together and come up with an average. I know of no other way to
>> >> >> >explain something that should already be understood by the meaning of
>> >> >> >the words.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have already stated that I believe it's a matter of 'skill' not
>> >> >> 'sophistication'. Individual artist, regardless of their color, will
>> >> >> create different art and depending upon the skill of the individual
>> >> >> artist it may be something that others find appealing or not.
>> >> >
>> >> >Does a society influence the individual?
>> >> >
>> >> Sure. That doesn't make them responsible for the output of the
>> >> individual though. The individual is responsible for that.
>> >
>> >If you took the creators of Great Zimbabwe and transported them to
>> >Europe, would they have to learn a more advanced skill in order to
>> >create Chartres?
>> >
>> I don't know.
>
>Anyone can say "I don't know" to any question. If you ask whether art
>is a product of the individual, I could say "I don't know", but I'm
>trying to answer your questions since I believe that you are sincere.
>Now will you please give me your answer, based on what you know, to
>the above question?
Since I know nothing of the creators fo GZ how can I make any kind of
assessment. That is an honest answer. What would I base any
judgement on? For all I know europeans somehow found themselves in
Zimbabwe thousands of years ago and built the GZ ruins. I have
already told you that I don't agree comparing a standing building to
ruins is a credible comparison and I have also said that I don't have
the ability to determine the value of a building from its ruins. Your
insistance that I do doesn't change the facts.
>>
>> >> >> >> > We can both look at the same
>> >> >> >> >> piece of artwork and get different meanings out of it.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Yes, but does it take as much *skill* to make an African mask as it
>> >> >> >> >does to sculpt the David? Are you going to ask me to define "skill"?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> As I said above, skill is not a 'cultural' thing IMO. It is a
>> >> >> >> personal thing that an individual, regardless of race, has an
>> >> >> >> opportunity to use. It varies depending upon the individual. Not
>> >> >> >> every european could have created David regardless of being a European
>> >> >> >> and not every african can create a mask that has the appeal of others.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You are stressing the individual without looking at the big picture.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The 'big picture' doesn't create the art.
>> >> >
>> >> >Could *any* Sub-Saharin African have created the David without the
>> >> >European context?
>> >>
>> >> Would they have had a reason too?
>> >
>> >The point that I am making is that without the European context, a
>> >Sub-Saharin African would not have been able to create the David.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Could you please answer my above question without just saying "why"?
I didn't respond to a question I asked one. Why wouldn't a
sub-saharin african be incapable of creating something like the David
(I assume you mean a statue that is an excellent representation of the
human body and not the David in particular) without a european
context?
>The question was "Could any Sub-Saharin African have created the David
>without the European context".
As I have said before. Art is relative to culture. There was no
reason for the creation of such statues so there was no reason to
develop a technology to do so. African art by nature was more
functional in nature (masks, head dresses, bowls, etc.) because of
cultural reasons. I found this quote to help define why comparing the
arts of the two regions is so subjective. It's a difference between
'functional' and 'asethetic' uses and how they manifest.
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574805/African_Art_and_Architecture.html
IV Interpreting African Art
A contrast is often drawn between the functional nature of African
artefacts and the more purely aesthetic nature of Western art. While
it is true that relatively little of the output of African artists
until recently was intended to be primarily the focus of aesthetic
contemplation an appreciation of aspects of form and design in
objects, buildings, poetry, and performance is widespread. A growing
number of studies have demonstrated the sophisticated and
discriminating vocabulary of aesthetic discourse that exists in many
African languages, and concepts of art and creativity are present in
virtually all African cultures.
____________________________
IMO, the above implies that european and african art were created for
and inspired by different things. And judged in their own particular
context they are "superior" if you will, but ONLY within their
respective context.
>I could answer all of your questions
>by just saying "why" if I wanted to.
And I would give you a reason.
> This is a common tactic of
>polemics.
It is not a 'tactic' as I am not in competition for anything. It is a
question based on what I feel I need to know to answer your question.
>It puts the other person on the defensive.
If you think so. I don't find that to be the case here as if what I
would simply stop corresponding instead of playing such games. I am
not attempting anything except a dialog on the subject at hand.
Asking for more information before responding is the intelligent thing
to do if you have questions.
>I choose not to
>answer all of your questions by just saying "why" or 'for what reason'
>because I want to treat you with sincerity based on the importance of
>this dialogue. So will you please answer this question without simply
>firing back a "why" or a "would they have a reason to"?
>
To me those are relevant question based on my POV. Why was the statue
of David created? It was commissioned for some cathedral I believe.
So it was just some decoration for a building. Given that sub-saharin
cultures didn't garnish their buildings with statues they would not
have the motivation to create such a statue. If Michaelangelo hadn't
been commission to do so he might not have.
But the original question is whether or not the fact that he did do
the David implies a higher form of art than some other group of people
who had no initiative to even attempt the same. So I have to ask WHY
someone in the sub-saharin Africa would bother and what need they
would have for doing so.
Your question assumes a straight single line wrt artistic endeavors
and assumes europe to be the epitome of that line. I haven't seen
anything that imples that which is not very subjective.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >If you took *any* Sub-Saharin African from the
>> >> >1500's, planted him, for the first time, in Europe, in front of the
>> >> >David, gave him the appropriate tools and the marble, asked him to
>> >> >duplicate it, and then left him alone, would he have been able to
>> >> >creat it?
>> >> >
>> >> Could you?
>> >
>> >Are you avoiding my question?
>> >
>> No.
>
>How are you not avoiding my question?
>
Because IMO your question assumes a premise that must be resovled
first and as I said above, I ask questions when that occurs in a
dialog. So if you couldn't or some other random person of european
decent (I don't know if you are) how relevant is it if some randomly
picked person from sub-saharin africa can. If no one else can it
demonstrates that it is Michaelangelo who is the exception and not the
european community.
> Now answer my question.
>
>Aren't you doing the same thing as above, that is, simply answering a
>question with a "why" or a "could you" just to maintain the offensive?
>
No. I have explained my actions above.
> You keep saying that a 'sub-saharin'
>> person couldn't have achieved the same but how relevant is that if
>> even europeans couldn't do it.
>
>I don't think that I "keep saying" that. Actually, I'm asking you
>your opinion on whether *you* think they could do it.
>
And I am not one to give definitive answers without anything to back
it up. I happen to believe that skill is not limited by person but
resources and personal initiative. The first, (resources) is limited
by location, the second isn't limited by anything that can be
attributed to any group of people.
> If ANY european couldn't have achieved
>> it then why is it relevant that ANY african couldn't?
>
>If you took Bernini, at age 30 (in the above example, the Sub-Saharing
>African could have been any age), and put him in front of
>Michaelangelo's David for the first time, with the appropriate tools
>and marble, could he have created the David?
>
Given time, yes. I doubt he could have done it on the first try or
even the first 10 or 20, but then David wasn't Michaelangelo's first
work either. I also believe that under the same circumstances, given
a reason that mattered to him and time to develop the skill a
sub-saharin african could have done the same.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
>> >> >> individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
>> >> >> Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
>> >> >> of the individual.
>> >> >
>> >> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
>> >> >
>> >> No. But it is created by an individual.
>> >
>> >Could Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in
>> >the 600's?
>> >
>> I don't know.
>
>I myself don't "know" anything necessarilly for sure, but I try to
>answer based on what I *do* know. Based on what you *do* know, could
>Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in the
>600's?
>
If he was the same person he was when he created the David, yes.
Yes. It's there and that seems to speak for itself. They wouldn't
have created it if there wer no need for it would they?
> Your assumption
>> that unless they traveled down the road of european art the art is
>> somehow lessor is what I originally called it. Cultural bigotry. You
>> judge the works of others using european art as the standard instead
>> of objectively looking at the objects themselves.
>
>Can one judge the technical skill of one building to another?
>
Sure. But should one compare a warehouse with a cathedral to
determine artistic merit?
>> >
>> >> >> >You probably have a good point with masks, but what about
>> >> >> >architecture?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> That's an entirely different discussion and I only have superficial
>> >> >> knowledge (high school architectural drafting classes) to judge from.
>> >> >
>> >> >I appreciate you going through the trouble to find the masks for
>> >> >comparison, and you are making a good point, but isn't architecture a
>> >> >far more complex form of art than masks? I'm not the one who brought
>> >> >up the example of masks.
>> >> >
>> >> Architechture CAN be art. It doesn't have to be and not all buildings
>> >> are built from an artistic POV. Does a warehouse have artistic value?
>> >
>> >Whether or not archtitecture is art does not take away from the point
>> >that I am making, which is that GZ is not as technically skillfull as
>> >Chartres, regardless of whether GZ is intended to be art.
>>
>> So a warehouse (built for utility) should be compared to a church
>> (built to incorporate a certain sense of style to represent the
>> creator of the universe). Somehow that sounds a lot like masks and
>> statues to me.
>>
>> Why don't you compare Chartres with african churches made in the same
>> time period? That would be much more comparable. Also take into
>> consideration that the architects had to use for materials and the
>> ways in which each may have approached issues like multi-floors,
>> stairways, columns, etc?
>
>Very well, plese give me an example of a Sub-Saharin church from the
>same period>
>
I would have no idea where to find such examples.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >I appreciate your personal example, but you are not talking about
>> >> >> >> >sophistication, skill, or whatever word best describes it. It takes
>> >> >> >> >more skill to create Chartres than it does to creat Great Zimbabwe.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Can you prove that the people of Ancient Zimbabwe could not have
>> >> >> >> created the Chartres if they had the inclination? Can you prove the
>> >> >> >> people Chartres could have done Ancient Zimbabwe? If not how do you
>> >> >> >> know the skill level of one is greater than the other? If you can I
>> >> >> >> would be interested in any evidence to back that up.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Chartres has flying buttresses, pointed arches, ribbed vaulting,
>> >> >> >windows large enough to hold very intricate stained glass. Great
>> >> >> >Zimbabwe has none of these things.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see that the dialog has changed from art to architechture and I have
>> >> >> no intention of attempting to compare tech in either as I don't know
>> >> >> enough about either to give an informed opinion. However, I can't see
>> >> >> how someone who was able to build the structures at the GZ site
>> >> >> wouldn't be able to be taught the skills to build a Chartres.
>> >
>> >If they have to be taught the skill, does that mean that their skill
>> >level is lower than that of the Europeans?
>> >
>> Since Michelangelo didn't do work in bronze, if he had to be taught
>> the skill to create the same thing that the Africans did would that
>> mean that Michelangelo's skill level is lower than that of the
>> africans?
>
>Aren't you talkig about the different skills with respect to mediums
>rather than the difference in the level of technology?
>
I don't find that technology and skill are mutually exclusive.
Without the technology, skills wrt the tecniques involved would not be
developed in a particular technology. However that doesn't mean that
exposure to the technology wouldn't allow anyone to develop the
skills.
>> >>
>> >> > You have already made your point about masks but isn't architecture
>> >> >far more complex?
>> >>
>> >> Complex doesn't mean artistic.
>> >
>> >It made sense, at first, to include architecture as a form of art. I
>> >certainly think that Chartres is a work of art. If we have to change
>> >the subject to architecture proper, so be it. The point still
>> >remains, which is that Chartres is more technically skillfull than GZ.
>> >
>> I still can't see how you can objectively make that determination
>> without knowing what the purpose of the GZ ruins were. It assumes
>> that the ruins were the epitome of their architectual skills and there
>> is nothing to suggest that as there is other examples of their work to
>> judge from.
>
>Can you name any architecture in Sub-Saharin Africa that is more
>technologically skilled than GZ?
>
No. But I'm not someone who would know such information. As I have
said, architechture isn't something that I have a lot of knowledge.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >Is everything relative to the
>> >> >point that no one can say that *anything* is more edifying than
>> >> >*anything* else? Can you come up with even *one* example where one
>> >> >thing might be more edifying than another?
>> >> >
>> >> I would say a conversation is more edifying that a loaf of bread to
>> >> the people having the conversation. However a baker may feel
>> >> different.
>> >
>> >If people are having a conversation about shoestrings, is that just as
>> >edifying as the same people having a conversation about virtue?
>> >
>> Edifying to who?
>
>How do you define "edifying"?
>>
Something that is informative. If I wanted to know about shoestrings
the shoestring conversation would be more informative than one about
virtue.
Bradwell Jackson
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >What about looking at Sub-Saharin Africa and Europe as a whole?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Why? Neither Sub-Saharin Africa or Europe as a whole create
> >> >> >> individual pieces of art and can hardly take credit for it.
> >> >> >> Individual people in those populations do and the relative skill set
> >> >> >> of the individual.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Does art exist in a vacuum?
> >> >> >
> >> >> No. But it is created by an individual.
> >> >
> >> >Could Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in
> >> >the 600's?
> >> >
> >> I don't know.
> >
> >I myself don't "know" anything necessarilly for sure, but I try to
> >answer based on what I *do* know. Based on what you *do* know, could
> >Michaelangelo have created the David if he lived in Europe in the
> >600's?
> >
> If he was the same person he was when he created the David, yes.
Would he have been the same person without the European context of the 1500's?