Sci-Fi Angst connection?
den...@extsparc.agsci.usu.edu
I don't get it. Why are there so many regular posters here who also go to
these sci-fi cons?
does angst drive you to science fiction or vice versa?
DLH just <sniff> feeling left out
Joel Bradford Klammer
<den...@ext.usu.edu> wrote:
>
>I don't get it. Why are there so many regular posters here who also go to
>these sci-fi cons?
>
>does angst drive you to science fiction or vice versa?
I go to SF cons to watch the deviants, just like this place.
Joel
Antoine
mart...@woodlawn.uchicago.edu (sine nomine) writes:
>Loopy Lemon wrote:
>: Besdies, sci-fi is a stand-in for organized religion.
Bullshit, Loopy. Sci-fi (uh, try the below suggestion) is a stand-in for
social discourse since the political realm has become so bitter and
academia is not everybody's cup of tea.
>be careful. they get annoyed when you call it sci-fi. they prefer sf.
yes.
>also, not all cons are sf-related. there's a whole seething subculture
>of fandom.
deb's right. usually it starts with comic book or possible some tv show
(esp. star trek). as you grow into adolescence and on into adulthod,
the sf/fantasy axis usually sucks you in if only for awhile.
what i don't understand is the sca/sword and sorcery lifestyle. these
people seem geeky even to me. esp. when they start talking about
booster packs for their magic decks and handfasting and shit.
and i read comic books at age 24.
...tony...
Louise K. Rogow
Mikki Halpin <che...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Loopy Lemon (lm...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>: I don't know whether there is a special connection between sci-fi and
>: angst, but there _is_ a connection between the net and sci-fi. It's sort
>: of like asking, Hey, why are 75% of the posters here male computer science
>: geeks?
>if we should pronounce "sci-fi" with a short "i" or not.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but I pronounce it "Skiffee".
Keep the Faith,
Louise
loopy lemon
Halpin) wrote:
> Hey Lucie, after reading your other post ("short-lived"), I need to know
> if we should pronounce "sci-fi" with a short "i" or not.
an excellent question. I have thought about it for a few moments and have
thus concluded:
Since "sci-fi" is not a Real Word, you can pronounce it any way you like.
Lucie
Alan Jaffray
>
>I don't get it. Why are there so many regular posters here who also go to
>these sci-fi cons?
>
>does angst drive you to science fiction or vice versa?
if you're the sort of person who enjoys stepping outside of conventional
situations or patterns of thought to think about *what if* we were in a
different situation or thought about things differently...
you're also rather likely to be the sort of person who becomes extremely
frustrated by the mindless hordes who don't think differently and don't
even *think* about thinking differently, who make such interesting
possibilities unattainable. you may even be the sort of person who
finds conventional situations or reality itself frustrating, when
given a different place or time or history or reality, things could
be so much different.
if you don't think about what doesn't exist in your present environment,
you won't think about what is possible but forever unattainable. but
people like that aren't the people who read SF.
BeeTyore
>>
>>> I don't get it. Why are there so many regular posters here who also go to
>>> these sci-fi cons?
>>> does angst drive you to science fiction or vice versa?
>>
>>angst, but there _is_ a connection between the net and sci-fi. It's sort
>>of like asking, Hey, why are 75% of the posters here male computer science
>>geeks?
>
>either, and at the risk of offending a number of readers here, I find
>it totally incomprehensible *why* any of it holds any appeal at
>all. It always seemed downright silly to me.
>
"See, you roll these dice for damage, and these dice for..."
Ah, says I. I'll *definitely* be too busy to join you...sounds like FUN,
though, really. Oh - Magic cards? BIG improvement, that.
Lost Boy, who has an imagination but can't comprehend pretending
the rolling of dice is actually swordplay
--
mto...@spoon.beta.com
Duke Robillard
jaf...@rainbow.uchicago.edu (Alan Jaffray) writes:
>if you're the sort of person who enjoys stepping outside of conventional
>situations or patterns of thought to think about *what if* we were in a
>different situation or thought about things differently...
>
>you're also rather likely to be the sort of person who becomes extremely
>frustrated by the mindless hordes who don't think differently and don't
>even *think* about thinking differently, who make such interesting
>possibilities unattainable. [ and so like SF ]
On the other hand, there's a good point Dr. Callahan made a about SF.
He was referring to SF art, but I believe it largely applies to the
fiction as well, and perhaps even the SF fan sub-culture.
He said SF art is for people who like to think they're cutting edge,
but have completely conventional burgeoise taste. The painting have
UFOs and such, but the style is boring, neo-classical narrative; the
opposite of what the true, non conventional avante garde has been
for 200 years.
Most SF is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
--
Duke Robillard, du...@cc.bellcore.com
loopy lemon
du...@cc.bellcore.com (Duke Robillard) wrote:
> He said SF art is for people who like to think they're cutting edge,
> but have completely conventional burgeoise taste. The painting have
> UFOs and such, but the style is boring, neo-classical narrative; the
> opposite of what the true, non conventional avante garde has been
> for 200 years.
when did Paul say this? does anyone have a record of it? I like it. I like
it a lot.
Lucie
people named Robillard oughta be able to spell BOURGEOIS and AVANT GARDE
(hippie chick)
>I don't get it. Why are there so many regular posters here who also go to
>these sci-fi cons?
and then there are those of us who go but can't admit to it in public. but at
least it isn't in costume.
>does angst drive you to science fiction or vice versa?
isn't this a chicken and the egg kind of question?
>DLH just <sniff> feeling left out
j.
who is beginning to feel like the host for an alien being
chiaroscuro
>what i don't understand is the sca/sword and sorcery lifestyle.
What's not to understand? Escapism is escapism. Some of them do it
pretty well, too, despite the rampant testosterone poisoning.
>these people seem geeky even to me. esp. when they start talking about
>booster packs for their magic decks
Gamer crack must die.
>and handfasting and shit.
I'd thank you not to mention time-tested and useful (esp. compared to this
psychotic marriage shit Western Culture does) pairbonding rites in the same
breath as Tragic: the Addiction.
>and i read comic books at age 24.
Your essential difficulty is revealed by the fact that, despite the existence
of things like the Vertigo line, you consider this worthy of remarking upon.
You can quit looking for the line past which you stop being a Cool Social
Misfit and become an Unacceptable Social Misfit any time now.
chiaroscuro
chiaroscuro
>He said SF art is for people who like to think they're cutting edge,
>but have completely conventional burgeoise taste. The painting have
>UFOs and such, but the style is boring, neo-classical narrative; the
>opposite of what the true, non conventional avante garde has been
>for 200 years.
Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over "unconventional"
monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more interested in what's in the
picture than in how it's being painted.
It sickens me that the artistic community is suffering from such a paucity of
genuine endeavor that its primary activity has become insulting people because
their ideas aren't stylish enough.
>Most SF is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
Most avant garde culture is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
chiaroscuro
loopy lemon
(chiaroscuro) wrote:
> Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over "unconventional"
> monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more interested in what's in the
> picture than in how it's being painted.
Might I suggest that if you prefer content to execution, perhaps you don't
get it? or are you one of those people who thinks the best guitarist is
the one who can play the most notes in thirty seconds?
> It sickens me that the artistic community is suffering from such a paucity of
> genuine endeavor that its primary activity has become insulting people because
> their ideas aren't stylish enough.
I agree that much abstract art is inaccessible, written in code only the
artist's friends can understand, and substitutes inscrutability for
genuine depth of expression. That doesn't mean that all abstract art
sucks, or conversely, that SF art is any good.
> Most avant garde culture is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
well, that's just ignorant.
Lucie
Thomas Price
>
>Bullshit, Loopy. Sci-fi (uh, try the below suggestion) is a stand-in for
>social discourse since the political realm has become so bitter and
>academia is not everybody's cup of tea.
Sci-fi fandom totally explained:
Sci-fi is ahistorical and totally rational. It is predicated upon the
belief that technology has made history, psychology, and culture obsolete
and that the scientific method will revolutionize society, discovering
the best ways to organize ourselves to take advantage of the infinite
wealth that technology will provide real soon now.
There is a correspondence between computers and fandom. Computers provide
a tiny, infinitely controllable world in which social inadequacies don't
exist. Fandom provides a tiny world which pretends to be absolutely rational.
Participants tend to vocalize everything they think and to communicate
entirely verbally. Hence most social inadequacies are obviated; if you don't
say it, it doesn't exist.
Fascination with the occult is poured over this Cartesian nightmare like
cheap pancake syrup in an attempt to escape it. It doesn't work.
There is a correspondence between fandom and kinky sex. In the first place
most fen are sexually frustrated and since they are encouraged to vocalize
everything from scratch, with no pesky historical inertia (read: culture
or psychological sophistication) to get in their way, they end up in the
most extraordinary situations, which they would realize are nightmarish and
self-destructive if only they could verbalize it.
There is a correspondence between computers and kinky sex. People who work
in the information industry have the intuitive realization that, as our
society becomes increasingly mechanized and we are socialized to match,
the only thing humans can do anymore which machines can't is to fuck each
other, literally and figuratively, so that's what they do in their spare time.
The byzantine complications of polyamorous geeky involvements are the final
assertive expression of the human spirit.
Not with a bang but a whimper,
Tom Price | all you clueless self-hating
tp...@cs.cmu.edu | philistines cut it out right now
Thomas Price
> Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over
>"unconventional" monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more
>interested in what's in the picture than in how it's being painted.
Ain't nothin' *in* pictures. Just a square with some colors on it,
pushing your deeply-socialized buttons.
Boris Villejo ho!
loopy lemon
> >>: Besdies, sci-fi is a stand-in for organized religion.
someone else:
> >Bullshit, Loopy. Sci-fi (uh, try the below suggestion) is a stand-in for
> >social discourse since the political realm has become so bitter and
> >academia is not everybody's cup of tea.
Tom Price:
> Sci-fi fandom totally explained:
[I hate it when you're this good, Tom]
I should like to add a few comments in defense of the idea that SF fandom
is a religion.
First off, SF is based on a belief in the idea that science and technology
will save the universe. If you don't think SF has anything to do with a
belief system, think of the Prime Directive.
> There is a correspondence between computers and fandom. Computers provide
> a tiny, infinitely controllable world in which social inadequacies don't
> exist. Fandom provides a tiny world which pretends to be absolutely rational.
> Participants tend to vocalize everything they think and to communicate
> entirely verbally. Hence most social inadequacies are obviated; if you don't
> say it, it doesn't exist.
More than that, computers provide a link to the ideal, to the divine. By
creating computer fantasy worlds, you can pretend you're somehow in on the
revolution since you know how to manipulate information in a certain way.
It's an illusion of power.
> Fascination with the occult is poured over this Cartesian nightmare like
> cheap pancake syrup in an attempt to escape it. It doesn't work.
I direct your attention back to Paul Callahan's comments on SF art. A
fascination with the occult is SF religion in the same sense. It is often
used by people who want to think they're rebellious and cutting edge; but
the only strangeness they can handle is the same sort of rituals they grew
up with, but with monster faces tacked on. It doesn't matter that occult
rituals may have historically come first. I'm talking about familiarity.
So what religious elements do we have here?
-a system of beliefs
-a community with organized meetings
-writings and films (ie, scripture)
-self-imposed hierarchies (certainly true for SCA)
-special costumes
-special language
-sacred art
-rituals
> The byzantine complications of polyamorous geeky involvements are the final
> assertive expression of the human spirit.
this is a phenomenon I still don't fully understand. perhaps it's a
sacramental thing.
Lucie
Cromwell
> ASBU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Antoine) writes:
> >what i don't understand is the sca/sword and sorcery lifestyle.
>
> What's not to understand? Escapism is escapism. Some of them do it
> pretty well, too, despite the rampant testosterone poisoning.
You mean the art? Waterhouse did it first, and did it better. If you mean
actually buying swords, I think they're some kind of phallic symbols. (You
wanna see my saber? I've got it hanging on the wall there... but sometimes
I like to take it out of its scabbard and just play with it.)
> >these people seem geeky even to me. esp. when they start talking about
> >booster packs for their magic decks
>
> Gamer crack must die.
Amen, brother. A friend gave me a set for my last birthday so he'd have
someone to play with. It was fun, too, but after a couple thousand games
it gets a little old... though the Phil Foglio cards are kinda funny.
But it finally had to happen: NYC sidewalk vendors selling Maggot cards.
> >and handfasting and shit.
>
> I'd thank you not to mention time-tested and useful (esp. compared to this
> psychotic marriage shit Western Culture does) pairbonding rites in the same
> breath as Tragic: the Addiction.
What? Is there really a difference between "psychotic marriage shit" and
"pairbonding rites," except that pairbonding rites are unusual and
therefore cool? Go back to the Robillard/Callahan critique of SF/Fantasy
as a system of traditional bougeois values masquerading as avant-garde.
Then draw the parallel.
Go read it now. We'll wait.
Personally, I like traditional bourgeois values, and what is more, I can
handle 'em without any camouflage. Give me a good old fashioned marriage,
and bridge is all the card game I need.
(Give me marriage? Give me a date...)
> >and i read comic books at age 24.
>
> Your essential difficulty is revealed by the fact that, despite the existence
> of things like the Vertigo line, you consider this worthy of remarking upon.
> You can quit looking for the line past which you stop being a Cool Social
> Misfit and become an Unacceptable Social Misfit any time now.
Who needs the Vertigo line when there's Batman to be read?
=============================================================================
C R O M W E L L
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword.
- Matthew 10:34
=============================================================================
Duke Robillard
lm...@cornell.edu (loopy lemon) writes:
>In article <DUKE.95Ma...@annwn.iscp.bellcore.com>,
>du...@cc.bellcore.com (Duke Robillard) wrote:
>
>> He said SF art is for people who like to think they're cutting edge,
>> but have completely conventional burgeoise taste. The painting have
>> UFOs and such, but the style is boring, neo-classical narrative; the
>> opposite of what the true, non conventional avante garde has been
>> for 200 years.
>
>when did Paul say this? does anyone have a record of it? I like it. I like
>it a lot.
He said it last Saturday morning...close to noonish.
The woman in front of us liked it to.
>people named Robillard oughta be able to spell BOURGEOIS and AVANT GARDE
Or at least know enough to look them up.
--
Duke Robillard, du...@cc.bellcore.com
Dawn of the Living Dead
>who is beginning to feel like the host for an alien being
I remember that "Alien" moment when it starts kicking so hard I could
pull up my shirt and watch the little fists and feet protruding visibly
from my belly. Sigh.
(Somebody shoot me really fast before I go do something stupid, OK?)
Dawn
--
Dawn Albright
da...@netcom.com
Duke Robillard
mshe...@carroll1.cc.edu (chiaroscuro) writes:
>du...@cc.bellcore.com (Duke Robillard) writes:
>>He said SF art is for people who like to think they're cutting edge,
>>but have completely conventional burgeoise taste. The painting have
>>UFOs and such, but the style is boring, neo-classical narrative; the
>>opposite of what the true, non conventional avante garde has been
>>for 200 years.
>
>Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over "unconventional"
>monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more interested in what's in the
>picture than in how it's being painted.
Actually, I'm a big fan of representational, narrative art myself.
I don't understand Kandinsky or Vasirily or Mondarian either. I
can't even spell them.
On the other hand, SF art is still boring, derivative, and pedestrian.
>>Most SF is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
>
>Most avant garde culture is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
Don't through Sturgeon's law up in my face, fan boy.
--
Duke "Just a Joke!" Robillard, du...@cc.bellcore.com
Thomas Price
>I direct your attention back to Paul Callahan's comments on SF art. A
>used by people who want to think they're rebellious and cutting edge; but
In a sense, it is cutting edge. While SF has been totally assimilated
into mainstream culture, it is the province of the most progressive of
the bourgeois, at least, all of whom recognize that culture is obsolete.
Those poor middle-class people who still have values and traditions are
hopelessly confused about the real situation!
Thomas Price
>Go back to the Robillard/Callahan critique of SF/Fantasy
>as a system of traditional bougeois values masquerading as avant-garde.
>Then draw the parallel.
Exactly! The only difference is that SF/Fantasy does without any sense
or knowledge of history. Which seems like something desirable, when you
look at history, but the results don't produce the expected feeling.
>Who needs the Vertigo line when there's Batman to be read?
All right-thinking people. Sandman ROOLS!!
Those who attempt to transcend history are
cursed by the myth of eternal return,
Tom Price | sucking pariah clown chest wound
tp...@cs.cmu.edu | HYDROELECTRIC DAM DANCE
Tony B.
mshe...@carroll1.cc.edu (chiaroscuro) writes:
>>and i read comic books at age 24.
>Your essential difficulty is revealed by the fact that, despite the existence
>of things like the Vertigo line, you consider this worthy of remarking upon.
>You can quit looking for the line past which you stop being a Cool Social
>Misfit and become an Unacceptable Social Misfit any time now.
...tony...
Seth Sher
>>>>>does angst drive you to science fiction or vice versa?
Personally it's kind of a combination. I liked scifi when I was little
because it gae me (haha!) hope for my future. THen I started to realize
that the odds of me ever getting off this planet were reeeeeally slim and
I hit puberty and I got angsty.
Also I get angstful over the current crappy state of sf. Everything
new that comes out is crap, and I'm scared to submit my own stuff because
it's not exactly like all the other crap ever written and the clueless
editors won't like it.... enough.
I go to SFcons to go to nice drunken parties.
angel
chiaroscuro
>(chiaroscuro) wrote:
>> Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over
>>"unconventional" monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more
>>interested in what's in the picture than in how it's being painted.
>Ain't nothin' *in* pictures. Just a square with some colors on it,
>pushing your deeply-socialized buttons.
Percepi et esse and I see a fucken tree.
Socialization isn't too bad if you know how to dig out the stuff that
gives you trouble. Makes more sense that trying to do it all bootstrap-
wise.
>Boris Villejo ho!
Good technique, and I've seen worse flairs for the erotic, but not
much tremendously useful. 'Cept maybe when he starts doing stuff with
snakes. I'd correct your spelling of his last name if I weren't trying
desperately to live down this awful rep as an English-flamer.
chiaroscuro
chiaroscuro
>First off, SF is based on a belief in the idea that science and technology
>will save the universe.
That's a total null. It's a pitiful specimen who hasn't outgrown that
drek; the field certainly has. The first phase was adventure-oriented,
the second technological, the third and current sociological. "Science
will save us all" is for munchkins.
>If you don't think SF has anything to do with a
>belief system, think of the Prime Directive.
Using Star Trek as exemplary of the field raises bile in my throat.
Phil Dick, Stanislaw Lem, Dan Simmons, Roger Zelazny are SF; Star
Trek is sci-fi.
(Disclaimer: I adore TNG as much as the next guy.)
>More than that, computers provide a link to the ideal, to the divine. By
>creating computer fantasy worlds, you can pretend you're somehow in on the
>revolution since you know how to manipulate information in a certain way.
>It's an illusion of power.
Again: percepi et esse. Of course, _other_ people's illusions of _your_
power are more useful than your illusions of your own.
>I direct your attention back to Paul Callahan's comments on SF art. A
>fascination with the occult is SF religion in the same sense. It is often
>used by people who want to think they're rebellious and cutting edge;
That seems a little odd. Digging through obscure, half-defunct symbol
systems to be cutting edge? Participating in hidebound, traditionalist,
authoritarian power structures to be rebellious? Ooo-kay.
Or are you talking about bubblegum occultism of the own-lots-of-metalhead-
T-shirts-with-pictures-of-demons-on-them variety?
>but the only strangeness they can handle is the same sort of rituals they
>grew up with, but with monster faces tacked on.
Oh, I guess you are. Okay, chia, read the whole article before hitting
f next time.
>It doesn't matter that occult rituals may have historically come first.
>I'm talking about familiarity.
>So what religious elements do we have here?
>-a system of beliefs
>-a community with organized meetings
>-writings and films (ie, scripture)
>-self-imposed hierarchies (certainly true for SCA)
>-special costumes
>-special language
>-sacred art
>-rituals
Cool, computer science is a religion. But I'm sure we all knew that.
chiaroscuro
sine nomine
: du...@cc.bellcore.com (Duke Robillard) writes:
: >He said SF art is for people who like to think they're cutting edge,
: >but have completely conventional burgeoise taste. The painting have
: >UFOs and such, but the style is boring, neo-classical narrative; the
: >opposite of what the true, non conventional avante garde has been
: >for 200 years.
:Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over "unconventional"
: monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more interested in what's in the
: picture than in how it's being painted.
i don't think art has to be "monkey scrawaling" to be unconventional.
and i do think that important in any thepry of aesthetics is a place
for doing something new, something that's never been done before.
representional art was amazing when the renaissance masters did it
because no one else had though of doing it that way before.
: It sickens me that the artistic community is suffering from such a paucity of
:genuine endeavor that its primary activity has become insulting people because
: their ideas aren't stylish enough.
if you gleaned that from duke's statement as quoted, i'd be amazed to
know how.
: Most avant garde culture is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
most *anything* is annoying, period. and duke's got a point -- sf and
sca culture can (and have, in some places) become as hidebound as the
cultures they claim to be an alternative to.
--
sine | deb
not taking sides, just observing.
henry
Seth Sher <XDC...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>Personally it's kind of a combination. I liked scifi when I was little
>because it gae me (haha!) hope for my future. THen I started to realize
>that the odds of me ever getting off this planet were reeeeeally slim and
>I hit puberty and I got angsty.
> Also I get angstful over the current crappy state of sf. Everything
>new that comes out is crap, and I'm scared to submit my own stuff because
>it's not exactly like all the other crap ever written and the clueless
>editors won't like it.... enough.
>I go to SFcons to go to nice drunken parties.
i can't deal with sf cons. they just strike me as so
hopelessly no-life, so epitome-of-meaninglessness, that
they depress the hell out of me.
i don't know how people can fill their lives with such
a fluff pursuit and never think--'SHIT! i'm absolutely
WASTING my LIFE!'
the last time i went to an sf con, i was tempted to jump
up on a chair or something and yell, 'GET A FUCKING
LIFE PEOPLE! GET A shit life even!'
but then someone could easily pot kettle black me on
that one. i was listening to someone bashing poetry
the other day, on the grounds of what a silly waste
of time, by an sf geek, and i suddenly thought, shit,
it's ALL absolutely meaningless when you get right
down to it so who even gives a shit?
but then i thought, nah, my meaningless shit's better
than your meaningless shit. at least my meaningless
pursuits involve better writing.
(about the only sf by anyone alive i read any more
is samuel r. delany. definitely not sci-fi, and
definitely not cellar-dwelling fanboy drooler material.)
>angel
h
Louise K. Rogow
sine nomine <mart...@woodlawn.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>chiaroscuro wrote:
>:Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over "unconventional"
>: monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more interested in what's in the
>: picture than in how it's being painted.
>i don't think art has to be "monkey scrawaling" to be unconventional.
>and i do think that important in any thepry of aesthetics is a place
>for doing something new, something that's never been done before.
>representional art was amazing when the renaissance masters did it
>because no one else had though of doing it that way before.
No one thought of painting something the way it looks?
Excuse me? Portraiture is a tradition at least as old as the Greeks,
if their surviving busts are to be any indication.
>: Most avant garde culture is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
>most *anything* is annoying, period. and duke's got a point -- sf and
>sca culture can (and have, in some places) become as hidebound as the
>cultures they claim to be an alternative to.
Art is art if it moves you.
There's this book I half read and then lost in 1988.
It was by Phillip Roth or Kurt Vonnegut.
I think it might have been titled "BlueBeard", but I'm not sure.
In it were two "avant garde aritistes". One of whom had tried
to do representational art and couldn't do it very well, but
when he got a paint roller in his hand would get a wild look in
his eyes. The muse would come upon him and he'd create these
barn-side-sized murals that would have intricate swirls and suck
your eyes this way and that. The second was trained to do magazine
art in the 30s. He could paint so representationally that it would
be practically indistinguishable from a photograph. His non-repre-
sentational works were to be found in building lobbys thoughout
each major city. They weren't dramatic, but they were eaten up
by the "interior design" crowd.
One of the themes of the book was that it was more meaningful
when someone who can 'paint like a photo' creates art that is
not immediately accessible that someone who only throws paint
because he cannot sculpt it.
A good analogy is that writing in a Joyecean style is only
acceptable if you can also produce stories that are as
well crafted as "The Doubliners."
Keep the Faith,
Louise
Mikki Halpin
: In a sense, it is cutting edge. While SF has been totally assimilated
: into mainstream culture, it is the province of the most progressive of
: the bourgeois, at least, all of whom recognize that culture is obsolete.
: Those poor middle-class people who still have values and traditions are
: hopelessly confused about the real situation!
Try substituting "punk rock" for "SF" in the above paragraph and you'll see
how ridiculous it sounds.
mh
can you say "co-opted"?
Jason C Simon
[cut]
: but then someone could easily pot kettle black me on
: the other day, on the grounds of what a silly waste
: of time, by an sf geek, and i suddenly thought, shit,
: it's ALL absolutely meaningless when you get right
: down to it so who even gives a shit?
EEk! henry's gone post-modern on us! Quick, somebody get the AK-47!
: but then i thought, nah, my meaningless shit's better
: than your meaningless shit. at least my meaningless
: pursuits involve better writing.
oh. phew. I got worried for a second there.
JCS
Derrida, Shmerrida
loopy lemon
(Louise K. Rogow) wrote:
> In article <D5xLE...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> sine nomine <mart...@woodlawn.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >representional art was amazing when the renaissance masters did it
> >because no one else had though of doing it that way before.
>
> No one thought of painting something the way it looks?
> Excuse me? Portraiture is a tradition at least as old as the Greeks,
> if their surviving busts are to be any indication.
The renaissance masters (like Rubens, Vermeer, and the sublime Da Vinci)
learned how to use perspective in their paintings. Before that, portraits
and landscapes looked flat and airless. It was quite a big deal. Greek
busts showed three dimensions, because, surprise, they were
three-dimensional.
> >most *anything* is annoying, period. and duke's got a point -- sf and
> >sca culture can (and have, in some places) become as hidebound as the
> >cultures they claim to be an alternative to.
> Art is art if it moves you.
When I see "landscape" paintings from Korean assembly lines being sold at
the mall, I'm moved to put my foot through the canvas, but that don't make
them art.
> One of the themes of the book was that it was more meaningful
> when someone who can 'paint like a photo' creates art that is
> not immediately accessible that someone who only throws paint
> because he cannot sculpt it.
That's a tough one, but I tend to agree with it. If you don't know the
rules, it doesn't mean much when you break them. That doesn't mean a
painter has to be able to "paint like a photo", though. I'm not a big fan
of photorealism. To me, it means that a painter should have a minimum
level of competence. If you paint in a certain style because it's all you
can do, you're just performing some neat tricks you learned accidentally.
A painter should have a broad vocabulary, so to speak, so that one is not
limited by one's expressive tools.
Lucie
lm...@cornell.edu
loopy lemon
(chiaroscuro) wrote:
> tp...@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
> >Boris Villejo ho!
> snakes. I'd correct your spelling of his last name if I weren't trying
> desperately to live down this awful rep as an English-flamer.
Of course, his last name is Spanish.
Lucie
loopy lemon
> Actually, I'm a big fan of representational, narrative art myself.
> I don't understand Kandinsky or Vasirily or Mondarian either. I
> can't even spell them.
The great thing about Mondrian is that his work is graphic art elevated to
fine art. There's not that much to understand. It's just a bunch of
colored blocks. But put those designs on a textbook or a mural. It's not
representational but it's rhythmic and stable and clean, and at the same
time contemporary and full of life. It makes a great textbook cover, but
why shouldn't it be in an art gallery? graphic art touches us more
directly than representational art. It doesn't tell a story but it's here
and now and up to the minute. Don't worry about getting any deep meaning
out of it. Enjoy it for what it is. Great abstract art should be
accessible on both levels - the "I know what I like" level, and the
theoretical level. Rothko's colored blocks are a great example of this, as
are Matisse's cutouts. And look at Pollock's giant paint-splashed canvases
-- they look like they were, goshdarnit, FUN to paint.
Lucie
lm...@cornell.edu
Firecat
: most *anything* is annoying, period. and duke's got a point -- sf and
: sca culture can (and have, in some places) become as hidebound as the
: cultures they claim to be an alternative to.
After growing up in fandom and spending ten years in the SCA I will have
to agree with deb.
--
Gwenneth/Firecat
rivers of lava ate my face
RIVERS OF LAVA ATE MY FACE
Firecat
: but then someone could easily pot kettle black me on
: that one. i was listening to someone bashing poetry
: the other day, on the grounds of what a silly waste
: of time, by an sf geek, and i suddenly thought, shit,
: it's ALL absolutely meaningless when you get right
: down to it so who even gives a shit?
: but then i thought, nah, my meaningless shit's better
: than your meaningless shit. at least my meaningless
: pursuits involve better writing.
That is why I got into the SCA. The sca is a very *DO* something
group. It is very hard to be involved in the sca with out *learning*
about something. Weather it is just history or how to make things.
chiaroscuro
>(chiaroscuro) wrote:
>>Pardon us for preferring representational graphic design over
>>"unconventional" monkey scrawling. Perhaps some people are more
>>interested in what's in the picture than in how it's being painted.
>Might I suggest that if you prefer content to execution, perhaps you don't
>get it?
If I can suggest that if you think you can define how everyone right-
thinking and properly Deep should react to art, perhaps you don't get it.
Basically, the content-execution thing just depends on whether you think
saying things is still a non-trivial endeavor, as opposed to all we can
strive for being new ways to say them. Wouldn't you say?
>or are you one of those people who thinks the best guitarist is
>the one who can play the most notes in thirty seconds?
I wouldn't say that. There's a certain charm in it, though, and it's
more impressive than being the one who can play the fewest. And I die
for classical guitar at about three times faster than it was intended
to be played.
>I agree that much abstract art is inaccessible, written in code only the
>artist's friends can understand, and substitutes inscrutability for
>genuine depth of expression. That doesn't mean that all abstract art
>sucks, or conversely, that SF art is any good.
Well, duh. A final defense of SF "art": at least it's pretentious and
inauthentic out of ignorance rather than puerile manipulative intent.
>> Most avant garde culture is not really subversive, it's just annoying.
>well, that's just ignorant.
As Duke so astutely noted, it's Sturgeon's Law, honeybun; get used to it.
chiaroscuro
chiaroscuro
>uh, gee. i'm uncool. i read Vertigo, too. Waaah! does that excuse Vampirella?
I'm afraid nothing short of ritual purification with hot coals will
achieve that.
chiaroscuro
loopy lemon
(chiaroscuro) wrote:
> lm...@cornell.edu (loopy lemon) writes:
> >Might I suggest that if you prefer content to execution, perhaps you don't
> >get it?
> If I can suggest that if you think you can define how everyone right-
> thinking and properly Deep should react to art, perhaps you don't get it.
I never said I could define how people should react to art. I was saying
that if you have no standards for artistic skill, your taste in art is
uninformed and immature.
> Basically, the content-execution thing just depends on whether you think
> saying things is still a non-trivial endeavor, as opposed to all we can
> strive for being new ways to say them. Wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't. Neither would I say that one always has to find a new way
to say things. I _would_ say that I appreciate artistic competence, and I
don't admire artists who stick to one metaphor because they are untrained
and unable to do anything else, or because it's what their audience likes.
> Well, duh. A final defense of SF "art": at least it's pretentious and
> inauthentic out of ignorance rather than puerile manipulative intent.
Oh, I think a lot of the pretentiousness in "modern" art is ignorant as
well. But even if it is snotty and manipulative, I frankly prefer that to
ignorance if it shows skill and taste.
> As Duke so astutely noted, it's Sturgeon's Law, honeybun; get used to it.
fuck off.
Lucie
Duke Robillard
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
>(about the only sf by anyone alive i read any more
>is samuel r. delany. definitely not sci-fi, and
>definitely not cellar-dwelling fanboy drooler material.)
I'm pretty sure Prof. Delany would disagree with you about
all this. He's convinced that SF (even bad SF) is very
deserving literature. He's got all these theories about
it, that explain away the cardboard characters, re-hashed
narratives, stilted dialogue, and lack of painterliness.
When he won a Hugo in Boston a few years ago, he seemed
giddy with delight.
You should go to Worldcon this year and ask him about it.
He's the guest of honor.
(http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/intersection)
--
Duke Robillard, du...@cc.bellcore.com
Nuala Fahey
>(about the only sf by anyone alive i read any more
>is samuel r. delany. definitely not sci-fi, and
>definitely not cellar-dwelling fanboy drooler material.)
Sam Delany. Now there's a god. Worth reading is his autobiography -
Motion of Light Through Water. A gay black guy married and living in NY
in the late 50s/early 60s. It's brilliant. And it's clear how much of
his fiction is autiobiographical (especially the bitten nails bit).
Nuala, who's never managed to finish Dalgren though - maybe I'll try
again instead of wasting my time on Money.
--
Out of the ash/I rise with my red hair/and I eat men like air - Plath
I've tried relaxing, but - I don't know - I feel more comfortable when
I'm tense. Yes, it is my real name, no, it has nothing to do with
Sandman and, yes, I have been asked that before.
Tony B.
mshe...@carroll1.cc.edu (chiaroscuro) writes:
>>uh, gee. i'm uncool. i read Vertigo, too. Waaah! does that excuse Vampirella?
>I'm afraid nothing short of ritual purification with hot coals will
>achieve that.
for art but most are putting out pot-boiler stories that people with no
critical skills can like. and there is a merit to both ways of looking at
cultural items.
so, all of you all, just stop it. anybody with sense will leave off the
arguing of aesthetic merit because there is no way to come to closure on these
issues.
...tony...
fuck you chia you arrogant putz
Cromwell
> i dunno -- i knew a lot of sca people in austin, and basically it
> seemed like their whole point was to dress up in funny clothes, take
> drugs, and have lots of sex.
Sounds like New York.
Not the New York SCA, necessarily. Just New York.
-CROMWELL-
Columbia especially
Alan Brown
Paul Callahan <call...@condor.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>It's quite surprising that it took so long for the camera to be
>invented. Basically, what you need is a dark box with a pinhole to
>get a faint projection of a realistic image. Now, it's a lot to expect
>someone in the ancient world to invent photo-sensitive film, but
>this isn't necessary if you have someone sitting inside the camera
>painting little blotches of color in the appropriate places. It's
>a bit too slow for portraits, but it would not be bad for landscapes.
Which is exactly what Constable did to produce his landscapes....
And no, I can't remember which book. Art history was a long
time ago for me.
-
Currently up to my arse in Alligators and wondering if draining
the swamp was such a good idea.....
--
AB
sine nomine
: That is why I got into the SCA. The sca is a very *DO* something
: group. It is very hard to be involved in the sca with out *learning*
: about something. Weather it is just history or how to make things.
i dunno -- i knew a lot of sca people in austin, and basically it
seemed like their whole point was to dress up in funny clothes, take
drugs, and have lots of sex. i never joined -- i can manage the last
two without the funny clothes.
i think my utter disillusionment with sca came when the group i knew
of in austin had an event that included a chocolate-chip cookie
bake-off.
--
sine | deb
gumdrops make interesting breakfast food.
Therion
> i dunno -- i knew a lot of sca people in austin, and basically it
> seemed like their whole point was to dress up in funny clothes, take
> drugs, and have lots of sex. i never joined -- i can manage the last
> two without the funny clothes.
You missed the other point - getting to beat people with clubs.
> i think my utter disillusionment with sca came when the group i knew
> of in austin had an event that included a chocolate-chip cookie
> bake-off.
Ouch. Yeah, there's an awful lot of geeks in the SCA. Only my interest in
arms and armor, fighting, drumming for middle-eastern dancers, and drugs &
sex keep me interested. Although I do look rather dashing in some of the
funny clothes.
Therion
--
--
http://fiat.gslis.utexas.edu/~therion/index.html
sine nomine
: That's a tough one, but I tend to agree with it. If you don't know the
: rules, it doesn't mean much when you break them. That doesn't mean a
: painter has to be able to "paint like a photo", though. I'm not a big fan
: of photorealism. To me, it means that a painter should have a minimum
: level of competence. If you paint in a certain style because it's all you
: can do, you're just performing some neat tricks you learned accidentally.
: A painter should have a broad vocabulary, so to speak, so that one is not
: limited by one's expressive tools.
that's why i almost never read people's poetry on the net, and hate it
when people want to talk about being a Writer, about how they sit down
and words just come to them in droves begging to be typed into a
computer. right. maybe after six false starts, a few beers, maybe a
short nap, some hair-tearing frustration. writing is not a diaphonous
process. some of my best stuff was done after i'd filled pages with
mind-numbing prose i wouldn't wish on anyone. then something clicks
and i'm in flow and i can't type fast enough, and there are reasons
(unexplainable, but real) why i'm breaking the rules i'm breaking and
it's the coolest thing in the world.
--
sine | deb
ack! it's this rant again. someone stop me.
chiaroscuro
>>>Boris Villejo ho!
>>snakes. I'd correct your spelling of his last name if I weren't trying
>>desperately to live down this awful rep as an English-flamer.
>Of course, his last name is Spanish.
Arrrgh. The screwup is the i, not the j. Why don't you people just hold
a gun to my head and make me proofread alt.2600 all day?
chiaroscuro
chiaroscuro
>mshe...@carroll1.cc.edu (chiaroscuro) writes:
>>>uh, gee. i'm uncool. i read Vertigo, too. Waaah! does that excuse Vampirella?
Here, let me make it a little more clear:
<aaml> <irony>
>>I'm afraid nothing short of ritual purification with hot coals will
>>achieve that.
</irony> </aaml>
chiaroscuro
Tony B.
mshe...@carroll1.cc.edu (chiaroscuro) writes:
> chiaroscuro
about himself. you erased most of my post in order to point out that
you were trying to be humorous? well, duh!
and in fact, i did laugh when i read your response.
then you tried to call me clueless?
what's up with that?not that i give a damn but i just want to see what smug
shit you will write back.
...tony...
oh, shit, i'm Meech all of a sudden.
Duke Robillard
lm...@cornell.edu (loopy lemon) writes:
>du...@cc.bellcore.com (Duke Robillard) wrote:
>
>> Actually, I'm a big fan of representational, narrative art myself.
>> I don't understand Kandinsky or Vasirily or Mondarian either. I
>> can't even spell them.
>
>The great thing about Mondrian is that his work is graphic art elevated to
>fine art..... It makes a great textbook cover, but
>why shouldn't it be in an art gallery? graphic art touches us more
>directly than representational art.
Hmm... Sorry, I just don't feel it with these. I'm unfashionably
stuck on Delacroix and Turner. Give me a good lion hunt or snowstorm
any day. (smiley would go here).
>... Great abstract art should be
>accessible on both levels - the "I know what I like" level, and the
>theoretical level. Rothko's colored blocks are a great example of this, as
>are Matisse's cutouts. And look at Pollock's giant paint-splashed canvases
>-- they look like they were, goshdarnit, FUN to paint.
Well, actually I agree about Pollock's stuff, they are kind of fun.
And yes, Matisse is wonderful (he's one of my very favorites), but I
must say I prefer his "representational" stuff; even with the cutouts.
(I heard somewhere that someone asked Matisse why all his stuff
was so upbeat and pretty. He supposedly said "There are enough
tiresome things in the world, why create more?")
>The renaissance masters (like Rubens, Vermeer, and the sublime Da Vinci)
>learned how to use perspective in their paintings. Before that, portraits
Not to pick nits, but I don't think Rubens and Vermeer are generally
consider Renaissance, are they? (I mean, there's like a hundred years
between Da Vinci and Rubens.) I thought they were Baroque. Doesn't
it go: Renaissance, Mannerist, Baroque, Rococco, Classical, Romantic,
Impressionist, Modern? That's what the Jesuits taught me, right after
Augustus, Tiberious, Caligula, Claudius, Nero.
--
Duke "Western Civ." Robillard, du...@cc.bellcore.com
Duke Robillard
ASBU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Tony B.) writes:
>fuck you chia you arrogant putz
That sounds somehow like a Subject: line to me.
--
Duke Robillard, du...@cc.bellcore.com
Wild Yet Restrained
Tony B. <ASBU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
[in response to Chiakins]
>what's up with that?not that i give a damn but i just want to see what smug
>shit you will write back.
>oh, shit, i'm Meech all of a sudden.
Ah, but I am glad that the reins have been taken up by a new younger
generation now that I have found other amusements. I'm keeping tabs
though. Nice to know I WAS right after all. Keep up the good work
everyone! My heart is with you.
Meech
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
kov...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu
Tony B. <ASBU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
[in response to Chiakins]
>what's up with that?not that i give a damn but i just want to see what smug
>shit you will write back.
>oh, shit, i'm Meech all of a sudden.
Ah, but I am glad that the reins have been taken up by a new younger
loopy
> Not to pick nits, but I don't think Rubens and Vermeer are generally
> consider Renaissance, are they?
you're probably right. I only took French art history, and picked up the
rest by hanging out in museums. ARe you quite sure Vermeer is Baroque? I
usually hate Baroque but Vermeer is one of my favorites.
Lucie
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lucie Melahn "You may have inner tranquility, but you
lm...@cornell.edu can't escape surface tension." V.Louise Roth
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
loopy
> Not to pick nits, but I don't think Rubens and Vermeer are generally
> consider Renaissance, are they?
wait a sec. I meant to say Raphael, not Rubens. He's renaissance, isn't he?
Duke Robillard
lm...@cornell.edu (loopy) writes:
>In article <DUKE.95Ma...@annwn.iscp.bellcore.com>,
>du...@cc.bellcore.com (Duke Robillard) wrote:
>
>> Not to pick nits, but I don't think Rubens and Vermeer are generally
>> consider Renaissance, are they?
>
>you're probably right. I only took French art history, and picked up the
>rest by hanging out in museums. ARe you quite sure Vermeer is Baroque? I
>usually hate Baroque but Vermeer is one of my favorites.
He's that time period, but because he was from the North,
he's less of what people think of as stereotypically baroque.
Still, he's got a lot of the characteristics: chiascuro,
realistic potraiture, that some of that visible brush-stroke
proto-impressionism.
--
Duke Robillard, du...@cc.bellcore.com