ignorance IS bliss ( was Re: Quiet Playing )
Richard (R.) Bown
Loopy (lm...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: Of course, you don't _need_ the vocabulary in order to appreciate the
: music. but you need vocabulary words if you wish to discuss a subject on
: anything other than the most simplistic and banal level ("Uh, it's got a
: good beat and I can dance to it!"). I think you really are advocating
: ignorance as a higher mode of thought.
hey, she gets it! what it would be to be unfettered by the emotion
derived from the bland everyday experience. what's so great about the
thought that anyone has? we just dig ourselves deeper into holes,
spend our lives solving the insoluble and end up tired and emotional
sitting on the shores of disappointment. naming, coding, filing
everywhere we compartmentalise ourselves, our lives and our thoughts.
take it on a tangent and use the spin AGAINST the flow. how much more
freely the words flow when they are used in the wrong context.
sweetness all around described in perfect cliche. if that pleases you
then you're welcome to it. but you are a fool.
[visual arts]
: Well, Bown, i suppose you spend your life naked, you live in a cardboard
: house, you read books that are printed out especially for you on a
: dot-matrix printer, you have a yard that contains nothing but dirt and
: weeds, and you buy all of your food at the local organic market where they
: load your flour into a brown paper sack. In addition to that, you don't go
: to the movies, you don't watch TV, you don't go to any stores, and your
: computer has no monitor. When you venture outside, you carefully cover
: your eyes with your hands so that you can avoid seeing everything around
: you -- traffic signs, the inside of your car, houses, gardens,
: storefronts, people.
but do i need to sit on my haunches and deliberate it?
do i need to write a dissertation about it?
do i need to understand it?
NO. you're putting your *ideas* in context with your environment.
abstractions whilst shopping are the sole reason for the popularity
of the kiwi fruit. it has no place there - think when you need to
and act the rest of the time. give thought a little, heh, thought.
: diversion. secondly, you do need training (or as i prefer to put it, you
: need a basic knowledge of the subject) before you can discuss any subject
: intelligently.
what in the hell is intelligent about a bunch of whining art
freaks moaning on about theme, texture and form?
if that's intelligence then give me ignorance every time.
i'll gladly genuflect infront of your superior intelligence,
knowledge and wit as soon as you starting showing me a sign.
: > music has already gone over the edge. we can talk in terms that
: > we despise, use the manual inverted commas, laugh at our own
: > pretensions. perhaps this is the difference - i don't get to
: > talk art with people on a daily basis and as such it's something
: > i don't need to explain quickly to someone, we use the accepted
: > terms to convey meaning in this circumstance - from my standpoint
: > there is no need perhaps it cheapens my experience?
: i fail to see how knowledge can cheapen your experience.
ok then, i'll just tell you how the film ends then shall i?
it must be nice to work in omniscience. c'mon loopy we spend
everyday trying to work it all out, why would we want to know
the answers to questions we know are impossible. where is the
challenge in definition? knowledge is just assumption. to say
it works today is no guarantee of continuous success.
the only truth is wonderment. being amazed. to be humbled
we must disbelieve. i want to UNLEARN. i can't so i have to
put up with this argument as entertainment. it was fun up
until the point when i found out that you're serious about it.
[what is]
: > wrong with basing my argument on your statements and reactions?
: Nothing. I wish you _had_ based your argument on my statements, that's
: all. All i ever did was describe my mental state while drawing (she said,
: for the millionth time).
but that was TEDIOUS, just like all of this dreck your spouting it
has no point other to pose. caught in apogee with your slip showing
it's absolutely the most laughable argument for a need for knowledge
i have ever encountered. and *i* won't repeat my call for you to
view YOUR argument and see yourself poking through. it's OBVIOUS.
it has left me literally breathless, this audacious disregard for
anything but the most homogenised of truths which you faithfully
read and reproduce with no need for interpretation.
ask me to quantify that argument and i'll laugh you out of existence.
rich.
Instrument of Darwin
In article <4m539k$3...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, rb...@bnr.co.uk (Richard (R.) Bown) writes:
> Loopy (lm...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>
> : I think you really are advocating ignorance as a higher mode of thought.
>
> hey, she gets it!
Since Rbown seems to think ignorance is wonderful, why doesn't he just get a
lobotomy and be done with it? Why the hell is he on the Internet anyway? To
spread his agenda of ignorance? Or (to use a borrowed term from mathematics
which has now been used to describe public education) Lowest Common
Denominator??? (And would Rbown now like to flame my use of this term?)
Reading his horrified responses to Loopy's use of the word "see" was
entertaining, but it also helped explain to me why people can't seem to
communicate with each other. They can't, not with folks like Rbown around
nit-picking (<--- go ahead, pick on that word too, is it too descriptive for
you?) over word choices.
By the way, "seeing" is NOT new terminology. It has been used in the art
community for ages. For those who don't like communities (or, as some call
them: snobs, bigots, elitists, fellow hobbyists, friends, BEST friends, non-
profit organizations, extended family, cyberculture), try living outside all
communities and see how well you get along.
In Rbown's case, he can try moving to some remote island where he doesn't speak
the language and enjoy all the blue things and green things and beautiful
things and ugly things he likes, and on top of that, have absolutely no one to
talk to about it.
Not all of us are as gifted as Rbown who claims to see/hear/taste so much
beauty in life that he doesn't need these awful-awful-awful words to describe
what he's sensing. Some of us need to connect the word "syncopation" with the
phenomenon before we can begin to understand and appreciate it. Some of us
need to learn the significance of "Expressionism" before we can see why Hitler
thought this group of artists were so dangerous.
It's interesting that for someone who seems to hate words, or the way certain
words are used, so much, Rbown has written many a word. May I use a cliche
here and say that he's "biting the hand that feeds him" ?
--
/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
| J. Shen Davis "I'm sorry, my karma ran over your dogma." |
| |
| Email: jts...@csupomona.edu |
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
Loopy
> hey, she gets it! what it would be to be unfettered by the emotion
> derived from the bland everyday experience. what's so great about the
> thought that anyone has? we just dig ourselves deeper into holes,
> spend our lives solving the insoluble and end up tired and emotional
> sitting on the shores of disappointment. naming, coding, filing
> everywhere we compartmentalise ourselves, our lives and our thoughts.
I'm glad to see that you finally spelled out your rather astonishing views
about art and education. What you're saying is that one can view the world
in one of two ways: "innocently," or bogged down with tedious bits of
information. Well, Bown, it's a lovely thought, but it's absolute crap,
and i can only wonder what sort of education you got. unless you ingest a
mind-erasing drug daily, everything you do, see, and hear is informed by
what you did, saw, and heard before. your ideal of innocence is rather
impossible for anyone who wasn't brought up in a sensory deprivation tank.
> : Well, Bown, i suppose you spend your life naked, you live in a cardboard
> : house, you read books that are printed out especially for you on a
> : dot-matrix printer, you have a yard that contains nothing but dirt and
> : weeds, and you buy all of your food at the local organic market where they
> : load your flour into a brown paper sack.
[snip]
> but do i need to sit on my haunches and deliberate it?
> do i need to write a dissertation about it?
> do i need to understand it?
Did i say that i deliberated it? do i take notes on everything I see? Do i
try to put everything into historical context? hell no. Most of the time I
enjoy what I see on the simplest of levels ("gee, i like yellow").
However, when the need arises, I have the tools to put my thoughts in
order, to articulate them, to hash them out with other people. That is the
purpose of an education. I am not forever limited to looking at the world
with my finger up my nose, unable to express what i'm thinking. Education
isn't about amassing facts. it's about critical thinking.
> : diversion. secondly, you do need training (or as i prefer to put it, you
> : need a basic knowledge of the subject) before you can discuss any subject
> : intelligently.
> what in the hell is intelligent about a bunch of whining art
> freaks moaning on about theme, texture and form?
i wonder what you think you're doing on a.a, bown.
> : i fail to see how knowledge can cheapen your experience.
> ok then, i'll just tell you how the film ends then shall i?
> it must be nice to work in omniscience. c'mon loopy we spend
> everyday trying to work it all out, why would we want to know
> the answers to questions we know are impossible. where is the
> challenge in definition? knowledge is just assumption. to say
> it works today is no guarantee of continuous success.
you're right. thinking hurts, it really does.
> the only truth is wonderment. being amazed. to be humbled
> we must disbelieve. i want to UNLEARN. i can't so i have to
> put up with this argument as entertainment. it was fun up
> until the point when i found out that you're serious about it.
that's funny, i only started having fun when i realized you actually
believe what you're saying.
> it has left me literally breathless, this audacious disregard for
> anything but the most homogenised of truths which you faithfully
> read and reproduce with no need for interpretation.
now this is the funny part. You are suffering under a gross misconception
here. You saw the words "art books" somewhere in one of my early posts
and from that, you constructed an elaborate fantasy in which I walk around
stuffy museums spewing facts about art and art history, regurgitating what
some art critic said, keeping up with the latest vogue in fine art.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't give a rat's ass what art
critics say. I read books and magazines and go to museums to educate my
own eye. My favorite museums are the ones like the Gardner Museum in
Boston, where the objects are displayed, not in any sort of logical order,
but in ways that make the most of the sheer beauty of the objects. there
are no long explanatory texts in the Gardner. IMHO, the "best" art is
accessible on several levels. It should be enjoyable in an immediate way,
by someone as blissfully ignorant as, say, bown. It should also have more
depth to it than a greeting card illustration, so that snotty, elitist
people can get their jollies discussing the metaphorical meaning of
Georges deLatour's use of reflected light.
now, if i may address the other of your preposterous assumptions... You
have based much of your argument on the idea that I have no thoughts of my
own, that all i do is ingest and parrot back what others say. If i may
indulge in a moment of arrogance here... Do you seriously think that I,
Lucie, am incapable of coming up with my OWN OPINIONS about ANYTHING,
never mind something i like? the mind boggles.
--
the not-so-NEW Lucie Melahn
lm...@cornell.edu
Richard (R.) Bown
Loopy (lm...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: I'm glad to see that you finally spelled out your rather astonishing views
: about art and education. What you're saying is that one can view the world
: in one of two ways: "innocently," or bogged down with tedious bits of
: information. Well, Bown, it's a lovely thought, but it's absolute crap,
: and i can only wonder what sort of education you got.
hey, i only said it was an ideal. it is a polarising move to rile
those who know they are educated into making a thoughtful stand for
THEIR ideals. discussion being the better part of valour.
you can view the world in a frillion ways. go on, i'll let ya.
throughout your education keep in mind that your learning as
well as freeing you to express your ideas also shackles you to
them.
by thinking, erm, in a, *cough*, existential manner you can drop all
that educational baggage for a minute and really try to freewheel.
: However, when the need arises, I have the tools to put my thoughts in
: order, to articulate them, to hash them out with other people. That is the
: purpose of an education. I am not forever limited to looking at the world
: with my finger up my nose, unable to express what i'm thinking. Education
: isn't about amassing facts. it's about critical thinking.
absolutely. perversley it is also proving that you have the ability
to learn. i tried experiments while i was in education to test the
envelope. it would seem that any fool, even me, can get a degree.
in doing so i feel a petty triumph. however there is conflict.
the emotional side of me is saying "yeah, jump on the bike and
get outta here" whilst i'm also deciding "these skills will really
help me in my chosen career path".
so . . .
after digging for nearly five miles they hit a vein of solid angst.
: > what in the hell is intelligent about a bunch of whining art
: > freaks moaning on about theme, texture and form?
: i wonder what you think you're doing on a.a, bown.
heh. good point.
the fundamental dichotomy *i* have is that i can't decide what i
want out of myself. i learn things, i decide i can't learn.
i do things, i decide i can't do them. one minute it's Emporer
of the Entire Universe and the next it's Putrid Puddle.
i do enjoy learning - i contradict myself but i cite my reasons
above. unashamed.
: > the only truth is wonderment. being amazed. to be humbled
: > we must disbelieve. i want to UNLEARN. i can't so i have to
: > put up with this argument as entertainment. it was fun up
: > until the point when i found out that you're serious about it.
: that's funny, i only started having fun when i realized you actually
: believe what you're saying.
what is wrong with being amazed?
it is an emotionless state. giddy euphoria because you realise
your place in this matrix. meaningless. douglas adams jokes
not withstanding.
: > it has left me literally breathless, this audacious disregard for
: > anything but the most homogenised of truths which you faithfully
: > read and reproduce with no need for interpretation.
: now this is the funny part. You are suffering under a gross misconception
: here. You saw the words "art books" somewhere in one of my early posts
: and from that, you constructed an elaborate fantasy in which I walk around
: stuffy museums spewing facts about art and art history, regurgitating what
oh you DO. you know you do. we all do it to different standards
if only to look knowledgeable and cool.
: now, if i may address the other of your preposterous assumptions... You
: have based much of your argument on the idea that I have no thoughts of my
: own, that all i do is ingest and parrot back what others say. If i may
: indulge in a moment of arrogance here... Do you seriously think that I,
: Lucie, am incapable of coming up with my OWN OPINIONS about ANYTHING,
: never mind something i like? the mind boggles.
well what proof have i got that YOU, LUCIE are anything special at all?
why would you want me to think that? arrogance INDEED. do I take myself
to been anything particularly special? do i swan around like some FONDANT
AND ICING PUFF PASTRY dutifully smiling at the adoring crowd?
no. for one thing the colours wouldn't suit me and for another i
have more humility than that. YES. that's right. I HAVE THE MOST
HUMILITY OUT OF ANYONE HERE AND THAT'S THE TRUTH.
i ask you to justify yourself and you have. well done. don't expect
medals. isn't it enough that this has been argued and we've both got
a little out of the experience?
no. there is ego to salve.
rich.
Richard (R.) Bown
and anyway, i'm better.
rich.
NERR. NERR. NERR.
chuck
lm...@cornell.edu (Loopy) writes:
>In article <4m539k$3...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, rb...@bnr.co.uk (Richard (R.)
>Bown) wrote:
Sir Richard surveys the battle scene. The SS Loopy appears severely
and on the run. Unwittingly, he tacks toward here stern and closes in
for the kill.
>> hey, she gets it! what it would be to be unfettered by the emotion
>> derived from the bland everyday experience. what's so great about the
>> thought that anyone has? we just dig ourselves deeper into holes,
>> spend our lives solving the insoluble and end up tired and emotional
>> sitting on the shores of disappointment. naming, coding, filing
>> everywhere we compartmentalise ourselves, our lives and our thoughts.
To his surprise, the SS Loopy suddenly unfurls full sails and quickly sails
downwind, outmanuveuring the Bown.
>I'm glad to see that you finally spelled out your rather astonishing views
>about art and education. What you're saying is that one can view the world
>in one of two ways: "innocently," or bogged down with tedious bits of
>information. Well, Bown, it's a lovely thought, but it's absolute crap,
>and i can only wonder what sort of education you got. unless you ingest a
>mind-erasing drug daily, everything you do, see, and hear is informed by
>what you did, saw, and heard before. your ideal of innocence is rather
>impossible for anyone who wasn't brought up in a sensory deprivation tank.
>
OH! The HMS Bown takes a full broadside of doubleshot into it's stern
by the SS Loopy, severely crippling the ship!
Chuck
--
Chuck "THE mindless, heartless conservative"
Sofia Tolstoshev
In article <318849ca...@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com
(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
>
> Along another line... The major issue I have with (against?) art today
is >that it seems that to be a marketable success
has far less to do with talent >than it does with packaging. There are
probably millions of people equally
> qualified and inspired to produce works "first rate contemporary art". What
> seems to separate the hobbyist from the immensely wealthy lies not in
the >work
> itself but in the lifestyle of the artist.
[snip]
> Scams, scams, scams...
yes. i've been finding this out myself, lately, due to some judicious
advice of others, coupled with some thought (yeah, i do it sometimes).
mostly, it has to do with writing. recently have become amazed at the
amount of first rate writing there is that has never/ probably will never
be published. never never never. hell, like the father good friend of
mine. he's a printer who works out of his basement and spends some of his
free time writing incredible poetry. and then, the other day i went to
a poetry reading of a friend-- was utterly amazed. i mean, really. & he
wants to be a journalist, & i never even knew he was writing & i've known
him 4 years.
this seems a shame, because the idealist in me wants everyone to have
their due. wants to see money/appreciation being doled out so that the
people i know doing these things don't have to spend a lot of their life
slaving away at a job that they *don't* like, and doing these things in
between. but then, i thought, hold on a second. maybe there are some
advantages to it being this way. first of all, maybe part of it is this
balance between responsibility/ pleasure that makes these people such good
creators. you know? there is no chance of their being warped by fame/
adoration. also, they're lucky to begin with. at least they have
something they love, are good at, and do, even if they do also have a job
to go with it. that's a lot more than nothing. finally, its good for
*me*. i get to meet & talk to people who i really admire but who are
"humble", i guess what i mean is that they are doing these things simply
because they love them, not because they're after something, fame,
respect. a lot of them *know* they won't get anywhere, probably, but they
do it anyway. and they are fun for me to know.
in fact, about the only disadvantage i can think of to this matter is that
fewer people are going to get to look at their work, and that is a shame.
but, no big matter. even if i were only foraging among published work,
i'd probably still never get to read everything i wanted before i die.
my thought is that everyone ought to find a few really creative people
whose stuff they appreciate *without* the packaging and then love and
admire the hell out of them. heh.
sofi
the world is just too big.
>
>
> LawyerBoy 0.001 | http://www.neosoft.com/~jjsims/
> ---------------------------------------------------
> "'Cuz I'm drinking for the pleasure of falling
> and I'm falling for the pleasure of pretending..." - Cowboy Junkies
>
Richard (R.) Bown
chuck (c...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
: OH! The HMS Bown takes a full broadside of doubleshot into it's stern
: by the SS Loopy, severely crippling the ship!
pshaw! 'tis a mere bagatelle.
rich.
Loopy
> jts...@csupomona.edu (Instrument of Darwin) wrote:
> [much of her misguided flaming of Rich snipped]
> >It's interesting that for someone who seems to hate words, or the way certain
> >words are used, so much, Rbown has written many a word. May I use a cliche
> >here and say that he's "biting the hand that feeds him" ?
> I doesn't have anything to do with hating words. I think it has to do with
> detesting the elitist connotations certain words carry. You even acknowledge
> this to a certain extent above. Finding fault with certain words because of
> the baggage they carry should in no way preclude him from using words to
> describe his annoyance with said words. The logic doesn't follow darlin'.
the logic does follow. Bown is taking issue not just with _certain_ words,
but with the entire concept of using words to discuss art. He's so upset
by buzzwords that he's going so far as to say that art just shouldn't be
discussed (and then he writes a series of long essays about it, but i'm
not going to harp on that).
> Along another line... The major issue I have with (against?) art today is that
> it seems that to be a marketable success has far less to do with talent than
> it does with packaging.
art *today*? the art world (hell, the _world_) has been like this since
the first cro-magnon ever lobbied to paint murals on the walls of the
chief's cave. You have just noticed that Life is Unfair. The talentless
loudmouths make it to the top, and the true geniuses get lost in the
shuffle. it's not the fault of someone who uses jargon. it's how the world
works.
> There are probably millions of people equally
> qualified and inspired to produce works "first rate contemporary art". What
> seems to separate the hobbyist from the immensely wealthy lies not in the work
> itself but in the lifestyle of the artist. Put a mediocre painting in a
> coffeehouse with a $300 pricetag on it and you have a $300 a painting artist.
most of the stuff i see in coffeehouses ain't worth that much. i wouldn't
buy a painting by someone who didn't show a minimum of technical
competence, and the coffeehouse art i see seems to be sorely lacking in
that.
> Take the same piece and put a $5,000 pricetag on it and stick it in an upscale
> gallery and talk up how mysterious and withdrawn this particular artist is...
> how s/he spends most of his/her time roaming the French countryside with
> nothing more than a backpack and a pet lizard... NOW you have a $5,000 a
> painting artist! It's all in the marketing.
out of curiosity, jason, when was the last time you set foot in one of
these big name galleries? have you ever been to an art gallery opening?
what you say has a certain amount of truth, of course, but someone who
buys art for a big gallery is generally not going to buy complete crap.
the value of a painting depends on a lot of things. name recognition is
prolly the biggest factor, just as in the music world. And a lot depends
on the gallery. I once went into a gallery in a ritzy ski resort town in
Utah. some of the wildlife paintings were nice, and worth what they were
asking, given the technical mastery and the name of the artist. In another
room they had a bunch of paintings in the fantasy/science-fiction art
genre. they were most definitely _not_ worth what the gallery was asking.
but then, if someone is stupid enough to pay $30K for one of these
amateurish monstrosities, who am I to judge?
> So what rises to the top? The noisiest, most controversial, most intriguing
> artist. The artist's archetype is bought and sold. His/her work merely tags
> along for the ride. That's when the ordinary Joe (read: uninformed potential
> customer) takes a look at this "legendary art" and says, "Who the fuck would
> pay $35,000 for that piece of trash?!?" The art community titters at the
> infidel for his uninformed, if not heretical, pronouncement. Of course, they
> can come up with myriad reasons to explain the 'pure genius' of the work but
> it all equates to them reassuring themselves that they haven't been snookered
> by a charlatan or a Johnny Come Lately. "No, no, no! This artist *really* is
> inspired! Pure genius, I must say!"
when did ordinary Joes start buying $35,000 paintings? damn, get me in on
this scheme now. last time i checked ordinary joes were buying Korean
assembly-line oil paintings at the mall that were obscenely overpriced at
$50-$100.
> The major difference between the the mass-market publicity hype and the fine
> arts hype is that you have to be a lot more subtle. Let the customers think
> that *they* are the smart ones to recognize such talent. "You have a very
> good eye, Mr. Jones. This is one of our most promising young artists..."
of course. I wouldn't walk into a used car dealership, listen to the
salesman's spiel, and hand over my credit card. it's stupid to buy
expensive things you know nothing about -- hence the need to educate
oneself. The only reason to buy art is because you like it. only pros
should buy art as an investment. Art dealers are undoubtedly thrilled to
meet a sucker, but hey, there's nothing new under the sun. Life is Unfair.
Richard (R.) Bown
Loopy (lm...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: the logic does follow. Bown is taking issue not just with _certain_ words,
: but with the entire concept of using words to discuss art. He's so upset
: by buzzwords that he's going so far as to say that art just shouldn't be
: discussed (and then he writes a series of long essays about it, but i'm
: not going to harp on that).
quite right too. perfect examples coming up.
[snipola]
: what you say has a certain amount of truth, of course, but someone who
: buys art for a big gallery is generally not going to buy complete crap.
define `crap' ? and so you think that discussing art ain't dangerous ?
look at what clothes you wore ten years ago. they look crap don't they ?
but then y'see they were fashion. and yes i'm being generous there.
they were a business decision.
now all the class together:
"discussing art is discussing business"
[snip]
: they were most definitely _not_ worth what the gallery was asking.
: but then, if someone is stupid enough to pay $30K for one of these
: amateurish monstrosities, who am I to judge?
oh i'm sure *you* would, my dear. you would use your keen perception
and heightened instincts to POUNCE upon the poor intellectual proletariat
who will fearfully cower in ashamed and ignorant huddles.
the struggle of class against class is an art struggle.
how's the art going ? oh, bumping along.
but, is it politics ?
wake up and smell the coffe, mrs. bueller, he is just leading you
down the sunflower path.
: of course. I wouldn't walk into a used car dealership, listen to the
: salesman's spiel, and hand over my credit card. it's stupid to buy
: expensive things you know nothing about -- hence the need to educate
: oneself. The only reason to buy art is because you like it. only pros
: should buy art as an investment. Art dealers are undoubtedly thrilled to
: meet a sucker, but hey, there's nothing new under the sun. Life is Unfair.
the only EYE you develop is eye of the shrewd investor.
art should hang in galleries.
go sit on a picasso.
rich.
Henry B. Messenger
In article <4ma2pj$e...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>,
rb...@bnr.co.uk (Richard (R.) Bown) wrote:
>well what proof have i got that YOU, LUCIE are anything special at all?
>why would you want me to think that? arrogance INDEED. do I take myself
>to been anything particularly special? do i swan around like some FONDANT
>AND ICING PUFF PASTRY dutifully smiling at the adoring crowd?
>
>no. for one thing the colours wouldn't suit me and for another i
>have more humility than that. YES. that's right. I HAVE THE MOST
>HUMILITY OUT OF ANYONE HERE AND THAT'S THE TRUTH.
>
>i ask you to justify yourself and you have. well done. don't expect
>medals. isn't it enough that this has been argued and we've both got
>a little out of the experience?
A friend of mine saw Hunter S. Thomspon give a lecture once. For
those of you who have never heard HST speak, he mumbles incoherently
a lot. Somebody in the audience yelled out, "Enunciate!" Dr. Thompson
replied, clearly, "That's fair."
Bown, is it possible for you to write a lucid post that can be understood?
The only time you were interested enough to write clearly was when Lucie
touched on your angst. And then you have the audacity to claim the
Alt.Angst Gary Dickerson Memorial Humility Award.
When YOU get YOUR Ph.D. in journalism, THEN you can be incoherent and
expect people to get it anyway.
A member of the audience yells out, "Write clearly!"
--
Henry B. Messenger "LYO: League of Yacht Owners. Buy new sails, rigging,
h...@bayarea.net boat, and the like when crew requests. Remain aft of
traveller at all times. Have checkbook ready at all
times. Post crew bail bonds." - Bob Payne
David Of Bedlam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Richard (R.) Bown (rb...@bnr.co.uk) wrote:
: do I take myself to been anything particularly special? do i swan
: around like some FONDANT AND ICING PUFF PASTRY dutifully smiling at
: the adoring crowd?
You'd better not, not here, you'd do me out of my place!
Waving regally,
TheDavid
- --
a fugitive and a wanderer | After TheDavid You Won't Need Dessert, Really!
A FUGITIVE AND A WANDERER | http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
^L
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMYp9ee5bJgnmjCuBAQHuWQP7Brsy9lZtozLfwz2qdkldVEdGY+WIjU8U
Ar0aAn8RqcPBE/CcHT9Xq905rGknJZbsTTqefkd0Txv4EOORyQaJCEfqMcjqZJcR
3JHEIlvqyn9T5WKeUJlEUisOjzmGXYpH+5y3fhCQCuRynAC/GUYriIPu2VuE0llw
Nz7r9wDm8TY=
=yajF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jamie Elizabeth Fend
In article <318849ca...@news.neosoft.com>,
LawyerBoy 0.001 <jjs...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
>Along another line... The major issue I have with (against?) art today is that
>it seems that to be a marketable success has far less to do with talent than
>it does with packaging.
as i am studying graphic design right now, which means the art i put out
will have to be something that appeals to the masses and not quite as
expressive as it would be if i weren't working for a client, i have found
this to be quite true.
i especially notice it in the fact that all the professors are raving
about one girl in the department who will graduate in a month and
everyone is saying she's going to be the next big thing, that she's
really going far and all that but i gotta tell you, i don't like her
designs. they aren't interesting, they aren't unique or fabulous in any
way. of course, in commercial art, that isn't the issue. i suppose
people want art that doesn't make them think. so, okay, it works.
the thing is, though, that she presents both her art and herself
very well. she is so social and very sure of herself and her work that
it comes accross very strong. she knows all the "right" people and moves
in the "right" circles so that there is no doubt in my mind that she'll
be rich and famous.
it bugs me sometimes, mostly because i refuse, or can't do that. i can't
sell myself like that and convince people that i'm the best thing since
sliced bread even if i think my designs are way better. which i do.
jamie
Jonah Thomas
In <lmm5-03059...@cu-dialup-0034.cit.cornell.edu> lm...@cornell.edu
(Loopy) writes:
>In article <318849ca...@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com
>(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
>> Finding fault with certain words because of
>> the baggage they carry should in no way preclude him from using words to
>> describe his annoyance with said words. The logic doesn't follow darlin'.
>the logic does follow. Bown is taking issue not just with _certain_ words,
>but with the entire concept of using words to discuss art. He's so upset
>by buzzwords that he's going so far as to say that art just shouldn't be
>discussed (and then he writes a series of long essays about it, but i'm
>not going to harp on that).
I've lost track -- did he say that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss art, or
only that he disapproved? It makes a difference. Also, he can object to the way
that people discuss art without implying that he can't do better.
>> Take the same piece and put a $5,000 pricetag on it and stick it in an upscale
>> gallery and talk up how mysterious and withdrawn this particular artist is...
>> how s/he spends most of his/her time roaming the French countryside with
>> nothing more than a backpack and a pet lizard... NOW you have a $5,000 a
>> painting artist! It's all in the marketing.
>what you say has a certain amount of truth, of course, but someone who
>buys art for a big gallery is generally not going to buy complete crap.
And how they know the difference is.... The reviews? The special training that
teaches them the difference between good and bad technique? The consensus of
their peers? All the things he was disapproving of in the first place, maybe....
..
> In another
>room they had a bunch of paintings in the fantasy/science-fiction art
>genre. they were most definitely _not_ worth what the gallery was asking.
>but then, if someone is stupid enough to pay $30K for one of these
>amateurish monstrosities, who am I to judge?
You just did. You're _you_, with your unique tastes. Your aesthetic judgement
is worth a whole lot to you and you wouldn't give it up easily. And you can
estimate how much it's worth to other people by how much they'd pay for it. You
might easily be able to write art reviews for your local paper, or maybe for
syndication. They pay by check, good as cold hard cash. You could probably get
a job as a buyer etc at a gallery, if you wanted it. I don't know your
credentials; you might get a lower-paying but higher-prestige job at an art
museum. I expect there are people who value your judgement about these things.
And fundamentally, you have the right to judge as a conscious creature. You can
tell anybody that any piece of art is worthless, if you want to. And they can
believe you or not, as they choose.
>> So what rises to the top? The noisiest, most controversial, most intriguing
>> artist. The artist's archetype is bought and sold. His/her work merely tags
>> along for the ride. That's when the ordinary Joe (read: uninformed potential
>> customer) takes a look at this "legendary art" and says, "Who the fuck would
>> pay $35,000 for that piece of trash?!?"
>when did ordinary Joes start buying $35,000 paintings? damn, get me in on
>this scheme now. last time i checked ordinary joes were buying Korean
>assembly-line oil paintings at the mall that were obscenely overpriced at
>$50-$100.
Yes. In some ways your artistic judgement is much more important when you can
back it up with cash out instead of cash in. Never mind what ordinary people
think about any piece of art, it's the ones with real money who matter.
>> The major difference between the the mass-market publicity hype and the fine
>> arts hype is that you have to be a lot more subtle. Let the customers think
>> that *they* are the smart ones to recognize such talent. "You have a very
>> good eye, Mr. Jones. This is one of our most promising young artists..."
>of course. I wouldn't walk into a used car dealership, listen to the
>salesman's spiel, and hand over my credit card. it's stupid to buy
>expensive things you know nothing about -- hence the need to educate
>oneself. The only reason to buy art is because you like it. only pros
>should buy art as an investment. Art dealers are undoubtedly thrilled to
>meet a sucker, but hey, there's nothing new under the sun. Life is Unfair.
Ah. Let's assume I have a whole lot of money, and not tremendously refined
artistic taste. I see art I like and I buy it. What would make one artwork
worth, say, $50,000 to me when the price on another is $500? Maybe if I like it
100 times as much? OK, having a lot of money and a lot of time, I can get
educated enough to really _see_ why the expensive one is worth so much more.
It's an expensive hobby, to develop refined tastes.
Well, but maybe I _do_ want to buy art as an investment. People do that,
particularly when they think the inflation rate will go up. It's only these
multiple years of low inflation that get dealers to recommend people buy art only
because they like it -- they used to tout it as investment. Well, as an
investment I need the advice of the market. Which paintings are going up and
which down. Where is the market hot? What tends to really keep its worth?
Of *course* only pros should buy art as investment. For that matter, only pros
should by stocks as investment. Oh well.
I wouldn't say that life is unfair. I'd say that life is not fair. Oh, that
doesn't come across. The distinction I'm trying to make is like that between
"immoral" and "amoral". Art dealers are unfair. Life is nonfair. Oh hell, I
can't say it. Never mind.
Instrument of Darwin
In article <318849ca...@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com (LawyerBoy 0.001) writes:
> jts...@csupomona.edu (Instrument of Darwin) wrote:
> [much of her misguided flaming of Rich snipped]
>>It's interesting that for someone who seems to hate words, or the way certain
>>words are used, so much, Rbown has written many a word. May I use a cliche
>>here and say that he's "biting the hand that feeds him" ?
>
> I doesn't have anything to do with hating words. I think it has to do with
> detesting the elitist connotations certain words carry. You even acknowledge
And who, my dear boy, put those annoying elitist connotations there, may I ask?
You and every person who complains about the elitism of a silly little word put
it there, that's who.
> this to a certain extent above. Finding fault with certain words because of
> the baggage they carry should in no way preclude him from using words to
> describe his annoyance with said words. The logic doesn't follow darlin'.
He was hardly annoyed. May I remind you that he said he thought Loopy was
"dangerous" in perpetuating the use of the word "see" in such a way. I was
merely pointing out that if he was so annoyed with words flying all around and
hitting him in the face, it's stupid of him to jump into the fray and smother
himself in it.
> [brown nosing snipped]
> Along another line... The major issue I have with (against?) art today is that
> it seems that to be a marketable success has far less to do with talent than
> it does with packaging. There are probably millions of people equally
There are _probably_? You don't even know, do you? You're trying to
manufacture an argument on what little you can scrape together in your brain
about art, but you don't know!
>[irrelevant commentary on *ArT*]
Let someone who's lived way too long in the 80's talk about art, and this is
what you get. Paranoid thinking transversing all shop talk categories.
> That's when the big vocabulary comes in handy. It effectively cows the
> ordinary Joe into believing he is unqualified to know good art when he sees
> it.
[snip, snip]
And while you're painting this lovely scenario, were you thinking, ohmygosh,
I'm ordinary Joe, and some horrible person could do something mean like this to
me!!!
I respect most people enough to know that they wouldn't fall for such a silly
"trick" if one was ever played on them. Which is why I think you're especially
stupid for taking this possibility seriously. This is the stuff of comedies.
CupCaked
>Richard (R.) Bown (rb...@bnr.co.uk) wrote:
>: do I take myself to been anything particularly special? do i swan
>: around like some FONDANT AND ICING PUFF PASTRY
Did someone call?
CupCaked
Richard (R.) Bown
Henry B. Messenger (h...@bayarea.net) wrote:
: Bown, is it possible for you to write a lucid post that can be understood?
: The only time you were interested enough to write clearly was when Lucie
: touched on your angst. And then you have the audacity to claim the
: Alt.Angst Gary Dickerson Memorial Humility Award.
ohmigawd. hank, check your ironimeter you fool. and dammit just
how much sense do i have to make? i've 'splained it to the hips
and you're right i'm bored with this constant repetition.
: When YOU get YOUR Ph.D. in journalism, THEN you can be incoherent and
: expect people to get it anyway.
no you see. the trick is to be there first with the inanity.
i'm just a couple of seconds ahead, really. soon it'll be
trendy i they'll have to GIVE me a doctorate.
anyway making it unintelligible is part of The Conquest of Cliche.
c.f. The Appreciation of Art. anyway, the Usenet argument. you
don't like it, you don't read it.
: A member of the audience yells out, "Write clearly!"
no. now shuddup before i take your boats away.
rich.
Loopy
In article <318c4387....@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com
(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
> jts...@csupomona.edu (Instrument of Darwin) wrote:
>
> OK. That's it! You've now been plonked, bitch.
thin skin, there? I of D was one of the few people who grasped what the
real issues were on this thread.
spu...@agt.net
>jjs...@neosoft.com
>(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
>>lm...@cornell.edu (Loopy) wrote:
>>>In article <318849ca...@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com
>>>(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
>The jargon is part of the "slight of hand" that perpetuates this injustice.
>It attempts to quantify and mystify simultaneously. Why not let the work
>speak for itself?
>>>There are probably millions of people equally
>>> qualified and inspired to produce works "first rate contemporary art". What
>>>seems to separate the hobbyist from the immensely wealthy lies not in the work
>>> itself but in the lifestyle of the artist. Put a mediocre painting in a
>>> coffeehouse with a $300 pricetag on it and you have a $300 a painting artist.
>>most of the stuff i see in coffeehouses ain't worth that much. i wouldn't
>>buy a painting by someone who didn't show a minimum of technical
>>competence, and the coffeehouse art i see seems to be sorely lacking in
>>that.
>>> Take the same piece and put a $5,000 pricetag on it and stick it in an upscale
>>> gallery and talk up how mysterious and withdrawn this particular artist is...
>>>how s/he spends most of his/her time roaming the French countryside with
>>>nothing more than a backpack and a pet lizard... NOW you have a $5,000 a
>>> painting artist! It's all in the marketing.
Actually, I think a person could do an experiment of sorts in this
area...take the $300 painting...set it up in a gallery ...build it
up...and watch the herd go ooooh and ahhhhhh....
...there was a kafuffle here in Canada re: a big art Gallery in
Ottawa, and some of the paintings there and what was spent and
subsidized by the public....
...the media highlighted a couple of paintings...
...just to illustrate...there was this one painting....it was a very
large canvas with the entire canvas painted over in red...in the
center of the painting a large green stripe.....that was it red and
green and it commanded an impressive space in the gallery and an
obscene amount of money....
...how the hell was it art?...huh?...somebody was pulling a fast
one...calling this art...
...now somebody who had a lot of background in "art", perhaps spent
several years in fine arts, and several years as a buyer actually
bought this....
...and yet when I see somebody who should understand art buying a
piece like this and paying a huge amount of money for it...I get
downright outraged...I sometimes wonder if these "experts" exercise
any independent thought at all...or are they just herd
animals...following some elite group's tastes...but not their own...
...anyways, it sure was dumb, the media's interest in it was like a
public backlash against this mysticism referred to in this here
thread...
I remember how I hated to buy something to hang on my own walls
because I felt like I had no taste...I always worried that this was
supposed to be some kind of expression of myself that I was displaying
to anyone who came to my abode...
...and I worried that this expression would merely suggest that I was
bougoise...
...a thug with no sensitivity....nothing really moved me...so I sensed
that I myself had no taste in this area....
...everyone had Ansel Adams...Ok I will buy an Ansel Adams...or the
Group of Seven (Canadian artists)or was it Eight...eh they had the
stamp of approval
...then one day I was up late at night watching Charles Rhodes....and
they were doing a feature on Edward Hopper ...because he had recently
died...and they showed piece after piece....
...I couldn't tear my eyes away....and for the first time I felt that
yeah I did have taste...I just hadn't been exposed to anything that
moved me...from then on, I stopped worrying about it...and stopped
letting other people's taste drive my buying decisions...
...even if I will never be able to afford a Hopper piece, I am at
least confident in what I like...
...but Lucie has a point too in all of this...
...it is good to learn from people who are naturally good in certain
areas...
...a lot of folk here make references to books they read...I don't get
much of that in day to day...sometimes I wonder if people read at
all...
...I remember those references and when I go to a bookstore, I will
buy it...because I trust the tastes of a lot of the people here with
regard to literature...
...and so far it has worked quite well....
...have you ever listened to music with a professional musician?
...try it sometime...
I have always visualized a picture with music...but a musician will
say... listen here...listen to that phrase...here the guitar is
crying..bleeding....
...to him the music was words...I never knew that perspective
before...
..so it seems to me there is some sort of balance....between being
open enough to accept suggestions but enough of an individual to
accept your own tastes as the final authority
I mean if I was sooooooo confident in my own tastes that I was
unwilling to learn from people who, well, let's face it, knew more
about it than me...I would prolly be content with pictures of
"Dogs Playing Poker", and "the Sad Faced Clown " on black velvet,
I would have listened to Elton John for the rest of my days...and only
read Jack Keroac...
....on the other hand, I am not particularly moved by the Group of
Seven, I am not going to buy a Billy Holiday album, and Ernest
Hemingway doesn't do a thing for me....even though people who know
more about these areas think I should...
C - the best I can do is promise an open mind...I never wanted to be
an expert...I just want to keep looking until I find something that I
like even more....
Jonah Thomas
In <lmm5-05059...@cu-dialup-0044.cit.cornell.edu>
lm...@cornell.edu (Loopy) writes:
>In article <318c4387....@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com
>(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
>> OK. That's it! You've now been plonked, bitch.
>thin skin, there? I of D was one of the few people who grasped what the
>real issues were on this thread.
What do you think the real issues are, and what makes them real?
I've been interested in the issue of what makes art good. Is the
community of art critics and dealers etc reaching a consensus about that
based on some kind of real, objective truth, or is good art good because
they say so? If people get to have their own personal opinions about
what's good, is one person's opinion better than another's by some real
criteria, or is it that the way you can tell who's an expert is that
he's good at predicting what the other experts will say? When art that
has been highly valued becomes worthless, is that because it's all fads
and fashions, with nothing real there? Or is it that the values change
in important ways for important reasons?
I think we're all agreed on the business side of it. But consider --
expensive art _has_ to be an investment. People don't spend tens of
thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars on whims and fancies.
It's possible and plausible to spend $500 for a fancy meal, but no one
would spend $50,000 for one. Yet $50,000 isn't out of line for an
investment painting. Telling people not to treat art as investments is
equivalent to telling them not to buy expensive art.
Back to the questions, above I seemed to be assuming that "objective" =
"real" and "subjective" = "arbitrary". Could this stuff be valuable
_even_ if it's only created by agreement among a collection of
self-appointed experts? Could the very idea that there's good art and
bad art, that experts are the ones who can tell the difference, etc --
could all that be valuable even if it was all created out of nothing? I
started to assume otherwise, but I'd rather really consider the
possibility first, not decide by reflex.
Loopy
In article <318c4d82....@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com
(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
> lm...@cornell.edu (Loopy) wrote:
> >In article <318849ca...@news.neosoft.com>, jjs...@neosoft.com
> >(LawyerBoy 0.001) wrote:
> >The talentless
> >loudmouths make it to the top, and the true geniuses get lost in the
> >shuffle. it's not the fault of someone who uses jargon. it's how the world
> >works.
> The jargon is part of the "slight of hand" that perpetuates this injustice.
> It attempts to quantify and mystify simultaneously. Why not let the work
> speak for itself?
this is a copout phrase. let it speak for itself. ok, sure. why don't we
let everything speak for itself? why take english courses where you
discuss milton? doesn't his work speak for itself? why talk about music or
movies at all? why discuss anything, since every created object should
speak for itself? that's richard's position on art (yes, he's that
extreme). the whole point of my argument is that in order to discuss
anything on more than the most banal level, you need vocabulary. yes, some
of it will be *new* vocabulary (and therefore jargon), which means that
people will actually have to tax their brains and learn at least a little
of it. I know it's contrary to popular , um, thinking, but I think the
average Joe ought to tax his brain once in awhile, which according to Bown
makes me a snob. but jargon doesn't serve only to mystify. If i really
wanted to I could define "parallel lines" every time i wanted to talk
about them. If you take this argument to its extreme it's obviously
absurd. You need jargon to make communication possible.
> >most of the stuff i see in coffeehouses ain't worth that much. i wouldn't
> >buy a painting by someone who didn't show a minimum of technical
> >competence, and the coffeehouse art i see seems to be sorely lacking in
> >that.
> Thanks for the judgement call.
another bullshit statement. It's possible to look at a painting and see
whether the artist is technically competent, just as you can listen to
someone play "Moonlight Sonata" and hear whether he hits the right notes.
It's not rocket science, it's experience.
> >out of curiosity, jason, when was the last time you set foot in one of
> >these big name galleries? have you ever been to an art gallery opening?
> Well, to satisfy your ever-present sense of superiorty, I haven't been to your
> beloved NYC galleries if that's your point.
actually i asked that because you have a habit of making sweeping
generalizations without having the foggiest notion what you're talking
about, and in this thread I suspected it was happening again.
I have been to gallery openings
> before though so I'm sorry to disappoint you there. And I have been to the
> everywhere it was the same: self-obsessed personages who like to chat up the
> artist and the artist mystique. Some of the art I liked. Some I didn't
> particularly care for. I don't need anyone telling me why or why not I should
> like this or that piece.
Liking is entirely personal. Liking has nothing to do with appreciating
and discussing things intellectually. liking is visceral. I can appreciate
lots of things without liking them, and vice versa. the error is in saying
that *everyone's* enjoyment of art must be limited to liking or not
liking.
> >when did ordinary Joes start buying $35,000 paintings?
> Earlier on in the post, I actually *defined* my use of "ordinary Joe" as
> someone who wasn't familiar with the trade jargon. There are plenty of people
> with money beyond your wildest dreams that are completely uninitiated in the
> world of the artiste. You should know that... and I'm quite sure you do.
sure. If they're stupid enough to buy expensive paintings without knowing
anything about investing in art... well, send me their phone numbers.
> >damn, get me in on
> >this scheme now. last time i checked ordinary joes were buying Korean
> >assembly-line oil paintings at the mall that were obscenely overpriced at
> >$50-$100.
> Lucie, Lucie. You know what's really sad about those assembly-line oil
> paintings? It's how little is actually paid to those who produce it.
> Somebody is making a *lot* of money off abundant labor and miniscule wages in
> an industry akin to the weaving of hand-stitched rugs. Doesn't that bother
> you? When they say, "starving artists" sale, they *mean* it.
yes, of course I know where those paintings come from. If I were to spell
out in excruciating detail all the reasons paintings in the mall suck, it
would quickly grow tedious and we wouldn't get anywhere in our discussion.
Therefore, i thought it would be best if I stuck to the Topic at Hand,
rather than take off on a tangent. The subject at hand was the "mystique"
of the art world, and whether it's directly related to the use of
specialized vocabulary.
it's not. so there.
Chris
Well, as far as art is concerned I am ignorant, but I would not describe it
as bliss, neither is it voluntary. Over the years I have attempted to
produce what is normally referred to as art but the result, whether it
be attempts at drawing, fiction writing, garden design, has always been a
dog's breakfast. I even had the "distinction" of having one of my paintings
pointed out in class as an example of "a bad one". Art appreciation is
little better. Whether an object appears pleasing to me depends much on
my fluctuating moods and is almost totally uncorrelated either with what
others think or with what the "experts" say I am supposed to think.
I am aware, though, of a strong pressure to Think The Right Things about
any objet d'art. If two paintings are hung side by side, one painted by
a mediocre local artist, the other by a world famous master and someone
says "what do you think of those?" then there is obviously a Right Answer.
If I have to express an opinion without knowing what the Right Answer is,
and I get it wrong, then two things happen. First I begin to believe that
my answer is just as wrong as if I had said that 2 plus 2 equals 5,
secondly I actually start seeing the alledged "better" painting as actually
being better. This sort of thing may be useful for establishing a
community identity but it does nothing for one's sense of stability.
So I have, to a large extent, started to ignore the conventional wisdom
and just go for what I like. Mind you, if I was going to pay money for
a work of art rather than just look at one, I would still feel happier
if the work was generally considered "good" than if everyone thought it
was rubbish.
The same thing also happens on a more mundane scale. This morning I was
handed a glass of orange juice. When I tasted it, my thoughts were:
1. This is different and a bit odd
2. I remember someone saying that they had bought in some "freshly squeezed"
3. This must be better than the usual stuff
4. I guess it does taste better
5. How should I know whether it is better or not, it is just different.
Crazy, isn't it?
--
Chris
Chris
As far as those people who can look at something and then make a picture of
it, or hear a tune for the first time and are able to play it on the piano,
I can only envy them. Whether this type of talent is deemed a "mystical"
experience, I think is a matter of choice. If the practice of such things
can be described as in some way like Zen, the presumably it is in order to
describe the acquisition of such talents as mystical. But what difference
does that make? The mechanism is well known even if it is not as widely
experienced as some of us would like.
On a more mundane level, learning to ride a bike is qualitatively similar. It
is something that, at one moment can't be done - next moment can be
done and the rider would be hard put to explain how this capability was
acquired or to say how anyone else should go about acquiring it. That's how
it was for me anyway.
From my own point of view, I cannot draw or paint, I can only play a musical
instrument if I mechanically follow the "program" on the written music, but
the idea of suddenly being able to do something which was not possible
previously does not seem at all alien. Certainly, a rapid change in the
way I "see" things or perceive them is something which has happened to
me although not in an artistic context. I remember, at about the time when
fractals were becoming the In Thing, I read quite a lot about them. For
a while afterwards, whenever I thought of cities and villages in the
countryside, each one similar in style to the others but each with its own
unique features, I thought of fractals. Even now, the way I think of things
is, to some extent, influenced by that.
A mystical experience? I don't think so, but if the context had been different
I am sure some people would have thought so.
--
Chris
Chris
In article <318c4d82....@news.neosoft.com>
jjs...@neosoft.com "LawyerBoy 0.001" writes:
> lm...@cornell.edu (Loopy) wrote:
>
> >The talentless
> >loudmouths make it to the top, and the true geniuses get lost in the
> >shuffle. it's not the fault of someone who uses jargon. it's how the world
> >works.
>
True. It is especially noticable in management structures.
> The jargon is part of the "slight of hand" that perpetuates this injustice.
> It attempts to quantify and mystify simultaneously. Why not let the work
> speak for itself?
>
Where is the boundary between ordinary language and "jargon"? If someone
wants to quantify and mystify simultaneously ie. muddy the waters, then
they can do that quite effectively without the need for technical words.
As has been well demonstrated in this thread and its predecessor.
> >> Put a mediocre painting in a
> >> coffeehouse with a $300 pricetag on it and you have a $300 a painting artist.> >
> >> Take the same piece and put a $5,000 pricetag on it and stick it in an
> upscale
> >> gallery and talk up how mysterious and withdrawn this particular artist is...> >> how s/he spends most of his/her time roaming the French countryside with
> >> nothing more than a backpack and a pet lizard... NOW you have a $5,000 a
> >> painting artist! It's all in the marketing.
>
That also works for other things, like software packages, or research proposals.
In the absence of other references people will generally take you at your own
valuation. Or, more cynically, "Bullshit Baffles Brains".
> > The only reason to buy art is because you like it. [...]
100% agreed.
--
Chris
Chris
In article <4mj4p2$o...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
JETh...@ix.netcom.com "Jonah Thomas" writes:
>
> I think we're all agreed on the business side of it. But consider --
> expensive art _has_ to be an investment. People don't spend tens of
> thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars on whims and fancies.
> It's possible and plausible to spend $500 for a fancy meal, but no one
> would spend $50,000 for one. Yet $50,000 isn't out of line for an
> investment painting. Telling people not to treat art as investments is
> equivalent to telling them not to buy expensive art.
>
Some people with plenty of money and less sense will spend $50k on a
whim.
But why buy expensive art anyway? If it is really worth what the price
tag suggests then it should be in a public gallery where it is reasonably
accessible.
Treating a canvas as if it were just a bank note is abhorrent.
> Back to the questions, above I seemed to be assuming that "objective" =
> "real" and "subjective" = "arbitrary". Could this stuff be valuable
> _even_ if it's only created by agreement among a collection of
> self-appointed experts? Could the very idea that there's good art and
> bad art, that experts are the ones who can tell the difference, etc --
> could all that be valuable even if it was all created out of nothing? I
> started to assume otherwise, but I'd rather really consider the
> possibility first, not decide by reflex.
>
>
What do you mean by valuable? That it has a high price tag, or that it
has intrinsic worth? There is a big difference, even if in our money centred
society it often gets forgotten.
--
Chris
Elena Barker
jts...@csupomona.edu (Instrument of Darwin) writes:
> Not all of us are as gifted as Rbown who claims to see/hear/taste
so > much beauty in life that he doesn't need these awful-awful-awful words
> to describe what he's sensing. Some of us need to connect the word
> "syncopation" with the phenomenon before we can begin to understand
and > appreciate it.
Perhaps, but I don't think one needs to know what something's called
or how it is commonly analysed to enjoy it. Knowledge is a fine
thing and all, and learning can be a joy in itself. Still, I don't
need to see the ingredients to enjoy the taste of ice-cream, or study
geology to enjoy looking at mountains, or know music theory to enjoy
dancing to a record.
I suppose it must be nice to be able to make fascinating, informed
conversation at dinner parties, tho'.
Anyone who thinks one does need to know to appreciate is being an awful
snob; a person without the requisite knowledge is unable to take
pleasure or find joy in something? Surely not. I think you're the
exception, not the rule.
-Elena
p.s. One really ought to avoid bringing Hitler into such discussions
unnecessarily.
--
Miss Elena Barker -- elena....@zetnet.co.uk
Elena Barker
fram...@cybernex.net (CupCaked) writes:
> >Richard (R.) Bown (rb...@bnr.co.uk) wrote:
> >: do I take myself to been anything particularly special? do i swan
> >: around like some FONDANT AND ICING PUFF PASTRY
> Did someone call?
No, they were looking for VanillaSlice.
Incidentally, are cup cakes little cakes that come in little paper
cases, like wot we call fairy cakes? I should be told.
-El-
"Get yer confectioner's custard out for the lads!"
Matthew R. Sheahan
art is dangerous
believe me when i tell you that
poetry sucks too
pretentious assholes wasting all our time
producing all their garbage while the critics all whine
art
is
dan
ger
ous
example.
i walk into my mother's house.
go up to her favorite coffee table.
take a shit on it.
take it to a gallery and sell it for FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
forty thousand dollars?
forty thousand dollars.
holy shit.
ART!
is.
dan... ger... ous.
is there any beer left?
-- "Art Is Dangerous", the Defoliants, _Grrr_
chiaroscuro
Jonah Thomas
In <831396...@railton.demon.co.uk> Chris <Ch...@railton.demon.co.uk>
writes:
>In article <4mj4p2$o...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
> JETh...@ix.netcom.com "Jonah Thomas" writes:
>> I think we're all agreed on the business side of it. But consider --
>> expensive art _has_ to be an investment. People don't spend tens of
>> thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars on whims and fancies.
>> It's possible and plausible to spend $500 for a fancy meal, but no one
>> would spend $50,000 for one. Yet $50,000 isn't out of line for an
>> investment painting. Telling people not to treat art as investments is
>> equivalent to telling them not to buy expensive art.
>Some people with plenty of money and less sense will spend $50k on a
>whim.
There aren't enough of those to go around, though.
>But why buy expensive art anyway? If it is really worth what the price
>tag suggests then it should be in a public gallery where it is reasonably
>accessible.
If people didn't pay high prices, then museums wouldn't either, and -- but
we've been around that merry-go-round a few times already.
>Treating a canvas as if it were just a bank note is abhorrent.
OK. But the people who _can_ treat it that way, _get_ to treat it that way.
If you think they shouldn't, maybe you could buy it from them and put it in a
public gallery?
>> Back to the questions, above I seemed to be assuming that "objective" =
>> "real" and "subjective" = "arbitrary". Could this stuff be valuable
>> _even_ if it's only created by agreement among a collection of
>> self-appointed experts? Could the very idea that there's good art and
>> bad art, that experts are the ones who can tell the difference, etc --
>> could all that be valuable even if it was all created out of nothing? I
>> started to assume otherwise, but I'd rather really consider the
>> possibility first, not decide by reflex.
>What do you mean by valuable? That it has a high price tag, or that it
>has intrinsic worth? There is a big difference, even if in our money centred
>society it often gets forgotten.
I mean real worth, valuable to me. Of _course_ it gets money worth that way,
that's why there's such a business built around it.
Henry B. Messenger
In article <4mhs34$2...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>,
rb...@bnr.co.uk (Richard (R.) Bown) wrote:
>Henry B. Messenger (h...@bayarea.net) wrote:
>
>: Bown, is it possible for you to write a lucid post that can be understood?
>: The only time you were interested enough to write clearly was when Lucie
>: touched on your angst. And then you have the audacity to claim the
>: Alt.Angst Gary Dickerson Memorial Humility Award.
>
>ohmigawd. hank, check your ironimeter you fool. and dammit just
>how much sense do i have to make? i've 'splained it to the hips
>and you're right i'm bored with this constant repetition.
Not my point. You write like a drunken Irishman, and while that puts
you in good company, you're not as interesting as James Joyce. As a
matter of fact, you and Lucie substantially agree in disdaining
art pretention, but because you communicated it so badly, you got
into a flame war.
>: When YOU get YOUR Ph.D. in journalism, THEN you can be incoherent and
>: expect people to get it anyway.
>
>no you see. the trick is to be there first with the inanity.
>i'm just a couple of seconds ahead, really. soon it'll be
>trendy i they'll have to GIVE me a doctorate.
>
>anyway making it unintelligible is part of The Conquest of Cliche.
>c.f. The Appreciation of Art. anyway, the Usenet argument. you
>don't like it, you don't read it.
Of course not. Consider it advice. When you write clearly, people
will understand you.
>: A member of the audience yells out, "Write clearly!"
>
>no. now shuddup before i take your boats away.
Mutiny, Mr. Bown? Do you know what you are about, sir? Bosun, rig the
grating and get your cat.
--
Henry B. Messenger "But the words / I receive / random codes
h...@bayarea.net broken fragments / from before"
- Brian Eno, "The Belldog"
Richard (R.) Bown
: rb...@bnr.co.uk (Richard (R.) Bown) wrote:
: Not my point. You write like a drunken Irishman, and while that puts
: you in good company, you're not as interesting as James Joyce. As a
: matter of fact, you and Lucie substantially agree in disdaining
: art pretention, but because you communicated it so badly, you got
: into a flame war.
no. y'see you didn't READ it right.
and lucie is standing in a puddle of hipocrisy.
: >anyway making it unintelligible is part of The Conquest of Cliche.
: >c.f. The Appreciation of Art. anyway, the Usenet argument. you
: >don't like it, you don't read it.
: Of course not. Consider it advice. When you write clearly, people
: will understand you.
oh jesus, then i'll have to start making sense. clear writing by
your definition is a bunch of beads on a necklace. look at how
words link together in our expectation. i could write everything
without saying anything and you'd sagely nod your head. in that
way we are sharing something. but i only want to share an idea with
you and not pleasant company, for that i would meet you and we'd
go out for a coffee. so instead of conforming to a conventional
conversational patter i string a load of pretty beads together.
these familiar beads are perhaps in unfamiliar patterns. and you
take note because it's different. and perhaps you respond to it.
if you find it annoying then perhaps i missed out on a great chat.
perhaps neither of us could be bothered. perhaps we will both
prosper.
rich.
Chris
> oh jesus, then i'll have to start making sense. clear writing by
> your definition is a bunch of beads on a necklace. look at how
> words link together in our expectation. i could write everything
> without saying anything and you'd sagely nod your head. in that
> way we are sharing something. but i only want to share an idea with
> you and not pleasant company, for that i would meet you and we'd
> go out for a coffee. so instead of conforming to a conventional
> conversational patter i string a load of pretty beads together.
> these familiar beads are perhaps in unfamiliar patterns. and you
> take note because it's different. and perhaps you respond to it.
>
If you string words together in patterns whose significance has not been
agreed on then what happens? The brain of the listener ( reader ) will,
by its nature, try to recognise patterns which most closely match the random
stuff which is there. It's like the exchange of ink blobs. There may be
interaction and some sort of mutual triggering of sub-consciousnesses,
but no communication.
But then communication is overrated anyway. Maybe the whole world
is one great cosmic psychological ink blob test.
--
Chris
Richard (R.) Bown
Chris (Ch...@railton.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: If you string words together in patterns whose significance has not been
: agreed on then what happens? The brain of the listener ( reader ) will,
: by its nature, try to recognise patterns which most closely match the random
: stuff which is there. It's like the exchange of ink blobs. There may be
: interaction and some sort of mutual triggering of sub-consciousnesses,
: but no communication.
yeah, but no. there is recognition but through successful
juxtaposition you can infer meaning. you can use the wrong
word in the right place and get away with it. communication
is more than possible with a right load of blathering at
BOTH ends of the spectrum (i.e. from the considered 'proper'
to the considered 'random blathering').
instead of a dull and boring absolute it's a referential
(even reverential) kind of mumbo jumbo that probably
doesn't mean anything anyway. but then again, what does?
isn't that GREAT ?
tidy up your own personal universe by imposing your own rules.
rich.
Fred Burke
Chris (Ch...@railton.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Some people with plenty of money and less sense will spend $50k on a
: whim.
: Treating a canvas as if it were just a bank note is abhorrent.
: What do you mean by valuable? That it has a high price tag, or that it
: has intrinsic worth? There is a big difference, even if in our money centred
: society it often gets forgotten.
And, if the yardstick of value is indeed measured in bank notes, what
does that measurement really *mean*? Is the yardstick *shrinking*? What
makes a bank note valuable anyway -- besides a consensual delusion?
Fred Burke
--
__mailto:fbu...@ccnet.com_____________________________________HOTLIST__
| http://www.darkcarnival.com/ Imaginative Literature |
| http://www.markomics.com/ Comic Strip Art Online |
| http://www.starworks.com/ 21st Century Astrology |
| http://www.ccnet.com/~fburke/ohsafety.html alt.thinking.hurts FAQ |
Crystal R Raymond
Chris <Ch...@railton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[clip]
>But then communication is overrated anyway. Maybe the whole world
>is one great cosmic psychological ink blob test.
Okay, everyone who just keeps seeing giant, smiling penises (penii?)
raise your hands.
--CRR
oh wait, that sounds like
my dating life
Jeff Skinner
In article <4mt6q3$e...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>, fbu...@ccnet.com (Fred Burke) writes:
_]Chris (Ch...@railton.demon.co.uk) wrote:
_]: Some people with plenty of money and less sense will spend $50k on a
_]: whim.
_]
_]: Treating a canvas as if it were just a bank note is abhorrent.
_]
_]: What do you mean by valuable? That it has a high price tag, or that it
_]: has intrinsic worth? There is a big difference, even if in our money centred
_]: society it often gets forgotten.
_]
_]And, if the yardstick of value is indeed measured in bank notes, what
_]does that measurement really *mean*? Is the yardstick *shrinking*? What
_]makes a bank note valuable anyway -- besides a consensual delusion?
_]
_]Fred Burke
That's what values are - consensual delusions. The definition of your
freedom as a conscious organic entity is that you get to select which
consensual delusion best suits your personal requirements, rather than simply
executing your genetic firmware. This can be painful though, and this
pain is one possible definition of what we call angst.
Chris
> yeah, but no. there is recognition but through successful
> juxtaposition you can infer meaning. you can use the wrong
> word in the right place and get away with it. communication
> is more than possible with a right load of blathering at
> BOTH ends of the spectrum (i.e. from the considered 'proper'
> to the considered 'random blathering').
>
> instead of a dull and boring absolute it's a referential
> (even reverential) kind of mumbo jumbo that probably
> doesn't mean anything anyway. but then again, what does?
>
I have just two words to say to that: Shannon's theorem.
> tidy up your own personal universe by imposing your own rules.
>
The Humpty Dumpty approach. Why not?
Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
--
Chris
73 de G3YQV
John Jenks
In article <831372...@railton.demon.co.uk>,
Chris <Ch...@railton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The same thing also happens on a more mundane scale. This morning I was
>handed a glass of orange juice. When I tasted it, my thoughts were:
Was the seal broken before it got to you?
johnj
Fred Hawes
I need to go home and go to bed, or else go out and get a beer. Got
stuff on my, err, what would be my mind. Worried about how I live my
life. And once again I won't be able to express it well, you won't
really get the picture.
Shortly after New Year's Day I made an eight-page list of things I had
to do really soon. These ranged from cleaning out the car and putting
new weatherstripping on its door-frames, to updating my CV, to finding
some places with postdoc positions open and sending them the wonderful
updated CV, to transferring some bucks to my checking account so I have
something to live on, to doing the feng-shui on my apartment, to doing
some work on a project that was proposed by one of the local physics
profs, etc. etc. And I've probably done, like, 5% of the items on the
list.
According to some Chinese Astrology books, this is supposed to be a
good year for me (I'm a water snake); I've been putting an inordinate
amount of faith in that, that some forces beyond my perception are
going to pull things together for me. Meanwhile I spend most of the
time depressed, and I don't do much to change my situation.
Up until 3 or 4 weeks ago I was practically unable to get out of bed
before 11AM; I'd come to work, drink vast amounts of coffee, go from
depressed to strung out, not be able to focus on my work, and get almost
nothing done. Then I'd go home, go out to dinner because I still hadn't
put the apartment into such order as to be able to use the kitchen.
Then I'd worry about how quickly I was using up my money. (I haven't
had a paycheck in a year -- SCRI lets me hang around and do research,
but they figure they're being nice enough by doing that. What do I
live on? Well, I have some savings which I'm using up. This is not
such a good idea but it's better than nothing.) 4 weeks ago I had to
get up early on both Saturday and Sunday, and since then I was doing
much better: getting up early, getting to work no later than 9:30AM
most days, actually more efficient at work, making some progress on the
research; then, this week, I just lost it again. Didn't get up until
almost NOON, and was busy with car things for several hours.
The last calendar-year has been in an especial sense the Age Of Bad
Stuff Happening to my Car. There's been a crack propagating through
the windshield for three or four years now; I need to tell the
insurance company and get it replaced, but I just haven't gotten to
it. I have a dent in the driver's-side door, which I didn't bring up
with the insurance company yet either, and I got that in July. Last
September or so, some local frat scuzzbag key-scratched it all along
the left side, in the school parking garage. The engine and electrics
need work, and I've put that off too. I could just live with these
things, but the car is beginning to look like a junkheap; besides, my
letting it degenerate this way bothers me -- it shows I'm not taking
care of yet another thing. But anyway. Last August I moved. In
January, the car's license plate disappeared. I have desultorily tried
to call it in to the DMV, but never got through. Mechanical and
electrical things have been breaking, and I took the car to the shop a
few times to get the radiator replaced, get a new battery, etc. I
thought, well, at least I'm taking some care of the car. Meanwhile, my
birthday (and consequently the expiration of my car's registration)
came and went, and I didn't think about it because I didn't get a
renewal notice from the tax office -- because nobody had been notified
that I had moved. So, then last night I got stopped by the police, and
got a citation for the expired registration.
So, today I had to spend some hours getting the plate, and the change
of address, and screws to attach the plate, and so on, and only managed
to spend 3 hours at work. Got essentially NO work done.
I have still been fantasizing about how I need to meet the wonderful
woman with whom I could "make up for my lost adolescence." Sometimes,
however, I wonder if this is not just an elaborate justification for an
unequal relationship in which I wouldn't feel threatened because I'd be
dominating her emotionally. So it would be something unhealthy and
exploitative. People tell me I shouldn't be looking for a relationship
with someone a lot younger than myself, and I always expect that's what
they mean, and I always resent it, BUT what if it's what's really going
on with me? Or, maybe, I want to hold out for some idealized younger-
and-real-cute-but-smart-enough-to-keep-up-with-me woman because I'm
really avoiding relationships altogether? Or, maybe, there's no
sinister dynamics going on here, and building such an image of the
ideal (or "necessary") type of partner is a perfectly natural thing,
but it's just counterproductive anyway? I know I have the Defect Of
Thinking Too Much, and I've certainly had too much time with no real
relationships during which I've been doing too much thinking about
these things. But I've already thought all this, and short of a
lobotomy I can't un-think it.
Lately I've even been thinking I don't want a girlfriend, not that I
just *don't*, but that it might be somehow damaging to have one. I see
myself unable to accomplish normal things; I see this shakiness, this
lack of integrity; I can't even get my phone bill paid on time and my
research and job applications done. I've been claiming that I'm
depressed because I don't have this romance in my life, but maybe the
lack of a girlfriend is just symptomatic of the general mess. Yeah,
precisely what I need is to go from being a fuckup without a relation-
ship, to being a fuckup *with* a relationship. Somehow it seems that
that situation would bring down ruin upon my head.
- I don't have a job; if we got serious I'd be unable to support her.
- However, if I'm planning not to get serious, what do I really
want? Maybe I really do want to exploit someone. That's USING.
- I am severely undeveloped emotionally. Partly this is because of
the relationship experience I haven't had, that wonderful Lost
Adolescence I Need To Have Some Experience Of; but partly it
predates that: to have that healthy adolescence, I probably need
to fix some stuff dating back to my early childhood, even to
infancy.
- My self-esteem is zilch. This is not how you go into a healthy
relationship.
- I already see that I'm a jerk about taking care of practical things,
and as I said I'm not doing much to fix that. Well, maybe if I got
up and did the necessary shit, I might have somewhat better
self-esteem?????
- And so on.
My concerns about my social life are all academic anyway, since I
don't have a wide enough social network to put me in touch with any
women who might eeeeeeeven be girlfriend candidates.
So, anyway, last Saturday I went to see "Leaving Las Vegas". You
know, take my mind off my troubles. "I go to the theater to get away
from myself!" And it was a very uncomfortable movie to watch. So,
while I was wringing my hands angstfully, as of course one should do
watching that movie, there was this *lump*. I have a small hard lump
in my hand. Oh, shit, that reminded me (not now, last Sat), I have not
been to the oncologist to be checked out, in probably two years. This
is not wise. This is another one of those not-taking-care-of-business
fuckups, but a real special one, because it could mean the start of the
massive surgeries and chemotherapy and much suffering and expense after
which one gets to die anyway. But wait a minute, even if I had been
going every six months he wouldn't have seen that bump six months ago!
The first I knew about it was that moment in the theater.
Of course, I called on Tuesday and made an appointment. And I have an
appointment with the acupuncturist (who may be some help too), and with
the dentist. Which when I thought about it, made me look at my teeth.
My teeth are a mess. Okay, I haven't been flossing (sin), but at least
I was brushing; yet when I looked in my mouth, there was obvious decay
on the chewing surfaces, in several places. Now I know why one of my
teeth was sensitive to pressure, it's got a hole in it! But where did
this come from so suddenly? I think I was actually up to date (like,
had an appointment 6 months ago) with the dentist.
So, the mood of the times for me, yeah sorta the Zeitgeist, is:
Everything is falling apart; I'm doing a terrible job with my responsi-
bilities. I try to improve this, think I'm doing better, think I'm
making some progress, and then I'm whacked over the head with the
evidence that I'M STILL NOT DEALING WITH WHAT IS IMPORTANT. I am
basically ineffectual for handling the real shit.
I'm leaving a lot of stuff out: realizing how I have almost zero
spirituality or compassion, amazement at how little effort I put out
to get any exercise, or to groom myself so I might actually look
desirable to someone, and I forget what else. Think I have to stop
now, this is why I post so little, it takes me too long to put
together a post that says what I really want to say, if that's even
possible.
I must have a beer (which will be counterproductive itself, since I
have to be up by 7AM).
Regards,
Fred
Instrument of Darwin
In article <831746...@railton.demon.co.uk>, Chris <Ch...@railton.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <4mt28u$c...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> rb...@bnr.co.uk "Richard (R." writes:
>> yeah, but no. there is recognition but through successful
>> juxtaposition you can infer meaning. you can use the wrong
>> word in the right place and get away with it.
[Ri-chahd's blathering snipped]
> I have just two words to say to that: Shannon's theorem.
>> tidy up your own personal universe by imposing your own rules.
> The Humpty Dumpty approach. Why not?
> Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Oh wow, one of my favorite lines of mumbo jumbo, here, in alt.angst!
Another is Noam Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Chris, are you by chance a linguist?
And Richard, if you're going to blather, at least you could do it more
ARTfully.
Richard (R.) Bown
Instrument of Darwin (jts...@csupomona.edu) wrote:
: And Richard, if you're going to blather, at least you could do it more
: ARTfully.
har.
rich.
Matthew R. Sheahan
Crystal R Raymond (crr...@pitt.edu) wrote:
> Okay, everyone who just keeps seeing giant, smiling penises (penii?)
penes. it's a FAQ over on t.b.
chiaroscuro