Do non-scientists have a hard time reading science?
KAREN LINGEL
Whenever I go to an art museum, I read all the literature.
Alas, I find it to be an uphill slog through long sentences
full of jargon. There seems to be a writing style that
artists adapt, which I assume they can all understand, but
which non-artists find a pain to read through. (Or maybe
it's just me.)
For example, I went to an installation in Santa Fe called
"A Journey Through Bui-Bui; Lifting the Purdah of
Mal-Illumination" (very cool; go see it) and basically
my questions are:
* What's "bui-bui"
* What's a "purdah"
* What are those holograms of?
So naturally I sit down with the exhibit brochure, but it
doesn't answer any of these questions, it goes on and on
about philosophical stuff like "is light an entity with a
history?" (Scientist answer: No.)
Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
words obtuse?
--
-k-
Karen Lingel, PhD
Physicist and Penguinist
http://home.att.net/~karen.lingel/
deepstblu
> Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
> every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
> words obtuse?
My personal guess (highly generalized) is that scientists really want
people to understand what's going on in science, but artists and art
critics don't care as long as they can look smarter than the average
museum visitor.
Doug Yanega
<karen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
> every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
> words obtuse?
I'm a scientist and an artist, and in my experience, art
critics/interpreters are almost invariably full of crap. It's "The
Emperor's New Clothes" approach to making a living, along the lines of
Postmodernism and other "fields" that are composed almost ENTIRELY of
empty jargon.
"If you can't understand what I've written it's because you're a
plebeian simpleton" is the mentality involved.
I can't tell you how overjoyed I was when Alan Sokal exposed that the
editors of "Social Text" (THE journal for the discerning postmodernist)
went hook, line, and sinker for a manuscript of utter nonsense that Sokal
had devised as a parody of Postmodernism, and ran it as their cover
article in a special issue of the journal. It included passages like
"It has thus become increasingly
apparent that physical "reality," no less than social "reality,"
is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific
"knowledge," far from being objective, reflects and encodes
the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that
produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently
theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently that the
discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable
value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status
with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from
dissent or marginalized communities. These themes can be
traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz'
analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics
(1988b, esp. chaps. 9 and 12); in Ross's discussion of
oppositional discourses in post-quantum science (1991, intro
and chap. 1); in Irigaray's and Hayles's exegeses of gender
encoding in fluid dynamics (Irigary 1985; Hayles 1992); and
in Harding's comprehensive critique of the gender ideology
underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in
particular (1986, esp chaps. 2 and 10; 1991, esp. chap. 4)"
Which the editors simply adored, but which the author composed simply as
an imitation of what seemed to be fashionable postmodernist expressions,
dashed liberally with citations of fashionable postmodernists (including
the editors themselves). When he revealed his article was a hoax, the
fallout was a pricelessly hilarious mess of backpedaling and ass-covering.
Now if we could only get someone to do a similar task of deflating the
art critics, we wouldn't have to worry about walking into an art museum
and being handed the sort of gibberish you encountered.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California
Riverside, CA 92521 909-787-4315 (opinions are mine, not UCR's)
http://insects.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick
Dutch Courage
>Gracious folks --
>
>Whenever I go to an art museum, I read all the literature.
>Alas, I find it to be an uphill slog through long sentences
>full of jargon. There seems to be a writing style that
>artists adapt, which I assume they can all understand, but
>which non-artists find a pain to read through. (Or maybe
>it's just me.)
>
>For example, I went to an installation in Santa Fe called
>"A Journey Through Bui-Bui; Lifting the Purdah of
>Mal-Illumination" (very cool; go see it) and basically
>my questions are:
>* What's "bui-bui"
I would gather a country, or a reigon in a country.
>* What's a "purdah"
separating or hiding something.
>* What are those holograms of?
Dunno.
>So naturally I sit down with the exhibit brochure, but it
>doesn't answer any of these questions, it goes on and on
>about philosophical stuff like "is light an entity with a
>history?" (Scientist answer: No.)
>
>Do other people understand art brochures?
Some people do, sure, unless they start getting all..."The living quality of
assurance in the neo-plasticism of" on you.
> I always understand
>every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
>words obtuse?
In science, questions only have one answer.
>
>
>--
>-k-
>Karen Lingel, PhD
>Physicist and Penguinist
>http://home.att.net/~karen.lingel/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn
human actions, but to understand them" -Spinoza
"The ridiculing and scorn, that's just gravy."-Courage
Dutch Courage
>In article <7vod0j$5d1$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "KAREN LINGEL"
><karen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
>> every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
>> words obtuse?
>
>I'm a scientist and an artist, and in my experience, art
>critics/interpreters are almost invariably full of crap.
Certainly few articles would pass the "Politics and the English Language"
test, but your dismissal of the whole field isn't especially convincing,
either. Without suggesting that one usually sees this sort of thing from people
of questionable ability or lasting influence...ummm, well, could you give an
example of an Art Criticism that you find especially "full of crap"?
> It's "The
>Emperor's New Clothes" approach to making a living,
The Painted Word is an interesting take on it, and sure it's mainly all fancy
talk for "I like this," but...
> along the lines of
>Postmodernism and other "fields" that are composed almost ENTIRELY of
>empty jargon.
Look, it's not my fault your field, with it's assumed materialism, ultimately
succumbs to logocentrism, is it?
>
> "If you can't understand what I've written it's because you're a
>plebeian simpleton" is the mentality involved.
"Next time, I will use small words so you can keep up"
>
>I can't tell you how overjoyed I was when Alan Sokal exposed that the
>editors of "Social Text" (THE journal for the discerning postmodernist)
>went hook, line, and sinker for a manuscript of utter nonsense that Sokal
>had devised as a parody of Postmodernism, and ran it as their cover
>article in a special issue of the journal. It included passages like
Having examined this, it seems Sokal only hoaxed himself.
>
> "It has thus become increasingly
> apparent that physical "reality," no less than social "reality,"
> is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific
> "knowledge," far from being objective, reflects and encodes
> the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that
> produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently
> theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently that the
> discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable
> value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status
> with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from
> dissent or marginalized communities. These themes can be
> traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz'
> analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics
> (1988b, esp. chaps. 9 and 12); in Ross's discussion of
> oppositional discourses in post-quantum science (1991, intro
> and chap. 1); in Irigaray's and Hayles's exegeses of gender
> encoding in fluid dynamics (Irigary 1985; Hayles 1992); and
> in Harding's comprehensive critique of the gender ideology
> underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in
> particular (1986, esp chaps. 2 and 10; 1991, esp. chap. 4)"
Really, who could disagree with that, unless you were married to the idea of
materialism?
>Which the editors simply adored, but which the author composed simply as
>an imitation of what seemed to be fashionable postmodernist expressions,
>dashed liberally with citations of fashionable postmodernists (including
>the editors themselves).
It seems he's only written a wordy, but still basically readable article which
says that the systems we've devised for ordering and describing empirical
experience, while predictive and self correcting, eventually fail to describe
external reality, and contain certain self contradictions and tautologies. If
you deny that our experience of external reality is not conditioned by cultural
perceptions or language itself, I would ask you to show me the Superbowl, and
then tell me where my fist goes when I open my hand.
>.When he revealed his article was a hoax, the
>fallout was a pricelessly hilarious mess of backpedaling and ass-covering.
I read his "Why I did it" Boy, have a little fire, scarecrow! Jeez, is anyone
at Social Text a creationist?
> Now if we could only get someone to do a similar task of deflating the
>art critics, we wouldn't have to worry about walking into an art museum
>and being handed the sort of gibberish you encountered.
I admit to still being lost by "bui bui" but really, purdah is in the
dictionary, and mal-illumination, while kind of an ugly phrase, simply means
"poorly lit" and exactly the sort of thing you'd remove a purdah from.
Of course, you'd have to be knowledgable in literature to know that, and not
approach the epistemelogical status you de-privilege with a great huge chip on
your shoulder.
Dutch "Next!" Courage
Dave Wilton
wrote:
>KAREN LINGEL wrote:
>
>> Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
>> every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
>> words obtuse?
>My personal guess (highly generalized) is that scientists really want
>people to understand what's going on in science, but artists and art
>critics don't care as long as they can look smarter than the average
>museum visitor.
My experience is that scientists can be just as obtuse. The good ones
usually aren't, but most are.
That being said, clarity of expression in any field is rare and
usually comes with a thorough understanding of the subject matter. The
stuff you find is science museums is not cutting edge and generally
understood by the resident curators.
Art, being primarily an emotional experience, is not well understood
by anyone--the "I know what I like" school. Expressing artistic
concepts in words is therefore difficult.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wilton.net
Dutch Courage
>So naturally I sit down with the exhibit brochure, but it
>doesn't answer any of these questions, it goes on and on
>about philosophical stuff like "is light an entity with a
>history?"
Really? If light isnt a thing having physical existence which can tell a story,
what is it? A particle? A wave?
> (Scientist answer: No.)
Eeek.
Look, I realize this whole thread is a troll from you Karen, a "dog pile on
the art critics!" impaled on a big shiny hook, but really...
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
<karen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Gracious folks --
>
>Whenever I go to an art museum, I read all the literature.
>Alas, I find it to be an uphill slog through long sentences
>full of jargon. There seems to be a writing style that
>artists adapt, which I assume they can all understand, but
>which non-artists find a pain to read through. (Or maybe
>it's just me.)
>
>For example, I went to an installation in Santa Fe called
>"A Journey Through Bui-Bui; Lifting the Purdah of
>Mal-Illumination" (very cool; go see it) and basically
>my questions are:
>* What's "bui-bui"
>* What's a "purdah"
>* What are those holograms of?
>So naturally I sit down with the exhibit brochure, but it
>doesn't answer any of these questions, it goes on and on
>about philosophical stuff like "is light an entity with a
>history?" (Scientist answer: No.)
>
>Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
>every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
>words obtuse?
To <mis>quote a U2 song...'They don't know what you're doing, babe it
must be art'. Kind of like why the church didn't want the teeming
millions to read their own bible...if you could understand them, you'd
figure out that you too could put one red dot on a blank white canvas,
and then nobody would think they were great visionaries, fawn over
them and pay them lots of money, and they'd have to get real jobs.
Me, I figure like the mayor who said 'if I can do it, it's not art'.
I'm not an artist, but if I can dump post-consumer elephant kibble on
a picture, it isn't art. One guy took a toilet, a normal toilet out of
home depot, and signed it. How is that art?
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://home.icubed.net/starchsr/table.htm
Address munged for the inconvienence of spammers:
My address is starchsr <at> icubed dot net
RM Mentock
> It seems he's only written a wordy, but still basically readable article which
> says that the systems we've devised for ordering and describing empirical
> experience, while predictive and self correcting, eventually fail to describe
> external reality, and contain certain self contradictions and tautologies. If
> you deny that our experience of external reality is not conditioned by cultural
> perceptions or language itself, I would ask you to show me the Superbowl, and
> then tell me where my fist goes when I open my hand.
I had the same impression when I read it--'course, I only read it once,
and not very carefully. Why waste time on something that the author
said was a waste of time. And, yeh, it was wordy.
How seriously would it injure *science* if I were to write a
believeable article that was accepted in a peer-reviewed science
journal, and I later revealed that it was a hoax? That sort of
thing happens occassionally, but no one cites it as evidence that
the journal was bogus.
> >.When he revealed his article was a hoax, the
> >fallout was a pricelessly hilarious mess of backpedaling and ass-covering.
I was helping my professor in writing a proposal, and I suggested
replacing some of the passive voiced passages with active. He
responded very enthusiastically, and made the changes. The next
day, I found that they'd been changed back. He explained, kinda
matter-of-factly, that it'd sounded less scientific. It just
needed to be ponderous to get past the reviewers, he thought.
And there seems to be some evidence that he was right.
--
RM Mentock
The war on ignorance begins with me
http://sentient.home.mindspring.com/dan/
Dutch Courage
>On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:17:41 -0800, "KAREN LINGEL"
><karen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
One guy took a toilet, a normal toilet out of
>home depot, and signed it. How is that art?
Mmm, what, DuChamp? Well, to begin with, he turned it over and called it
"fountain" and it was a urinal.
Here obviously the "art" is informed by certain conceptual ideas, it's
irreverance, the deliberate creation of something devoid of content to mock
certain lofty ideas, perhaps statements as to the culture and the kind of art
it deserves, how funny and cool Duchamp could be, and not the technical skill
of the draftsmanship, or the visual attractiveness of the color arrangement, or
whatnot. if your argument is "Well, I could do that," I would suggest you're
missing the point.
I dunno, I think it's got a better claim on art than, say, funny animal nudes
that wouldnt make it in the door at Hannah Barbera, fer instance.
Dutch "R. Mutt" Courage
Devilfish
>
> karen....@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> >So naturally I sit down with the exhibit brochure, but it
> >doesn't answer any of these questions, it goes on and on
> >about philosophical stuff like "is light an entity with a
> >history?"
>
> what is it? A particle? A wave?
>
> > (Scientist answer: No.)
>
> Eeek.
>
> Look, I realize this whole thread is a troll from you Karen, a "dog pile on
> the art critics!" impaled on a big shiny hook, but really...
Actually, this is one of those things that I like to point out whenever
someone gets the bright idea that humans are remotely capable of
understanding the universe that we live in (for example, cosmologists
and quantum physicists sometimes believe wacky things like that). I'm
not entirely sure this is what Ms. Lingel was referring to (my server
hasn't actually gotten the original article yet), but light really would
have absolutely no chance of ever understanding it's place or history in
the universe. Picture yourself as a photon. You are, by definition,
traveling at the speed of light. As you are traveling at the speed of
light, you have no understanding of time. It doesn't exist as far as
you're concerned. Furthermore, your entire existence is composed of
nothing. You're created one instant, and destroyed the next, from your
point of view. It would be an absolute impossibility for you to ever
discover that you have, for example, just crossed billions of light
years of space, and ended your existance on a lens or photographic
plate, contributing to some other insignificant being's understanding of
red shift, and helping lead to a half hearted attempt to explain the
origins of the very universe that you never had any awareness of.
Of course, it's ultimately a rather pointless way of thinking. If we
are in such a position, then it would be, by definition, impossible to
prove (or even support). Personally, though, I have little doubt that
we're in the same basic position as the photon.
-Bob, busy tonight
...Please Fry, I don't know how to teach, I'm a professor!
Gary S. Callison
: "If you can't understand what I've written it's because you're a
: plebeian simpleton"...
Of all the nominees we've had, this is by far and away the best AFCA motto
I've seen in 2+ years. Do I have a second?
--
Huey
Drummer, "The Plebeian Simpletons"
JmG
>Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
>every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
>words obtuse?
Karen, no one understands the brochures at art exhibits - not even the people
who write them. They string together three and four syllable words and then toss
in some incomprehensible jargon that means nothing to anyone and is not meant
to. When they're done they mix in faux philosophy with a dollop of obtuse
scepticism and a cup or two of angst, guilt and dime store psychology. It is
meant to confuse you and to act as job insurance for the copywriter.
Rather, the first impression of a Jackson Pollock should be "hey, this guy gets
really drunk, stands up on a ladder and pisses paint on a canvas" or when you
see a particularly segmented DeKoonig it is important to say, 'jeez, this guy
really hated women'. You can leave the difficult stuff to the cocktail party
crowd.
J
JmG
>Me, I figure like the mayor who said 'if I can do it, it's not art'.
>I'm not an artist, but if I can dump post-consumer elephant kibble on
>a picture, it isn't art. One guy took a toilet, a normal toilet out of
>home depot, and signed it. How is that art?
Then you miss the point about art.
You'd think that anyone can hang a urinal/toilet on the wall and call it art,
but no one did. When it *was* done people who understood that point got a
chuckle and a refreshing mental breeze while those who only saw it as a urinal
on the wall, well, they didn't get it.
The driving force of conceptual art is to create something that no one has ever
created before - to use common objects in new ways - to create a cohesive 'joke'
so to speak. Many people will often become excited by the mental gymnastics
required to comprehend the introduced concept or they will find their brains
over taxed and over loaded and go home to watch the Simpsons. Rudy Ghoulini
simply didn't get it.
Many people are stuck viewing 'art' as pretty pictures on the wall, in effect
they see it as television. The idea behind modern art is to break away from that
stable and secure rectangular box filled with comforting images and make you
think, make your mind work in different ways, to make you experience something
new - and yes, sometimes something scary. But that's just part of the thrill.
Anytime you would like to take a walk through a museum with me just let me know.
There's more on the walls than just pretty pictures.
J
JmG
>hasn't actually gotten the original article yet), but light really would
>have absolutely no chance of ever understanding it's place or history in
>the universe. Picture yourself as a photon. You are, by definition,
Perhaps not in our understanding of time and space but photons may very well
have their own view of such things.
J
Scott K. Stafford
says...
> : "If you can't understand what I've written it's because you're a
> : plebeian simpleton"...
>
> Of all the nominees we've had, this is by far and away the best AFCA motto
> I've seen in 2+ years. Do I have a second?
My thought was, "Oh, consider *that* line stolen..."
--
Scott K. Stafford
<sco...@UNSPAM.together.net>
********************************
They've hired men with their crabtree sticks
To cut him skin from bone
And the miller he has served him worse than that
For he's ground him between two stones
Scott K. Stafford
says...
> >Me, I figure like the mayor who said 'if I can do it, it's not art'.
> >I'm not an artist, but if I can dump post-consumer elephant kibble on
> >a picture, it isn't art. One guy took a toilet, a normal toilet out of
> >home depot, and signed it. How is that art?
>
> Then you miss the point about art.
Ah, the *crier de coeur* of the the art aficionado, "If you think it's
not worthwhile, it cannot be that ... it's not worthwhile. It must be
that 'you've missed the point.'"
How neatly self-defending such "logic" is! Note that Mr. Green has
created a completely unassailable position; question whether a work of
art is worthwhile, and - bing! - you've "missed the point."
How handy such argumentative constructs must be!
> You'd think that anyone can hang a urinal/toilet on the wall and call it art,
> but no one did. When it *was* done people who understood that point got a
> chuckle and a refreshing mental breeze while those who only saw it as a urinal
> on the wall, well, they didn't get it.
Here it is again - anyone who dares to suggest that a bathroom fixture
hung in an art museum is worthless has (by definition) "missed the point"
(expressed here as "didn't get it."), and thus loses the argument before
it has begun.
Whatta useful tool fallacious argument is, eh?
> The driving force of conceptual art is to create something that no one has ever
> created before - to use common objects in new ways - to create a cohesive 'joke'
> so to speak. Many people will often become excited by the mental gymnastics
> required to comprehend the introduced concept or they will find their brains
> over taxed and over loaded and go home to watch the Simpsons. Rudy Ghoulini
> simply didn't get it.
Ah. Now those who don't appreciate such things are compared to the man
Mr. Green likes to refer to as "the brown-shirted thug," and are publicly
labeled stupid.
Couldn't be, of course, that there's nothing there to "get."
And it couldn't be, of course, that Green and his artsy pals are a bunch
of dimwitted pretentious snots who are overwilling to snaffle up any
nonsense some freak labels "art" and sticks in a gallery.
Couldn't be *that*...
> Many people are stuck viewing 'art' as pretty pictures on the wall,
Or, you know, non-plagiaristic stuff actually created by artists -
instead of stolen from Hamilton Standard or Halsey-Taylor...
I often wonder why the guy at the factory who actually designed the
toilet or urinal that ends up being the subject of all the "ooo's" and
"aaaa's" at some Soho gallery isn't feted with the same enthusiasm as the
goatee-boy who puts flowers in the thing and calls it, "Garden of Pissly
Delights."
> in effect
> they see it as television.
Oh, how *evil*! Television! God protect us from that plebeian tripe,
and pass the chopped up cow parts in formaldehyde!
> The idea behind modern art is to break away from that
> stable and secure rectangular box filled with comforting images and make you
> think, make your mind work in different ways, to make you experience something
> new - and yes, sometimes something scary.
Somebody should buy Mr. Green a ticket to Kabul...
Rich Clancey
+ Gracious folks --
+ * What's "bui-bui"
+ * What's a "purdah"
+ * What are those holograms of?
+ history?" (Scientist answer: No.)
+ Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
+ every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
+ words obtuse?
When I was a young punk and had flunked out of college for the
second time, I set myself a project to read Scientific American, the
New York Review of Books, and Art Forum. Every word, every issue,
until they made sense. This was in 1969 when these three publications
represented access to the front lines of knowledge.
After six months, Scientific American was starting to make
sense. The NY Review was making sense in the political and sociology
type articles, but was starting to look like horsepuckey in the
literature department. Art Forum had emerged as total buncombe.
I'd just spent three years in Noo Yawk, reading the articles
in Art Forum and racing downtown to the Galleries to witness the
Hegeliandialectic of the object qua object vs the object qua
representation only to discover roomsful of large pieces of dented
sheet aluminum with stenciled chevrons sprayed on them. One day at
the andre emmerich gallery in 1968 at the tail end of a 120 day
marijuana marathon I had something of a Joycean Epiphany. It occurred
to me for the first time that this stuff might all be crap.
The first few years that people were slapping paint on canvas
at random, they could pass themselves off as aesthetic revolutionaries
battling the cloying banality of Eisenhower era conformism. But forty
years later, they need the "theoretical" cover stories to justify the
fact that they are still slapping paint on canvas at random and it
isn't novel anymore.
OK, I'll stop ranting and get back to my job, which is
ironically at an art school which is perpetrating more of this stuff.
I'm burrowing from within...
Scott K. Stafford
> I'd just spent three years in Noo Yawk, reading the articles
> in Art Forum and racing downtown to the Galleries to witness the
> Hegeliandialectic of the object qua object vs the object qua
> representation only to discover roomsful of large pieces of dented
> sheet aluminum with stenciled chevrons sprayed on them. One day at
> the andre emmerich gallery in 1968 at the tail end of a 120 day
> marijuana marathon I had something of a Joycean Epiphany. It occurred
> to me for the first time that this stuff might all be crap.
It's a pity that this poetic construct is a bit too long to quote
effectively...
ra...@westnet.poe.com
May as well be religion Jeff. Scientifically, a photon exists in a
universe that is a point and exists only for an infintesimal instant.
Sure, the photon _may_ experience more outside of our time and space, but
it is fundamentally unprovable and therefore out of the real of science
and into the realm of religion/philsophy.
The question then becomes: Why do you want to believe that photons have
extra-universal experiences? What will this gain you?
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
JmG
>> The driving force of conceptual art is to create something that no one has ever
>> created before - to use common objects in new ways - to create a cohesive 'joke'
>> so to speak. Many people will often become excited by the mental gymnastics
>> required to comprehend the introduced concept or they will find their brains
>> over taxed and over loaded and go home to watch the Simpsons. Rudy Ghoulini
>> simply didn't get it.
>
>Ah. Now those who don't appreciate such things are compared to the man
>Mr. Green likes to refer to as "the brown-shirted thug," and are publicly
>labeled stupid.
Publicly labeled 'stupid'? Where did I say that Scott? Make assumptions and you
know what slope that leads us down, no?
Anyway, I stand by my position regarding conceptual art. You are free to
disagree. You are free to do pretty much what you like, as you will. And so be
it.
>Couldn't be, of course, that there's nothing there to "get."
There is a lot to get. You might make the same argument for rap or for rock and
roll or for Mozart. In this case the art is visual rather than aural.
Personally, I don't 'get' it about avocados but others do - though I can
appreciate the wonder that some will have for the fruit and do not negate their
needs and feelings to expound it. And, if it makes them happy to eat one it
makes me happy to see them enjoying themselves.
>And it couldn't be, of course, that Green and his artsy pals are a bunch
>of dimwitted pretentious snots who are overwilling to snaffle up any
>nonsense some freak labels "art" and sticks in a gallery.
Yes, that is also a possibility. Are you jealous?
>Couldn't be *that*...
Sure it could be. But it could also be that your brain is stuck in a cultural
backwater? And just as much as that it could be that you simply do not agree
with my position, which is fine. But the vitriol wasn't necessary. If you have
no argument, bullying does not give you one.
>> Many people are stuck viewing 'art' as pretty pictures on the wall,
>
>Or, you know, non-plagiaristic stuff actually created by artists -
>instead of stolen from Hamilton Standard or Halsey-Taylor...
As I said, many people are stuck viewing art as pretty pictures on the wall.
>I often wonder why the guy at the factory who actually designed the
>toilet or urinal that ends up being the subject of all the "ooo's" and
>"aaaa's" at some Soho gallery isn't feted with the same enthusiasm as the
>goatee-boy who puts flowers in the thing and calls it, "Garden of Pissly
>Delights."
Then you've not been paying attention. At the Museum of Modern Art in NYC a Bell
helicopter hangs from the ceiling of the top floor as an example of industrial
art. Many museums around the country and around the world have often feted
simple household objects as, are you ready? As Art! Cars, planes, boats,
toasters, lamps, chairs and corkscrews are all 'art'.
>> in effect they see it as television.
>
>Oh, how *evil*! Television! God protect us from that plebeian tripe,
>and pass the chopped up cow parts in formaldehyde!
Yes, please. beats Jerry Springer any day.
>Somebody should buy Mr. Green a ticket to Kabul...
What, and join you, safely protected from an alternate thought? No thanks.
J
Scott K. Stafford
says...
> >> The driving force of conceptual art is to create something that no one has ever
> >> created before - to use common objects in new ways - to create a cohesive 'joke'
> >> so to speak. Many people will often become excited by the mental gymnastics
> >> required to comprehend the introduced concept or they will find their brains
> >> over taxed and over loaded and go home to watch the Simpsons. Rudy Ghoulini
> >> simply didn't get it.
> >
> >Ah. Now those who don't appreciate such things are compared to the man
> >Mr. Green likes to refer to as "the brown-shirted thug," and are publicly
> >labeled stupid.
>
> Publicly labeled 'stupid'? Where did I say that Scott?
I submit that "stupid" is sufficiently synonymous with "find their brains
over taxed and over loaded and go home to watch the Simpsons"
for argumentative purposes.
Certainly you didn't intend the phrase to publicly label such people
"very, very intelligent," did you?
> Anyway, I stand by my position regarding conceptual art. You are free to
> disagree. You are free to do pretty much what you like, as you will. And so be
> it.
Agreed!
> >Couldn't be, of course, that there's nothing there to "get."
>
> There is a lot to get.
<robotic voice>
Bzzzzt! Assertion detected! Implication that assertion is fact: deleted.
</robotic voice>
> You might make the same argument for rap or for rock and
> roll or for Mozart.
Of course.
My father doesn't like Pink Floyd. He prefers swing and bluegrass. But
when he states something to that effect, I don't say, "Hey, dad, if Floyd
taxes your little pin-head, why dontcha stop taxing it and go watch The
Simpsons?" I don't assume that he "doesn't get" rock and roll, I assume
that he "gets" it but still thinks it's worthless.
> >And it couldn't be, of course, that Green and his artsy pals are a bunch
> >of dimwitted pretentious snots who are overwilling to snaffle up any
> >nonsense some freak labels "art" and sticks in a gallery.
>
> Yes, that is also a possibility. Are you jealous?
Nope. I have my own appreciation of art, thank you very much.
For example, some have compared the flap over Bob Mapplethorpe's exhibit
of his "X Series" of gay sadomasochistic images (which only represented a
tiny fraction of his overall body of work...) to the current "Sensation"
exhibit.
But the two couldn't be more dissimilar. Despite a certain proclivity to
produce shocking images, Mapplethorpe was a brilliant photographer and a
matchless technician at his craft. Whether or not you "like" the images
he was presenting, his talent was objectively unmistakable.
The "Sensation" nonsense is nothing more than talentless hackery relying
on shock value to pique our interest. Remove the shock value, and
Mapplethorpe's work still towers. Remove the shock value, and
"Sensation" belongs between two slices of bread at Hardee's.
> >Couldn't be *that*...
>
> Sure it could be. But it could also be that your brain is stuck in a cultural
> backwater?
Could be, but I doubt it.
> >I often wonder why the guy at the factory who actually designed the
> >toilet or urinal that ends up being the subject of all the "ooo's" and
> >"aaaa's" at some Soho gallery isn't feted with the same enthusiasm as the
> >goatee-boy who puts flowers in the thing and calls it, "Garden of Pissly
> >Delights."
>
> Then you've not been paying attention. At the Museum of Modern Art in NYC a Bell
> helicopter hangs from the ceiling of the top floor as an example of industrial
> art. Many museums around the country and around the world have often feted
> simple household objects as, are you ready? As Art! Cars, planes, boats,
> toasters, lamps, chairs and corkscrews are all 'art'.
Oh, I love industrial art and design. Nothing is more relevant than what
shape humanity applies to its necessary surroundings.
But taking a Bell UH-1 and sticking some slaughtered cow-parts on the
landing skids is a cliche, not a new work of art.
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>"StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>" <starch...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>>Me, I figure like the mayor who said 'if I can do it, it's not art'.
>>I'm not an artist, but if I can dump post-consumer elephant kibble on
>>a picture, it isn't art. One guy took a toilet, a normal toilet out of
>>home depot, and signed it. How is that art?
>
>Then you miss the point about art.
>
>You'd think that anyone can hang a urinal/toilet on the wall and call it art,
>but no one did. When it *was* done people who understood that point got a
>chuckle and a refreshing mental breeze while those who only saw it as a urinal
>on the wall, well, they didn't get it.
It was a floor toilet. He would only allow it to be shown if it was
properly plumbed. It sat on the floor. This is not a new thing, there
are -millions- of them in homes all over the world. How is this art?
If I'd seen it <I didn't need to, I am very familiar with what a
toilet looks like> I would have wondered why a toilet was sitting in
the middle of the floor, not what 'genius' did the very difficult task
of goint to Home Depot and purchasing a perfectly ordinary toilet, and
then daringly signing his name on it like he'd done something.
>The driving force of conceptual art is to create something that no one has ever
>created before - to use common objects in new ways - to create a cohesive 'joke'
>so to speak. Many people will often become excited by the mental gymnastics
>required to comprehend the introduced concept or they will find their brains
>over taxed and over loaded and go home to watch the Simpsons. Rudy Ghoulini
>simply didn't get it.
>Many people are stuck viewing 'art' as pretty pictures on the wall, in effect
>they see it as television. The idea behind modern art is to break away from that
>stable and secure rectangular box filled with comforting images and make you
>think, make your mind work in different ways, to make you experience something
>new - and yes, sometimes something scary. But that's just part of the thrill.
>Anytime you would like to take a walk through a museum with me just let me know.
>There's more on the walls than just pretty pictures.
Would be fun at some point, but I don't know how well it'd go. If
someone welds two wrecked cars together and calls it 'the struggle
between man's mind and body' or something, it's just meaningless to
me, it means someone can use a welding setup.
If this means "I don't get 'it'" then fine...I don't want 'it' and if
I did get 'it', I'd want to have it medically removed.
Helge Moulding
>Do other people understand art brochures?
I rarely read them. When I do, I find that my grounding in the
physical sciences often makes them an unsatisfactory excercise in
handwaving and smoke blowing. It's possible that they aren't
entirely subjective, since different critics will produce similar
analyses for the same piece. Or, possibly, they are all nothing
but performing seals, trained to produce on cue? I don't know how
to test for that, and I suspect that it would miss the point.
I recognized the stuff that Doug Yanega quoted as some of the
more recent claptrap. As Dutch points out, the physical sciences
don't have a monopoly on truth writ large, but then scientists
(should) know that; only the teeming millions live under the
illusion that for something to be correct it has to be True. It
only has to be correct to fly you to Paris: materialism will get
you there, but it won't (necessarily) make you happy.
>I always understand every word I read at science museums; do
>artists find those words obtuse?
Read art magazines, and you'll find information on everything
from solvents to galleries. Not a word about understanding the
latest critical paradigm. Critical periodicals, on the other
hand, pay no attention to technique or market, and worry only
about paradigms that can be used to understand the latest
expressions of our culture.
While there are important artists who are also critics, the two
disciplines generally don't intersect. Mostly, artists seem to
be interested in selling their art, and good critical copy helps
only in the sense that good advertising copy helps. Anyone can
recognize praise or condemnation.
--
Helge "I bet I'm being obtuse." Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
Dutch Courage wrote:
> In science, questions only have one answer.
That's not true. In higher-level science, the question changes from
"what" to "how", and there are infinite answers to "how".
Example:
High school Physics: What makes planes fly? Answer: lift.
College Physics: How can we make this plane fly
better/faster/cheaper/with less fuel/longer/higher etc.? Answer:
depends on how much research money you can get.
Amy
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
deepstblu wrote:
>
> KAREN LINGEL wrote:
>
> > Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
> > every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
> > words obtuse?
> My personal guess (highly generalized) is that scientists really want
> people to understand what's going on in science, but artists and art
> critics don't care as long as they can look smarter than the average
> museum visitor.
I'm going to have to go with Karen on this one.
Scientists are CAPABLE of explaining things precisely while using
laymen's terms. However, when talking amongst themselves, jargon makes
it easier for them to get precise points across quickly to other people
who know the field.
Artists don't seem capable of talking about art in laymen's terms. The
point of the jargon is not to explain more quickly and more precisely,
it is more so that they can exclude those of us who don't understand
what they're talking about without an English->Artist dictionary.
Chefs (who mostly consider themselves artists) tend to do this
artist-speak thing too. Also, musicians, anyone in academia, and people
who know people who think that by virtue of them knowing these people
other people who don't know these people will be impressed by them.
(For example, "And then Buffy and Chip and I played tennis with Martha,
and Martha told us that Montgomery had said..." when the speaker knows
that you don't know (or care) who Buffy, Chip, Martha, and Montgomery
are, and wants to impress you with his social standing.)
L & k,
Amy
Scott Wilson
Um... only if your College Physics class is titled "Engineering".
Mine were still very much worried about the why and the how, with no
regard to how can it be done better. Instead, it would be:
Prof: What makes planes fly?
Student: Lift
Prof: What is lift?
and/or
Prof: Prove it.
(Not that we would cover anything as pratical as why planes fly.)
--
Scott Wilson Letting my freak flag fly
swi...@uchicago.edu
Scott Wilson
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Dutch Courage wrote:
>
>> It seems he's only written a wordy, but still basically readable
>article which
>> says that the systems we've devised for ordering and describing empirical
>> experience, while predictive and self correcting, eventually fail to describe
>> external reality, and contain certain self contradictions and tautologies. If
>> you deny that our experience of external reality is not conditioned by
>cultural
>> perceptions or language itself, I would ask you to show me the Superbowl, and
>> then tell me where my fist goes when I open my hand.
>
>I had the same impression when I read it--'course, I only read it once,
>and not very carefully. Why waste time on something that the author
>said was a waste of time. And, yeh, it was wordy.
>
>How seriously would it injure *science* if I were to write a
>believeable article that was accepted in a peer-reviewed science
>journal, and I later revealed that it was a hoax? That sort of
>thing happens occassionally, but no one cites it as evidence that
>the journal was bogus.
It could seriourly injure a science.
Think "Cold Fusion".
From what I have seen since the fiasco, is that it very well might be
possible, but anyone working on it can't get funding and is basically
laughed at by others.
rob...@bestweb.net
>My personal guess (highly generalized) is that scientists really
>want people to understand what's going on in science, but artists
>and art critics don't care as long as they can look smarter than
>the average museum visitor.
I agree. They want to make art sound really technical to cover up for the
fact that you can call anything art and be right, but you can't do that with
science. If you're the Dan Coffey character Dr. Science, you can call
anything science, but that's just to be funny and satiric, not correct.
Robert
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
rob...@bestweb.net
>That [snipped] being said, clarity of expression in any field is rare
>and usually comes with a thorough understanding of the subject matter.
>Art, being primarily an emotional experience, is not well understood
>by anyone--the "I know what I like" school. Expressing artistic
>concepts in words is therefore difficult.
But scientists have a good reason for adopting jargon, artists don't. As
pointed out above, artistic concepts are practically ineffable; words fail,
so why try? OTOH, science packs a lot of knowledge into jargon. We need to
say things using fancy words that few non-scientists or non-specialists will
understand, because spelling them out in simpler terms over and over again
would be wasteful. True, there's a good deal of unnecessary jargonizing in
science to appear more profound or obscure, but that's not the general rule,
as it is in art.
rob...@bestweb.net
>How seriously would it injure *science* if I were to write a
>believeable article that was accepted in a peer-reviewed science
>journal, and I later revealed that it was a hoax? That sort of
>thing happens occassionally, but no one cites it as evidence that
>the journal was bogus.
That's not comparable to the literary criticism hoax. Science papers
present data, present hypotheses, and/or review others' data & hypotheses.
If a purely hypothetic paper were a hoax (i.e., proposing something absurd)
and were accepted for publication, that'd be good evidence the journal was
bogus. If the hoax were a paper presenting new data, that'd be an entirely
different situation from the literary criticism hoax, because there's no way
to tell if someone's data are for real -- you take their word for it, but
you might send it back for confirmatory work if it strongly contradicts well
accepted theory -- but the literary criticism is to be judged on its own.
And if a science paper (or any other) were full of phony citations of
others' work, and were published, then the reviewers just didn't do the work
they should've.
>I was helping my professor in writing a proposal, and I suggested
>replacing some of the passive voiced passages with active. He
>responded very enthusiastically, and made the changes. The next
>day, I found that they'd been changed back. He explained, kinda
>matter-of-factly, that it'd sounded less scientific. It just
>needed to be ponderous to get past the reviewers, he thought.
>And there seems to be some evidence that he was right.
>--
Yeah, you're right about stylistic stuff like that. Everyone in science
knows it's stilted, but everybody's afraid of replacing it with active voice
because they think the next person will think it's unscientific sounding.
But that's not comparable to the complete bullshit that gets published in
the "squishy" disciplines. In science you might see horse shit (fraud) or
chicken shit (trivia elevated beyond its import), but not bull shit
(nonsense).
RM Mentock
>
> In article <381FDABA...@mindspring.com>,
> RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >How seriously would it injure *science* if I were to write a
> >believeable article that was accepted in a peer-reviewed science
> >journal, and I later revealed that it was a hoax? That sort of
> >thing happens occassionally, but no one cites it as evidence that
> >the journal was bogus.
>
> It could seriourly injure a science.
>
> Think "Cold Fusion".
That is almost an example. The first publicity for P & F cold
fusion was not in a peer-reviewed journal.
> From what I have seen since the fiasco, is that it very well might be
> possible, but anyone working on it can't get funding and is basically
> laughed at by others.
Plenty of research was published after their announcement, and no
one came up with significant results. Get significant results, and
you will get funding.
When you say cold fusion very well might be possible, you're claiming
that it might not be a hoax--and P & F would agree with you--so that is
another reason that cold fusion is not an example.
The Cardiff giant was a hoax, but did it significantly injure
that science?
Devilfish
>
> Devilfish <rab...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >hasn't actually gotten the original article yet), but light really would
> >have absolutely no chance of ever understanding it's place or history in
> >the universe. Picture yourself as a photon. You are, by definition,
>
> Perhaps not in our understanding of time and space but photons may very well
> have their own view of such things.
When?
Alternately: How would you go about proving it?
Alternately: That's the whole point, but expressed from the opposite
perspective.
-Bob
...At the very least, please consult your Tarot!
Big Iron5
> But it could also be that your [Stafford's] brain is stuck in a cultural
>backwater? And just as much as that it could be that you simply do not agree
>with my position, which is fine. But the vitriol wasn't necessary. If you
>have
>no argument, bullying does not give you one.
You can take the cop off the force, but you can't take the need to resort to
force out of the cop ...
RM Mentock
> When I was a young punk and had flunked out of college for the
> second time, I set myself a project to read Scientific American, the
> New York Review of Books, and Art Forum. Every word, every issue,
> until they made sense. This was in 1969 when these three publications
> represented access to the front lines of knowledge.
>
> After six months, Scientific American was starting to make
> sense. The NY Review was making sense in the political and sociology
> type articles, but was starting to look like horsepuckey in the
> literature department. Art Forum had emerged as total buncombe.
Just as a data point, what were your declared majors in college those
two times?
Helge Moulding
>jmg...@bestweb.net says...
>> The driving force of conceptual art is to create something that
>Couldn't be, of course, that there's nothing there to "get."
There are people who wax poetic at complex fourth-order manifolds.
I don't necessarily get it, but I feel a kind of frisson at the
mental images they evoke. Being faced by a bathroom fixture in a
place where I'd never expect one, and being able to view the same
fixture from angles *and with mental attitude* that is not usually
connected to bathrooms can evoke a similar frisson. Now sit down
(no, not on it!) and try to describe it.
Did you feel irritation at facing your mortal frailty in this
public setting? Did you examine the craftmanship as a professional
plumber might? Did you consider the cost of the fixture and compare
it to what your last foray to Home Depot turned up? Did you ask
yourself why you'd never have considered letting people examine
such a commonplace in a different setting? Did you try to estimate
how many of your neighbors would pay to see your bathroom? Did you
compare your reaction to what you felt when you saw the same fixture
in a decorated model home?
We don't usually walk around, asking ourselves these questions.
Sartre points out that we are rarely conscious of our actions, and
almost never try to figure out why we do what we do.
Art gives us that opportunity. If for you art is merely the ability
to use craftsmanship to create a tangible crutch for fallible human
memory, then you are in fact missing the point. Name calling and
frothing at the mouth will not redeem your position.
--
Helge "Here, wipe your chin." Moulding
Dutch Courage
>In article <381FDABA...@mindspring.com>,
>RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Dutch Courage wrote:
>>
>>> It seems he's only written a wordy, but still basically readable
>>article which
>>> says that the systems we've devised for ordering and describing empirical
>>> experience, while predictive and self correcting, eventually fail to
>describe
>>> external reality, and contain certain self contradictions and tautologies.
>If
>>> you deny that our experience of external reality is not conditioned by
>>cultural
>>> perceptions or language itself, I would ask you to show me the Superbowl,
>and
>>> then tell me where my fist goes when I open my hand.
>>
>>I had the same impression when I read it--'course, I only read it once,
>>and not very carefully. Why waste time on something that the author
>>said was a waste of time. And, yeh, it was wordy.
>>
>>How seriously would it injure *science* if I were to write a
>>believeable article that was accepted in a peer-reviewed science
>>journal, and I later revealed that it was a hoax? That sort of
>>thing happens occassionally, but no one cites it as evidence that
>>the journal was bogus.
>
>It could seriourly injure a science.
It's a shame that paleo-anthropology has gone by the wayside since Piltdown
man.
>
>Think "Cold Fusion".
And now no one takes Physics seriously?
>
>From what I have seen since the fiasco, is that it very well might be
>possible, but anyone working on it can't get funding and is basically
>laughed at by others.
I am not sure what level of funding is required by post-modernism, beyond that
necessarly for a library card, paper, a typewriter, and some stamps.
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn
human actions, but to understand them" -Spinoza
"The ridiculing and scorn, that's just gravy."-Courage
RM Mentock
> Yeah, you're right about stylistic stuff like that. Everyone in science
> knows it's stilted, but everybody's afraid of replacing it with active voice
> because they think the next person will think it's unscientific sounding.
> But that's not comparable to the complete bullshit that gets published in
> the "squishy" disciplines. In science you might see horse shit (fraud) or
> chicken shit (trivia elevated beyond its import), but not bull shit
> (nonsense).
That's my point. It wasn't just nonsense. I read the thing, but not
carefully, I admit. And the "nonsense" didn't leap off the page at
me. I may have to go back and reconsider it.
Why do you say it was nonsense? Because Sokal said so? Well, he
thought
the whole field was nonsense. That's pretty much circular reasoning, by
itself.
What if I grabbed some obscure hungarian economic theories that I
thought
were scatterbrained, puffed them up and submitted to a journal of
economics,
and they published it. What would my credence be if I later declared
the
thing a hoax?
Bill Baldwin
>If this means "I don't get 'it'" then fine...I don't want 'it' and if
>I did get 'it', I'd want to have it medically removed.
Or, to quote Grandpa Simpson, "I used to be 'with it.' But then they changed
what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' anymore. And what's 'it' seems
strange and scary to me."
(Hmmm. Guess I'm content to be one of the ones who goes home and watches The
Simpsons.)
--
Bill "I tied an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time" Baldwin
Doug Yanega
> Then you've not been paying attention. At the Museum of Modern Art in
NYC a Bell
> helicopter hangs from the ceiling of the top floor as an example of industrial
> art. Many museums around the country and around the world have often feted
> simple household objects as, are you ready? As Art! Cars, planes, boats,
> toasters, lamps, chairs and corkscrews are all 'art'.
I know the displays in the MOMA well, and that's actually one of my
favorite parts of the Museum. But in *none* of those displays is credit
given to anyone other than the DESIGNER of the object in question. On the
other hand, someone who buys a floor toilet at Home Depot, places it in a
museum, and signs it HIMSELF is a fraud.
Little vignette: a child in kindergarten spends an hour building a tower
out of blocks. A second child comes up and places a plastic airplane on
top of the tower. The teacher comes over and asks the second child "What
did you build?" - the response: "I built an airport!". The teacher gives
him a gold star. Does he deserve it? Is he a creative genius or a lazy
parasite?
In article
<alexander.horgan...@net118-234.student.yale.edu>,
alexande...@yale.edu (Alec Horgan) wrote:
> In article <dyanega-0211...@entmuseum4.ucr.edu>,
> dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
>
> > I can't tell you how overjoyed I was when Alan Sokal exposed that the
> > editors of "Social Text" (THE journal for the discerning postmodernist)
>
> Hardly. I'm no defender of "postmodernism," whatever that is, but Social
> Text is by no means THE journal of anything in the pomo/litcrit/cultural
> studies world. Few folks had even heard of it before Sokal had his little
> joke.
That may be so, as I admit to having been led to believe it was one of the
premiere pomo journals during the discussion that ensued on sci.skeptic,
where I first heard of this whole mess. I have not delved in any depth
into the pomo/litcrit/cultural studies world myself. I suppose I'm waiting
for it to dry up and blow away.
In article <19991103013037...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
> Of course, you'd have to be knowledgable in literature to know that, and not
> approach the epistemelogical status you de-privilege with a great huge chip on
> your shoulder.
I think when the field I have devoted my life to is being pooh-poohed and
reduced to the level of "myth" by a bunch of pseudointellectuals who
intentionally fail to distinguish the *institution* of science from the
*philosophy* of science, then yes, I'm entitled to wear my shoulder chip
with pride. Mostly because the pomo crowd is the biggest bunch of
hypocrites conceivable: they attack science in such a way as to convince
the world that science is nothing but politics masquerading as objective
analysis, when in fact the entire anti-science movement they embody and
promulgate is exactly that - politics masquerading as objective analysis.
Pots calling kettles black has always been a great tactic for diverting
attention and befuddling the teeming millions. Their use of hyperjargon
(what this thread is supposedly about) is just part of this game. "If you
can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California
Riverside, CA 92521 909-787-4315 (opinions are mine, not UCR's)
http://insects.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick
Dutch Courage
>In article <L1MgOIESfDBMBp...@4ax.com>, jmgreenATbestweb.net
>wrote:
>
>> Then you've not been paying attention. At the Museum of Modern Art in
>NYC a Bell
>> helicopter hangs from the ceiling of the top floor as an example of
>industrial
>> art. Many museums around the country and around the world have often feted
>> simple household objects as, are you ready? As Art! Cars, planes, boats,
>> toasters, lamps, chairs and corkscrews are all 'art'.
>
>I know the displays in the MOMA well, and that's actually one of my
>favorite parts of the Museum. But in *none* of those displays is credit
>given to anyone other than the DESIGNER of the object in question. On the
>other hand, someone who buys a floor toilet at Home Depot, places it in a
>museum, and signs it HIMSELF is a fraud.
Huh, why do you think so? I mean, unless he's representing himself as, say, a
great draftsman or color designer.
>Little vignette: a child in kindergarten spends an hour building a tower
>out of blocks. A second child comes up and places a plastic airplane on
>top of the tower. The teacher comes over and asks the second child "What
>did you build?" - the response: "I built an airport!". The teacher gives
>him a gold star. Does he deserve it? Is he a creative genius or a lazy
>parasite?
He might even be both.
>> In article <dyanega-0211...@entmuseum4.ucr.edu>,
>> dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
>>
>> > I can't tell you how overjoyed I was when Alan Sokal exposed that the
>> > editors of "Social Text" (THE journal for the discerning postmodernist)
>>
>> Hardly. I'm no defender of "postmodernism," whatever that is, but Social
>> Text is by no means THE journal of anything in the pomo/litcrit/cultural
>> studies world. Few folks had even heard of it before Sokal had his little
>> joke.
>
>That may be so, as I admit to having been led to believe it was one of the
>premiere pomo journals during the discussion that ensued on sci.skeptic,
>where I first heard of this whole mess.
Ah.
> I have not delved in any depth
>into the pomo/litcrit/cultural studies world myself. I suppose I'm waiting
>for it to dry up and blow away.
Don't hold your breath.
>
>In article <19991103013037...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
>hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
>
>> Of course, you'd have to be knowledgable in literature to know that, and
>not
>> approach the epistemelogical status you de-privilege with a great huge chip
>on
>> your shoulder.
>
>I think when the field I have devoted my life to
If you have devoted your life to cutting up dead bugs, then i think the fault
lies with you.
> is being pooh-poohed and
>reduced to the level of "myth"
It's hardly "reduced" to the level of myth, it's always been a "myth" in the
sense of
" 1 a : a usu. traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to
unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or
natural phenomenon
b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or
someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or
segment of society <seduced by the American ~ of individualism --Orde Coombs>"
You're making the mistake of thinking that truth or falsity exist outside of
your paradigm.
>by a bunch of pseudointellectuals
Judging from your arguments, "all art criticism is crap" I think they're at
least as entitled to the word "intellectual" as you are.
>who
>intentionally fail to distinguish the *institution* of science from the
>*philosophy* of science, then yes, I'm entitled to wear my shoulder chip
>with pride.
I am not really sure how the institution of science differs from the
philisophy of science, and I think you could stand to bruch up on your
ontological epsitemology.
>Mostly because the pomo crowd is the biggest bunch of
>hypocrites conceivable: they attack science in such a way as to convince
>the world that science is nothing but politics masquerading as objective
>analysis,
Hardly, they simply point out the underlying cultural or intellectual
conditioning, and its ontological or epistemelogical signifigance.
> when in fact the entire anti-science movement they embody and
>promulgate is exactly that - politics masquerading as objective analysis.
"I'm smarter than they are because I can actually go find a dead bug.
Duh...whats a "purdah," anyway?
>Pots calling kettles black has always been a great tactic for diverting
>attention and befuddling the teeming millions. Their use of hyperjargon
>(what this thread is supposedly about) is just part of this game. "If you
>can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
"They use big hard words! Mooooom!"
So tell me, oh great saint of materialism, where does my fist go when I open
my hand?
RM Mentock
> Little vignette: a child in kindergarten spends an hour building a tower
> out of blocks. A second child comes up and places a plastic airplane on
> top of the tower. The teacher comes over and asks the second child "What
> did you build?" - the response: "I built an airport!". The teacher gives
> him a gold star. Does he deserve it? Is he a creative genius or a lazy
> parasite?
>
That can be taken to extremes, at both ends of the spectrum. If someone
takes photos from magazines and glues them into a montage, is it art?
It's a sort of collage, right? It *could* be art, at least.
Now we argue about where to draw the line.
Scott Wilson
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Scott Wilson wrote:
>>
>> In article <381FDABA...@mindspring.com>,
>> RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >How seriously would it injure *science* if I were to write a
>> >believeable article that was accepted in a peer-reviewed science
>> >journal, and I later revealed that it was a hoax? That sort of
>> >thing happens occassionally, but no one cites it as evidence that
>> >the journal was bogus.
>>
>> It could seriourly injure a science.
>>
>
>That is almost an example. The first publicity for P & F cold
>fusion was not in a peer-reviewed journal.
That I didn't know...
>> From what I have seen since the fiasco, is that it very well might be
>> possible, but anyone working on it can't get funding and is basically
>> laughed at by others.
>
>Plenty of research was published after their announcement, and no
>one came up with significant results. Get significant results, and
>you will get funding.
There was in issue of WIRED that had some stuff on cold fusion.
Basically, there are a number of guys out there that can reproduce it...
but others can't reproduce them reliably. They claim the problem is with
Paladium purification. They are still trying to figure out the exact
percentages of various impurities necessary for it to work, but since
paladium manufacturing isn't really up to snuff, it's a pain. Supposedly,
if you lucked out and had a good piece of paladium it would work, if not,
it didn't. Defining what is/isn't a good piece of paladium is what some
of these guys are now trying to spend their time on.
But these guys who had been working on it pre P&F suddenly ran into all
types of funding issues. Every lab that had been working on it
dropped it like a hot potato. Those who are currently working on it are
pretty much self funded. I'm sure the science took a huge hit on the
number of people working on the problem.
>When you say cold fusion very well might be possible, you're claiming
>that it might not be a hoax--and P & F would agree with you--so that is
>another reason that cold fusion is not an example.
Hence my wording "it _could_ seriously injure a science". If cold fusion
took that much flak for a poorly done paper, I could imagine a hoax having
a similar fallout. Mind you... probably only with something as iffy as
cold fusion, but I consider it a possiblity.
--
Scott Wilson Unix System Administrator
swi...@uchicago.edu NSIT - In-Tech - Systems and Servers
motion added to reduce spam
>favorite parts of the Museum. But in *none* of those displays is credit
>given to anyone other than the DESIGNER of the object in question. On the
>other hand, someone who buys a floor toilet at Home Depot, places it in a
>museum, and signs it HIMSELF is a fraud.
By this test, a landscape artist is a fraud?
__________________
Stephen
http://stephen.fathom.org
Satellite Hunting 1.1.1 visible satellite pass prediction shareware available
for download at
http://stephen.fathom.org/sathunt.html
Shawn Wilson
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3820906A...@mindspring.com...
> > Yeah, you're right about stylistic stuff like that. Everyone in science
> > knows it's stilted, but everybody's afraid of replacing it with active
voice
> > because they think the next person will think it's unscientific
sounding.
> > But that's not comparable to the complete bullshit that gets published
in
> > the "squishy" disciplines. In science you might see horse shit (fraud)
or
> > chicken shit (trivia elevated beyond its import), but not bull shit
> > (nonsense).
>
> That's my point. It wasn't just nonsense. I read the thing, but not
> carefully, I admit. And the "nonsense" didn't leap off the page at
> me. I may have to go back and reconsider it.
When the AUTHOR says it's nonsense, who is anyone else to say otherwise?
The details are available from Sokal himself at
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.h
tml
> What if I grabbed some obscure hungarian economic theories that I
> thought
> were scatterbrained, puffed them up and submitted to a journal of
> economics,
> and they published it. What would my credence be if I later declared
> the
> thing a hoax?
Go ahead and try. People HAVE tried to get BS published in serious
scientific journals, they get bounced. Ya see, in the real world editors
don't publish stuff they don't understand.
Dutch Courage
>
>RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3820906A...@mindspring.com...
>
>> > Yeah, you're right about stylistic stuff like that. Everyone in science
>> > knows it's stilted, but everybody's afraid of replacing it with active
>voice
>> > because they think the next person will think it's unscientific
>sounding.
>> > But that's not comparable to the complete bullshit that gets published
>in
>> > the "squishy" disciplines. In science you might see horse shit (fraud)
>or
>> > chicken shit (trivia elevated beyond its import), but not bull shit
>> > (nonsense).
>>
>> That's my point. It wasn't just nonsense. I read the thing, but not
>> carefully, I admit. And the "nonsense" didn't leap off the page at
>> me. I may have to go back and reconsider it.
>
>
>When the AUTHOR says it's nonsense, who is anyone else to say otherwise?
Anyone making a fair reading? Hey, Shawn just made an argument from AUTHORity!
woo woo!
>
>The details are available from Sokal himself at
>
>http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.h
>tml
"It's turtles all the way down!"
Sokal hoaxed himself, learn to live with it, Shawn.
>
>
>
>> What if I grabbed some obscure hungarian economic theories that I
>> thought
>> were scatterbrained, puffed them up and submitted to a journal of
>> economics,
>> and they published it. What would my credence be if I later declared
>> the
>> thing a hoax?
>
>
>Go ahead and try. People HAVE tried to get BS published in serious
>scientific journals, they get bounced. Ya see, in the real world editors
>don't publish stuff they don't understand.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Doug Yanega
hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
> >> Of course, you'd have to be knowledgable in literature to know that, and
> >not
> >> approach the epistemelogical status you de-privilege with a great huge chip
> >on
> >> your shoulder.
> >
> >I think when the field I have devoted my life to
>
> If you have devoted your life to cutting up dead bugs, then i think the fault
> lies with you.
Wonderful. You have only a vague idea of what I do, and how or why I do
it, and armed with this, you start in with ad hominem attacks.
> You're making the mistake of thinking that truth or falsity exist outside of
> your paradigm.
As many others have noted, anyone who believes that there is no objective
reality is welcome to try to break the rules of said reality, like
gravity, whenever they like. Please let us know when you succeed. I think
I far prefer erring on the side of believing the universe exists and has
well-defined properties, than on the side of believing that everything is
purely subjective.
Soksal states it thus: "Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is
that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There is a real world;
its properties are not merely social constructions; facts and evidence do
matter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much
contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur
these obvious truths -- the utter absurdity of it all being concealed
through obscure and pretentious language."
> >by a bunch of pseudointellectuals
>
> Judging from your arguments, "all art criticism is crap" I think they're at
> least as entitled to the word "intellectual" as you are.
Selective misquoting. I said "in my experience, art critics/interpreters
are almost invariably full of crap". Where did you learn your debating
skills? Calvin & Hobbes?
> >who
> >intentionally fail to distinguish the *institution* of science from the
> >*philosophy* of science, then yes, I'm entitled to wear my shoulder chip
> >with pride.
>
> I am not really sure how the institution of science differs from the
> philisophy of science
The institution of science is the cultural environment in which science is
carried out, including all the social and historical claptrap. The
philosophy of science is the ideal methodology which one strives for, even
if it is only sometimes attained. Ideal science is an objective process of
inquiry, and many aspects of the institution of science can and do
actually interfere with that process - and most scientists will freely
admit this. But to imply that ALL science is a political/social construct
because SOME science is manipulated for political and social reasons is
simply wrong - and worse, deliberately so.
> >Mostly because the pomo crowd is the biggest bunch of
> >hypocrites conceivable: they attack science in such a way as to convince
> >the world that science is nothing but politics masquerading as objective
> >analysis,
>
> Hardly, they simply point out the underlying cultural or intellectual
> conditioning, and its ontological or epistemelogical signifigance.
Fooey. You're giving this nonsense WAY too much credence. As quoted by
Sokal: "The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the
idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives
is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent
and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time." Larry
Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)
> > when in fact the entire anti-science movement they embody and
> >promulgate is exactly that - politics masquerading as objective analysis.
>
> "I'm smarter than they are because I can actually go find a dead bug.
> Duh...whats a "purdah," anyway?
Wow, this really DOES remind me of how Calvin & Hobbes debate...
"This is you: WAGGA WAGGA WAGGA!"
> "The ridiculing and scorn, that's just gravy."-Courage
That does seem to be what you're best at, too. I'm obviously not alone in
having a proverbial shoulder chip. Follwing up on what I said: Pot.
Kettle. Black.
KAREN LINGEL
Dutch Courage wrote in message <19991103013037.02786.00001420@ng-
> I admit to still being lost by "bui bui" but really, purdah is in the
>dictionary, and mal-illumination, while kind of an ugly phrase, simply
means
>"poorly lit" and exactly the sort of thing you'd remove a purdah from.
>
There weren't any dictionaries anywhere in the whole art
museum. Just the exhibit brochure.
-k-
KAREN LINGEL
Devilfish wrote in message <381FDF93...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>...
> I'm
>not entirely sure this is what Ms. Lingel was referring to
That's "Dr. Lingel", please.
-k-
KAREN LINGEL
Scott Wilson wrote in message ...
>
>Think "Cold Fusion".
>
Cold fusion was never peer-reviewed, nor published.
The popular press broke the story, which also pissed
off the scientists.
-k-
Shawn Wilson
KAREN LINGEL <karen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7vquh9$ab4$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
How about we compromise and call you 'Hey, bitch'?
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
<sco...@UNSPAM.together.net> wrote:
>
>But taking a Bell UH-1 and sticking some slaughtered cow-parts on the
>landing skids is a cliche, not a new work of art.
But if it's painted black, then it's a conspiracy.
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://home.icubed.net/starchsr/table.htm
Address munged for the inconvienence of spammers:
My address is starchsr <at> icubed dot net
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
wrote:
>In article <19991103172438...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
>hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
>
>> >> Of course, you'd have to be knowledgable in literature to know that, and
>> >not
>> >> approach the epistemelogical status you de-privilege with a great huge chip
>> >on
>> >> your shoulder.
>> >
>> >I think when the field I have devoted my life to
>>
>> If you have devoted your life to cutting up dead bugs, then i think the fault
>> lies with you.
>
>Wonderful. You have only a vague idea of what I do, and how or why I do
>it, and armed with this, you start in with ad hominem attacks.
Uninformed ad hominem from Hyprnumnut? Naaah, never happen...
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>the "squishy" disciplines. In science you might see horse shit (fraud) or
>chicken shit (trivia elevated beyond its import), but not bull shit
>(nonsense).
<grins> Cool..I didn't know the various sorts of shit had meaning of
their own...
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>Did you feel irritation at facing your mortal frailty in this
>public setting? Did you examine the craftmanship as a professional
>plumber might? Did you consider the cost of the fixture and compare
>it to what your last foray to Home Depot turned up? Did you ask
>yourself why you'd never have considered letting people examine
>such a commonplace in a different setting? Did you try to estimate
>how many of your neighbors would pay to see your bathroom? Did you
>compare your reaction to what you felt when you saw the same fixture
>in a decorated model home?
No, I'd just think 'What idiot put a toilet here, and why are all
these people with cheesy mustaches, berets and cigarette holders a
foot and a half long spooging all over themselves at it? And why would
anyone pay <picked out of air> 10,000$ for something they could get
from Home Depot for 100$?
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
reduce spam) wrote:
>>I know the displays in the MOMA well, and that's actually one of my
>>favorite parts of the Museum. But in *none* of those displays is credit
>>given to anyone other than the DESIGNER of the object in question. On the
>>other hand, someone who buys a floor toilet at Home Depot, places it in a
>>museum, and signs it HIMSELF is a fraud.
>
>By this test, a landscape artist is a fraud?
No, because he created something. He took raw paint and bare canvas
and created something that pretty much everyone will recognize as
'art'. Maybe 'bad art', but art.
Taking something that is mass produced by the billions and calling it
one's own is fraud.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
Bui-bui sounds like a place name (but isn't referred to *anywhere* on
the Internet that I can find).
It isn't unreasonable to expect people to know what "purdah" means;
it's the sequestration of woman under Muslim law. As you can imagine,
feminist nutzis love the word: point out that women are in any way
different from men, and the usual suspects holler that you are
advocating purdah and infibulation (another word you should know).
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Devilfish wrote in message <381FDF93...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>...
> > I'm
> >not entirely sure this is what Ms. Lingel was referring to
>
> That's "Dr. Lingel", please.
"It's 'Dr. Evil', I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be
called 'mister', thank you very much."
M.
Bill Baldwin
>Helge Moulding wrote:
>
>>Did you feel irritation at facing your mortal frailty in this
>>public setting? Did you examine the craftmanship as a professional
>>plumber might? Did you consider the cost of the fixture and compare
>>it to what your last foray to Home Depot turned up? Did you ask
>>yourself why you'd never have considered letting people examine
>>such a commonplace in a different setting? Did you try to estimate
>>how many of your neighbors would pay to see your bathroom? Did you
>>compare your reaction to what you felt when you saw the same fixture
>>in a decorated model home?
>
>No, I'd just think 'What idiot put a toilet here, and why are all
>these people with cheesy mustaches, berets and cigarette holders a
>foot and a half long spooging all over themselves at it? And why would
>anyone pay <picked out of air> 10,000$ for something they could get
>from Home Depot for 100$?
You see? You wouldn't have had any of those thoughts if somebody hadn't put a
toilet in the middle of an art exhibit. ;-)
Matt Miller
rob...@bestweb.net says...
>On 1999-11-03 da...@wilton.net said in part:
>
> >That [snipped] being said, clarity of expression in any field is rare
> >and usually comes with a thorough understanding of the subject matter.
>
> >Art, being primarily an emotional experience, is not well understood
> >by anyone--the "I know what I like" school. Expressing artistic
> >concepts in words is therefore difficult.
>
>But scientists have a good reason for adopting jargon, artists don't. As
>pointed out above, artistic concepts are practically ineffable; words fail,
>so why try? OTOH, science packs a lot of knowledge into jargon. We need to
>say things using fancy words that few non-scientists or non-specialists will
>understand, because spelling them out in simpler terms over and over again
>would be wasteful. True, there's a good deal of unnecessary jargonizing in
>science to appear more profound or obscure, but that's not the general rule,
>as it is in art.
But then again if you could say it with words you could just write
it down and not get paint all over your self.
I wonder if artists are just wired to communicate in a different
way. I have never had a thought or feeling that I could better express
with a picture than I could with words.
--
Matt Miller | http://pw2.netcom.com/~matmillr | a.a# 357
EAC Spokesmodel
"Under the rocks and stones
there is water underground."
-The Talking Heads
Sean Houtman
>For example, I went to an installation in Santa Fe called
>"A Journey Through Bui-Bui; Lifting the Purdah of
>Mal-Illumination" (very cool; go see it) and basically
>my questions are:
>* What's "bui-bui"
>* What's a "purdah"
>* What are those holograms of?
>So naturally I sit down with the exhibit brochure, but it
>doesn't answer any of these questions, it goes on and on
>about philosophical stuff like "is light an entity with a
>history?" (Scientist answer: No.)
>
>Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
>every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
>words obtuse?
>
Since I once lived in Fanta Se, I feel somewhat qualified to answer this. Some
of the artists living there are quite capable of creating things that are
interresting to look at. They don't tend to be very attached to the rest of the
world, and often spout off some incredibly wierd world views, which the hangers
on and wannabes latch on to with enthusiasm. I have seen some pieces get
analyzed to death by people who have no clue about what they are looking at,
but want to give the impression that they are experts.
Sean
rob...@bestweb.net
>That's my point. It wasn't just nonsense. I read the thing, but
>not carefully, I admit. And the "nonsense" didn't leap off the
>page at me. I may have to go back and reconsider it.
>Why do you say it was nonsense? Because Sokal said so? Well, he
>thought
>the whole field was nonsense. That's pretty much circular
>reasoning, by itself.
You're right, the Sokal piece wasn't nonsense.
>What if I grabbed some obscure hungarian economic theories that I
>thought
>were scatterbrained, puffed them up and submitted to a journal of
>economics,
>and they published it. What would my credence be if I later
>declared the
>thing a hoax?
>--
I think what the point was, and still is, that all he had to do to sound
like an expert on the subject was to use some fancy words -- that he didn't
have to do any formal study or work hard at it, and he'd sound just like the
rest of them. It didn't really matter whether he believed in it or not.
There are atheists who've studied theology in depth, and they really are
experts; it doesn't matter that they don't believe in the stuff, but it does
matter that they've studied it a lot. Sokal was by contrast an instant
expert. That was the take I had on it when his gag was initially
publicized, and so it is now.
However, there really IS a lot of nonsense in the artsy-fartsy studies too.
Robert
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
Devilfish
>
> Devilfish wrote in message <381FDF93...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>...
> > I'm
> >not entirely sure this is what Ms. Lingel was referring to
>
> That's "Dr. Lingel", please.
You're kidding, right? Sorry about that, I'm not really in the habit of
calling anyone "Doctor." If it really means that much to you, though,
I'll make an exception. Just don't expect me to remember that I've made
an exception, life is far too short and I have far too many important
things to remember.
And I don't even know you.
-Bob
...I have had it with this school! The low test scores! Class after
class of ugly, ugly children!
RM Mentock
> > That's my point. It wasn't just nonsense. I read the thing, but not
> > carefully, I admit. And the "nonsense" didn't leap off the page at
> > me. I may have to go back and reconsider it.
>
> When the AUTHOR says it's nonsense, who is anyone else to say otherwise?
>
> The details are available from Sokal himself at
>
> http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.h
> tml
Thanks for the link, but I'm afraid it proves my point, sadly. In it,
Sokal quotes from his own paper in an attempt to prove that it was
nonsense. In his first example, he says he derided "the dogma...that
there
exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any
individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole;..." [1] He
claims
that by deriding such dogma he was in effect advocating "that there
exists
no external world".
I don't read it that way at all--nevermind that there are some people
who do believe that there is no external world. That is hardly proof
that the article is a parody, except that Sokal says it is. (I'm
starting to sound like the blair witch thread here.)
He goes on to say that maybe it might mean that "there exists an
external
world but science obtains no knowledge of it." He considers that enough
outrageous nonsense to insure that no sane person would ever take the
original paper seriously. I know a lot of the people on this group
would
assert the opposite, that there is an external world and science obtains
knowledge about it, but I know that a lot of people would disagree. In
fact, here is a quote from Einstein: "Physicial concepts are free
creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
determined by the external world." [2] I have a feeling that Sokal
considers that nonsense too.
His second example is his parody statement " ``physical `reality' [note
the scare quotes] ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.''
"
(This is tough. My quotes are the outside ones, his are next quoting
himself, and the note about scare quotes seems to be in his criticism
but not his parody). He claims this translates into "Not our theories
of
physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself" is a social or
linguistic construct, and is clear evidence that the editors must have
been daft to accept such a statement. My issue with this "translation"
are the scare quotes. They completely change the meaning of the
passage, which does not then reference actual reality itself.
Why he thinks it does is beyond me, and what is even more incredible,
I might have missed this point if he hadn't drawn attention to the
scare quotes.
Neither of these examples would have tagged the submission as an
outright parody, and I don't know why Sokal thinks they would have.
> > What if I grabbed some obscure hungarian economic theories that I
> > thought
> > were scatterbrained, puffed them up and submitted to a journal of
> > economics,
> > and they published it. What would my credence be if I later declared
> > the
> > thing a hoax?
>
> Go ahead and try. People HAVE tried to get BS published in serious
> scientific journals, they get bounced. Ya see, in the real world editors
> don't publish stuff they don't understand.
Is that a good thing, or not? And I did say "economics." (Actually,
I didn't say that it was BS--I intended to take serious economic
theories that *I* thought were not valid. In other words, when I
later declare them to be a hoax, I'm passing judgement on already
published theories that someone else takes seriously. Just because
I perpetrated a fraud doesn't mean that my article was false,
even though I say so.)
And are you familiar with the 1988 Nature magazine homeopathy article?
http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html
Where the editor John Maddox published the paper, but editorialized
that it had to be wrong?
--
RM Mentock
[1]
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
[2] The Evolution of Physics
Dutch Courage
>Dutch Courage wrote in message <19991103013037.02786.00001420@ng-
>> I admit to still being lost by "bui bui" but really, purdah is in the
>>dictionary, and mal-illumination, while kind of an ugly phrase, simply
>means
>>"poorly lit" and exactly the sort of thing you'd remove a purdah from.
>>
>
>
>There weren't any dictionaries anywhere in the whole art
>museum. Just the exhibit brochure.
In any case, I hardly think the pathetic fallacy dooms art, or literature, to
a level beneath science, or the fault lies with whoever wrote the catalog
because they used a word you don't know.
How many of us knew what a Penguinist was until you told us? Are you then
guilty of the same thing?
Dutch "lions don't molt" Courage
>
>-k-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn
human actions, but to understand them" -Spinoza
"The ridiculing and scorn, that's just gravy."-Courage
Dutch Courage
>In article <19991103172438...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
>hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
>
>> >> Of course, you'd have to be knowledgable in literature to know that,
>and
>> >not
>> >> approach the epistemelogical status you de-privilege with a great huge
>chip
>> >on
>> >> your shoulder.
>> >
>> >I think when the field I have devoted my life to
>>
>> If you have devoted your life to cutting up dead bugs, then i think the
>fault
>> lies with you.
>
>Wonderful. You have only a vague idea of what I do, and how or why I do
>it, and armed with this, you start in with ad hominem attacks.
I'm just teasing you a little, Doug, settle down. Sheesh, "Devoted my life
to."
>
>> You're making the mistake of thinking that truth or falsity exist outside
>of
>> your paradigm.
>
>As many others have noted, anyone who believes that there is no objective
>reality is welcome to try to break the rules of said reality, like
>gravity, whenever they like.
I do not know that anyone seriously advances the view that there is no
physical reality, so it seems you (and Sokal) are attacking a strawman, huh?
Indded, even Descartes used his "cogito, ergo sum" statement to suggest that
there was a physical reality. However, it would be foolishness to advance the
idea that that's all that is, or that that is where your mind resides. If, as
Analytic philosophy suggests, the mind is a separate category from the
experiences that define it, then materialism is thus refuted; there are things
that exist that are not matter or energy, but stories we tell ourselves about
the analysis or synthesis of their sums over history. If you choose, then, to
assign a lower level of existence to such things, fine, but then I will tell
you there is no such thing as USENET, or the Superbowl, or Doug Yanega, since
those too are all the sums of synthesis across history.
> Please let us know when you succeed. I think
>I far prefer erring on the side of believing the universe exists and has
>well-defined properties, than on the side of believing that everything is
>purely subjective.
How suspiciously close to Pascal's wager, hmmm?
I do not know those are your only alternatives.
>
>Soksal states it thus: "Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is
>that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There is a real world;
>its properties are not merely social constructions; facts and evidence do
>matter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much
>contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur
>these obvious truths -- the utter absurdity of it all being concealed
>through obscure and pretentious language."
It seems Sokal falls victim to the same privileges as Thomas Shipka. I quote
from his "Philosophy:Paradox and Discovery."
If the scientific description of reality is closest to the truth, then we must
face up to a dilema: the world as it really is is radically different from the
way it appears to us. Consider for a moment reality as it portrayed by the
physicist. When a thing is hot, for example, the molecules which compose it are
in a state of increased vibration. The nervous system (itself a system of
molecules) detects this vibration and sends signals in the form of pulses to
the brain (another system of molecules) then, and only then, do we feel heat.
But the quality we experience is quite different from the physical conditions
which produce it. Other familiar qulaities in the world suffer the same fate.
The colors of the peacock and the blazing reds of the setting sun are but
subjective qualities of produiced in the perciever by a special nervous system
that responds selectively to lightwaves, themselves colorless, of varying
frequencies. In itself, the sun is a colorless froth of energy...the real
wolrd, the world as described by physics, is a neutral world of colorless,
soundless, odorless matter.
We have grown so accustomed to this way of thinking about the world that it no
longer shcoks us. but it should! Remember that this sweeping distinctions
between appearance and reality is usually accompanied by an emphasis on
observation and experience as the building blocks of science. It has almost
become an official doctrine to regard the advance of science as due to an
extreme reluctance to go beyond experienced fact. Yet we certainly do not
percieve the world as the scientist describes it. If we wish to assert that the
world of common sense--the world of sounds, smells, colors, etc.--does not
adequately represent reality, then the way we gain kowledge of reality cannot
be confined to common sense experience. We need a method which penetrates
appearance--either that, or the real world must be the world of common
experience and the colorless world of physics is a fiction."
Say, maybe it is, huh? Not passing the correspondence test of truth, sure, but
passing the pragmatic test, yeah. Maybe, in fact, they are both fictions.
Perhaps there's no such thing as fiction, and the inferiority to non fiction it
implies, at least in this context. In any case, the idea that reality is merely
the interaction of matter and energy is neatly refuted.
>
>> >by a bunch of pseudointellectuals
>>
>> Judging from your arguments, "all art criticism is crap" I think they're
>at
>> least as entitled to the word "intellectual" as you are.
>
>Selective misquoting.
A bit strawmanish on my part, but not totally unfair, either.
> I said "in my experience, art critics/interpreters
>are almost invariably full of crap".
Ah, I see. So really, what you mean is "nearly all art criticism is full of
crap." Gotcha.
> Where did you learn your debating
>skills? Calvin & Hobbes?
I've got one straw man to your three, and I at least am arguing as to your
points. You have yet to explain to me where my fist goes when I open my hand,
or if light is a wave or a particle.
>
>> >who
>> >intentionally fail to distinguish the *institution* of science from the
>> >*philosophy* of science, then yes, I'm entitled to wear my shoulder chip
>> >with pride.
>>
>> I am not really sure how the institution of science differs from the
>> philisophy of science
>
>The institution of science is the cultural environment in which science is
>carried out, including all the social and historical claptrap.
Ok.
> The
>philosophy of science is the ideal methodology which one strives for, even
>if it is only sometimes attained. Ideal science is an objective process of
>inquiry, and many aspects of the institution of science can and do
>actually interfere with that process - and most scientists will freely
>admit this. But to imply that ALL science is a political/social construct
>because SOME science is manipulated for political and social reasons is
>simply wrong - and worse, deliberately so.
I think it's rather a system of beliefs and assumptions which is valued for
its internal consistantcy. To insist that it is the same thing as the reality
that it predicts or describes, or that this is the only level of experience we
may encounter is somewhat wrong headed, and this is where the political or
social bias does creep in.
>
>> >Mostly because the pomo crowd is the biggest bunch of
>> >hypocrites conceivable: they attack science in such a way as to convince
>> >the world that science is nothing but politics masquerading as objective
>> >analysis,
>>
>> Hardly, they simply point out the underlying cultural or intellectual
>> conditioning, and its ontological or epistemelogical signifigance.
>
>Fooey.
Ooh! Where did *you* learn to debate, the Hong Kong Book of Kung Fu?
> You're giving this nonsense WAY too much credence.
I suppose this can only be because I haven't a huge chip on my shoulder about
any given belief system.
> As quoted by
>Sokal: "The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the
>idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives
>is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent
>and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time." Larry
>Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)
Clearly, Larry has never met Scott Stafford.
Dutch "Rank has its privilege" Courage.
Dutch Courage
>Devilfish wrote in message <381FDF93...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>...
>> I'm
>>not entirely sure this is what Ms. Lingel was referring to
>
>That's "Dr. Lingel", please.
No, apparently, it's not, unless you're an MD or DO. We are addressing you
socially, yes?
Aaron Brandon
Amy Elizabeth Gleason <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:382071B3...@purdue.edu...
>
>
> deepstblu wrote:
> >
> > KAREN LINGEL wrote:
> >
> > > Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
> > > every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
> > > words obtuse?
> > My personal guess (highly generalized) is that scientists really want
> > people to understand what's going on in science, but artists and art
> > critics don't care as long as they can look smarter than the average
> > museum visitor.
>
> I'm going to have to go with Karen on this one.
Yep. You can't get a grant for something you can say that everyone
understands.
>
> Scientists are CAPABLE of explaining things precisely while using
> laymen's terms. However, when talking amongst themselves, jargon makes
> it easier for them to get precise points across quickly to other people
> who know the field.
>
> Artists don't seem capable of talking about art in laymen's terms. The
> point of the jargon is not to explain more quickly and more precisely,
> it is more so that they can exclude those of us who don't understand
> what they're talking about without an English->Artist dictionary.
Sure they're capable, and a good professor does exactly that. Still, every
group has its own language, which allows it to identify its own members and
separate the outgroup. In fact, different schools of artists will use the
same terms in very different ways, just to show how avant-garde they are.
Read Tom Wolfe's _The Painted Word_.
>
> Chefs (who mostly consider themselves artists) tend to do this
> artist-speak thing too. Also, musicians, anyone in academia, and people
> who know people who think that by virtue of them knowing these people
> other people who don't know these people will be impressed by them.
> (For example, "And then Buffy and Chip and I played tennis with Martha,
> and Martha told us that Montgomery had said..." when the speaker knows
> that you don't know (or care) who Buffy, Chip, Martha, and Montgomery
> are, and wants to impress you with his social standing.)
>
> L & k,
> Amy
OK, there I think you're being a little harsh. I'm an amateur chef. Do I
use cooking terms? Sure. It's a lot easier to say "Hollandaise Sauce" than
"Sauce made out of egg yolks, butter, and lemon juice with a little pepper
and Tabasco thrown in for flavor."
Although perhaps you're thinking of more esoteric terms that cooks use. If
so, please name them. I'd be glad to define them. Whenever I talk cooking
to a non-cook, I'll use the layperson's term most of the time. If you have
cable TV (and specifically, the Food Network), watch Emeril Live, Mon.-Fri.
8:00PM Eastern. He does a great deal to de-mystify cooking.
Now, as to the overall tone of the above post, it sounds as though the
complex ideas for which scientists develop shorthand are good and necessary,
whereas the complex concepts that we poor liberal arts-types studied don't
deserve shorthand. Hmmmmph. Typical hard-science snobbishness. (My
degree's in sociology. You think *physics* is a "hard" science? Try
understanding human nature)
--
--Aaron
"I am no prophet--and here's no great matter"
T. S. Eliot
Aaron Brandon
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:Xd%T3.1796$7m.8...@newshog.newsread.com...
> On 1999-11-02 deep...@sprynet.com said:
>
> >My personal guess (highly generalized) is that scientists really
> >want people to understand what's going on in science, but artists
> >and art critics don't care as long as they can look smarter than
> >the average museum visitor.
>
> fact that you can call anything art and be right, but you can't do that
with
> science. If you're the Dan Coffey character Dr. Science, you can call
> anything science, but that's just to be funny and satiric, not correct.
>
> Robert
> Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
Ah. I didn't know that you had the last word on what art is or is not.
AFAIC, if it's out there, it's art (be it high, low, or whatever).
Dutch Courage
>If you have
>cable TV (and specifically, the Food Network), watch Emeril Live, Mon.-Fri.
>8:00PM Eastern. He does a great deal to de-mystify cooking.
I think David Rosenwhatnot is probably better, more instructive. He compares
products, methods of preparation, and isn't such a ham.
Dutch "Bam!" Courage
Aaron Brandon
wordplay that just doesn't have any meaning for the rest of us. Foucalt was
a poor scholar, among other things.
To see the real intellectual bankruptcy of Postmodernism and its
havoc-wreaking effects on academia, read Camille Paglia's article "Junk
Bonds and Corporate Raiders" in her book _Sex, Art, and American Culture_.
--
--Aaron
"I am no prophet--and here's no great matter"
T. S. Eliot
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:381FDABA...@mindspring.com...
> Dutch Courage wrote:
>
> > It seems he's only written a wordy, but still basically readable
article which
> > says that the systems we've devised for ordering and describing
empirical
> > experience, while predictive and self correcting, eventually fail to
describe
> > external reality, and contain certain self contradictions and
tautologies. If
> > you deny that our experience of external reality is not conditioned by
cultural
> > perceptions or language itself, I would ask you to show me the
Superbowl, and
> > then tell me where my fist goes when I open my hand.
>
> I had the same impression when I read it--'course, I only read it once,
> and not very carefully. Why waste time on something that the author
> said was a waste of time. And, yeh, it was wordy.
>
> How seriously would it injure *science* if I were to write a
> believeable article that was accepted in a peer-reviewed science
> journal, and I later revealed that it was a hoax? That sort of
> thing happens occassionally, but no one cites it as evidence that
> the journal was bogus.
>
> > >.When he revealed his article was a hoax, the
> > >fallout was a pricelessly hilarious mess of backpedaling and
ass-covering.
>
> I was helping my professor in writing a proposal, and I suggested
> replacing some of the passive voiced passages with active. He
> responded very enthusiastically, and made the changes. The next
> day, I found that they'd been changed back. He explained, kinda
> matter-of-factly, that it'd sounded less scientific. It just
> needed to be ponderous to get past the reviewers, he thought.
>
> And there seems to be some evidence that he was right.
>
> --
> RM Mentock
Dutch Courage
>I have never had a thought or feeling that I could better express
>with a picture than I could with words.
Really? So at Christmas time you write detailed accounts of what all happened
and vivid descriptions of what everyone looked like, or never drew a map for
someone to let them know how to get someplace, or are capable of describing a
goatee, accordian, or spiral staircase without gestures?
Dutch "worth a thousand words" Courage
Aaron Brandon
Dutch Courage <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
news:19991103140929...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> swi...@midway.uchicago.edu (Scott Wilson) writes:
>
> >In article <381FDABA...@mindspring.com>,
> >RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>Dutch Courage wrote:
> >>
> I am not sure what level of funding is required by post-modernism, beyond
that
> necessarly for a library card, paper, a typewriter, and some stamps.
>
>
Certainly not the cost of tuition in a decent university.
--
--Aaron
"I am no prophet--and here's no great matter"
T. S. Eliot
Aaron Brandon
Shawn Wilson <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7vqhjj$mnh$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...> news:3820906A...@mindspring.com...
>
> > > Yeah, you're right about stylistic stuff like that. Everyone in
science
> > > knows it's stilted, but everybody's afraid of replacing it with active
> voice
> > > because they think the next person will think it's unscientific
> sounding.
> > > But that's not comparable to the complete bullshit that gets published
> in
> > > the "squishy" disciplines. In science you might see horse shit
(fraud)
> or
> > > chicken shit (trivia elevated beyond its import), but not bull shit
> > > (nonsense).
> >
> > carefully, I admit. And the "nonsense" didn't leap off the page at
> > me. I may have to go back and reconsider it.
>
>
> When the AUTHOR says it's nonsense, who is anyone else to say otherwise?
>
> The details are available from Sokal himself at
>
>
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.h
> tml
>
>
>
>
> > thought
> > were scatterbrained, puffed them up and submitted to a journal of
> > economics,
> > and they published it. What would my credence be if I later declared
> > the
> > thing a hoax?
>
>
> Go ahead and try. People HAVE tried to get BS published in serious
> scientific journals, they get bounced. Ya see, in the real world editors
> don't publish stuff they don't understand.
>
>
>
>
from anything resembling scholarship or discipline. They just attend
conferences and read papers at each other. No erudition, no real peer
review, just a bigLacan-lovin' circle jerk.
Aaron Brandon
Helge Moulding <hmou...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:7vq0kp$r0h$1...@mail.pl.unisys.com...
> Scott K. Stafford wrote in message ...
> >jmg...@bestweb.net says...
> Art gives us that opportunity. If for you art is merely the ability
> to use craftsmanship to create a tangible crutch for fallible human
> memory, then you are in fact missing the point. Name calling and
> frothing at the mouth will not redeem your position.
> --
> Helge "Here, wipe your chin." Moulding
> mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
>
Aw hell, it hasn't stopped anyone here yet...
Matt Miller
sco...@UNSPAM.together.net says...
>Oh, how *evil*! Television! God protect us from that plebeian tripe,
>and pass the chopped up cow parts in formaldehyde!
Why not put the cow a science museum? Then everyone would be
happy.
motion added to reduce spam
>
>No, because he created something. He took raw paint and bare canvas
>and created something that pretty much everyone will recognize as
>'art'. Maybe 'bad art', but art.
>
>Taking something that is mass produced by the billions and calling it
>one's own is fraud.
Erm, I meant a guy who decides where to put the shrubbery.
__________________
Stephen
http://stephen.fathom.org
Satellite Hunting 1.1.1 visible satellite pass prediction shareware available
for download at
http://stephen.fathom.org/sathunt.html
Matt Miller
dya...@pop.ucr.edu says...
>In article <L1MgOIESfDBMBp...@4ax.com>, jmgreenATbestweb.net wrote:
>
>> Then you've not been paying attention. At the Museum of Modern Art in
>NYC a Bell
>> helicopter hangs from the ceiling of the top floor as an example of industrial
>> art. Many museums around the country and around the world have often feted
>> simple household objects as, are you ready? As Art! Cars, planes, boats,
>> toasters, lamps, chairs and corkscrews are all 'art'.
>
>I know the displays in the MOMA well, and that's actually one of my
>favorite parts of the Museum. But in *none* of those displays is credit
>given to anyone other than the DESIGNER of the object in question. On the
>other hand, someone who buys a floor toilet at Home Depot, places it in a
>museum, and signs it HIMSELF is a fraud.
>out of blocks. A second child comes up and places a plastic airplane on
>top of the tower. The teacher comes over and asks the second child "What
>did you build?" - the response: "I built an airport!". The teacher gives
>him a gold star. Does he deserve it? Is he a creative genius or a lazy
>parasite?
If the point of the project was merely to be clever, then yes he
deserves a gold star. And that's what DuChamp thought, that the point of
art was to be clever. So he went out, bought a urinal, and called it art.
It took no work on his part, he just thought of it. And actually it seems
to me like a big "fuck you" to the sort of people who write
indecipherable art criticism.
Nick Spalding
> Cold fusion was never peer-reviewed, nor published.
> The popular press broke the story, which also pissed
> off the scientists.
This might imply that the press searched out the story. They didn't,
they were fed it by the perpetrators.
--
Nick Spalding
JmG
> If the point of the project was merely to be clever, then yes he
>deserves a gold star. And that's what DuChamp thought, that the point of
>art was to be clever. So he went out, bought a urinal, and called it art.
>It took no work on his part, he just thought of it. And actually it seems
>to me like a big "fuck you" to the sort of people who write
>indecipherable art criticism.
Bingo!
Marcel DuChamp thought the art critics knew nothing of what they wrote. He
thought as you stated (that art should be clever), but also thought that art was
a process of creation, an orderly method of construct of parts that might or
might not be related but than when complete made an obvious whole.
J
JmG
>You see? You wouldn't have had any of those thoughts if somebody hadn't put a
>toilet in the middle of an art exhibit. ;-)
Good point. And that was *the* point. Nothing more, nothing less - to make you
think about an everyday object in a new way.
J
JmG
> Why not put the cow a science museum? Then everyone would be
>happy.
You know, that's an interesting point. Had the Boston Museum of Science cut a
cow in half and dropped it into a vat of formaldehyde (sp?) it would have caused
a stir, no doubt, but not a threat to lose it's funding. But when someone had
the idea of taking that out of its element and displaying it somewhere else the
mayor of NY got all upset and defense. Seems to me as though the 'art aspect' of
the display was right on target.
J
JmG
>on and wannabes latch on to with enthusiasm. I have seen some pieces get
>analyzed to death by people who have no clue about what they are looking at,
>but want to give the impression that they are experts.
At MOMA one day I heard an affected accent (read: artsy Westport or East Side)
spewing all kinds of metaphysical crap to a group of her friends while viewing
some of the later, and more passive Reinhardts.
As an example; (does NOT reproduce well on the computer screen at all!)
http://www.interverse.com/~moca/pc/col/others/reinhart.htm
Anyway, when she moved onto the next image dragging her friends in tow a couple
lagged behind bemoaning the fact that they just didn't get it, they just didn't
see what their friends was explaining - stuff about angst and conflict and blah
blah blah...
Being the friendly New Yawker and after I lifted their wallets, I mentioned to
them that their friend was full of crap - that the painting they were looking at
had nothing to do with anything other than to force you to look more closely at
what you see.
See, at first the canvas will look like a giant black (or blue or red depending
on the work) canvas with nothing there. And if you just walk by that's what you
saw. Mr. Reinhardt *knew* that was the way some people viewed a museum. But if
you stand still for a moment and let your eyes focus, in effect, if you LOOK at
the painting you'll see that what Reinhardt was doing was laying down shades of
the same color, just barely different from each other, in a geometric pattern.
When you finally see it a light bulb pops up over your head and you'll never
look at art, nor anything for that matter, in the same way again.
Then, after they got over the joy of finally getting 'it' I showed them a more
ambitious and fun piece by him (similar to this:
http://www2.arts.state.tx.us/exhibition_hall/gallery/sbc1/greinha.htm)
and left them to themselves quite happy with the world. Or, at least the world
of MOMA.
See, remove the crap from the explanation and look at the work, the effort and
the creativity and everything looks different.
It's too bad Rudy has such a narrow mind.
J
Gary S. Callison
: If the point of the project was merely to be clever, then yes he
: deserves a gold star. And that's what DuChamp thought, that the point of
: art was to be clever. So he went out, bought a urinal, and called it art.
: It took no work on his part, he just thought of it. And actually it seems
: to me like a big "fuck you" to the sort of people who write
: indecipherable art criticism.
Did he post a sign saying "Please do not piss in the Art"? If he insisted
on having it plumbed, I would have *used* it. Why not?
--
Huey
I always drink way too much at those poofy art-openings.
Helge Moulding
>> Art gives us that opportunity. If for you art is merely the ability
>> to use craftsmanship to create a tangible crutch for fallible human
>> memory, then you are in fact missing the point.
>merely the ability to use craftsmanship to create a tangible cover for
>the (possibly grotesque) human form, then you are in fact missing the
>point."
One can draw many lessons from "The Emperor's New Clothes". Only one of
them is that people may overlook obvious fraud because of political and
social pressures. That's the lesson you want to refer to, but your
"argument" begs the question: when does "art" constitute obvious fraud?
Simply pointing at something or other and calling it "obvious fraud"
doesn't alleviate your burden of proof.
Or are you seriously suggesting that only representational constructions
evidencing great skill and craftsmanship can be art? I mean, you're
certainly welcome to do so, and you'd be joining a huge throng, probably
the majority of all humanity, in doing so (you'd hardly be the small boy
who alone isn't afraid of stating the truth as he sees it). I suppose
you could call everything else "decoration"?
--
Helge "I particularly like Van Gogh's decorations." Moulding
Shawn Wilson
> Neither of these examples would have tagged the submission as an
> outright parody, and I don't know why Sokal thinks they would have.
Not parody, nonsense.
> And are you familiar with the 1988 Nature magazine homeopathy article?
> http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html
> Where the editor John Maddox published the paper, but editorialized
> that it had to be wrong?
Not in particular, but there's a diffeence between a paper that wrong and a
paper that's nonsense.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> But what can we say about a cartoon portrait of the virgin Mary festooned
> with turds? I think we need to perform a little role-reversal and
> imagine a cartoonish, unflattering painting of Martin Luther King covered
> in elephant dung, and wonder whether it wouldn't be some liberal types
> who'd display anger at having one of their beloved icons trashed in
> public.
No doubt they would, and they would be every bit as guilty of small
mindedness as people trashing the VM picture. IMO, the debate should
focus on whether or not the government should be in hte business of
supporting art, especially if it is not allowed to have any control over
the product. Pull the government out of the picture entirely and let art
galleries show what they want.
I definetly do not like this governmental influence on art (ironicly
making it trend _toward_ this sort of "scadalous" clap-trap).
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
"Scott K. Stafford" wrote:
>
> In article <7vquh9$ab4$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> karen....@worldnet.att.net says...
> > That's "Dr. Lingel", please.
> Only if you agree to call me "maestro."
You can just call me, "Hey, Bartender!"
L & k,
Amy
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
Aaron Brandon wrote:
Ok, you're right. I just dislike being excluded. Science is something
I don't usually understand, so when scientists use jargon, I don't mind
because I wouldn't understand it anyway. Liberal arts, cooking, music,
I understand these things, so it pisses me off when people make them
inaccessable.
> Although perhaps you're thinking of more esoteric terms that cooks use. If
> so, please name them. I'd be glad to define them.
Strangely enough, I can't think of any right now. I work with a chef,
and next time he starts in on it, I'll write them down... :)
TONES! What the hell are "tones"? How can food have "tones"? Tones
are NOTES! Ha, the brain fart ended...
> Now, as to the overall tone
See, there you go!
L & k,
Amy
rob...@bestweb.net
>KAREN LINGEL wrote:
>Nick Spalding
>--
As I understand it, the situation was a lot more complex than that. If you
want to see a movie partly on that theme, currently playing is Jakob the
Liar. (It's from a French novel I haven't read.) Really makes you think.
The question is, when you're fairly sure of something that has some import,
how do you let people know in a controlled manner? You can't.
I may have some details wrong, but I seem to recall Pons & Fleishman (top
experts on micro-electrodes dabbling slightly outside their specialty) were
excited about their preliminary results, and let their academic friends know
about them casually. Word spread thru the institution and a neighboring
one, and a race began to get something out, because ownership of the
technology might be at stake. It took a long time for the peer review
process to catch up. I don't blame the people involved; it's one of those
sociologic problems wherein blame cannot, or should not, be assigned to an
individual.
The Insidious Dr. F.
>Erm, I meant a guy who decides where to put the shrubbery.
What's this world coming to when an honest shrubber cannot walk about without
finding some ruffians saying "Ni!" to a lady?
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason."
Dana Carpender
Amy Elizabeth Gleason wrote:
> deepstblu wrote:
> >
> > KAREN LINGEL wrote:
> >
> > > Do other people understand art brochures? I always understand
> > > every word I read at science museums; do artists find those
> > > words obtuse?
> > My personal guess (highly generalized) is that scientists really want
> > people to understand what's going on in science, but artists and art
> > critics don't care as long as they can look smarter than the average
> > museum visitor.
>
> I'm going to have to go with Karen on this one.
>
> Scientists are CAPABLE of explaining things precisely while using
> laymen's terms. However, when talking amongst themselves, jargon makes
> it easier for them to get precise points across quickly to other people
> who know the field.
>
> Artists don't seem capable of talking about art in laymen's terms. The
> point of the jargon is not to explain more quickly and more precisely,
> it is more so that they can exclude those of us who don't understand
> what they're talking about without an English->Artist dictionary.
>
> Chefs (who mostly consider themselves artists) tend to do this
> artist-speak thing too.
I love Emeril LaGasse, who keeps saying things like, "We're just cooking.
It's not rocket science."
--
Dana W. Carpender
Wondering about low carbohydrate diets?
Do they work? Are they healthy?
How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Alec Horgan
dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
> In article <19991103172438...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
> hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
>>If you have devoted your life to cutting up dead bugs, then i think the fault
>> lies with you.
> Wonderful. You have only a vague idea of what I do, and how or why I do
> it, and armed with this, you start in with ad hominem attacks.
You should remember what you just wrote about pots, kettles, and
blackness. You've already conceded that you have only a vague idea of
what these people you're so upset about are up to, but that's not stopping
you from righteously frothing about them.
Alec
Aaron Brandon
Dutch Courage <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> "Aaron Brandon" bran...@your-net.com writes:
>
> >If you have
> >cable TV (and specifically, the Food Network), watch Emeril Live,
Mon.-Fri.
> >8:00PM Eastern. He does a great deal to de-mystify cooking.
>
> I think David Rosenwhatnot is probably better, more instructive. He
compares
> products, methods of preparation, and isn't such a ham.
>
> Dutch "Bam!" Courage
>
>
talking about the history of salt in France. Shut up already, and show me
how to cook something.
I like Emeril precisely because he is more of a showman. Also, he does a
lot of common-sense stuff. He reassures folks that "this ain't rocket
science" and reminds them that you don't have to do everything his way, or
else.
Having strayed far afield of the topic, I remain,
Aaron Brandon
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.> <starch...@my.sig> wrote in
message news:+A4hOE9X=WhalJPv8o...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:01:04 -0500, Scott K. Stafford
> <sco...@UNSPAM.together.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >But taking a Bell UH-1 and sticking some slaughtered cow-parts on the
> >landing skids is a cliche, not a new work of art.
>
> But if it's painted black, then it's a conspiracy.
> --
>
I see a chopper, and I want to Paint it Black
UN conspiracies, there is no turning back
I see the cows messed up, I think it's UFOs
I have to turn my head before the chunks do blow
Aaron Brandon
Dutch Courage <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) writes:
>
> >In article <19991103172438...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
> >hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
your
> points. You have yet to explain to me where my fist goes when I open my
hand,
> or if light is a wave or a particle.
>
I've got the fist. See it coming towards your nose? <g>
Now then, where does the rage go after I hit you?
RM Mentock
>
> RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:382119F4...@mindspring.com...
>
> > Neither of these examples would have tagged the submission as an
> > outright parody, and I don't know why Sokal thinks they would have.
>
> Not parody, nonsense.
In that link that you provided, Sokal says "Could the editors really
not have realized that my article was written as a parody?"
> > And are you familiar with the 1988 Nature magazine homeopathy article?
> > http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html
> > Where the editor John Maddox published the paper, but editorialized
> > that it had to be wrong?
>
> Not in particular, but there's a diffeence between a paper that wrong and a
> paper that's nonsense.
A *lot* of people do consider homeopathy to be nonsense. That's
probably why Maddox wrote the editorial criticizing it.
--
RM Mentock
The war on ignorance begins with me
http://sentient.home.mindspring.com/dan/
RM Mentock
> My test for fraud is one that you've already rejected; call it
> craftsmanship, talent, hard work, difficulty of expression, or whatever
> you like, I must simply reject "juxtapositional" art on the basis of an
> utter lack of these defining qualities.
But...someone might have a talent for juxtapositional art.
Sean Houtman
>Erm, I meant a guy who decides where to put the shrubbery.
That would be your landscape designer, your landscape artist is the chap with
the easel and paints mumbling about light and such.
Sean
Doug Yanega
<alexander.horgan...@net118-234.student.yale.edu>,
alexande...@yale.edu (Alec Horgan) wrote:
> You should remember what you just wrote about pots, kettles, and
> blackness. You've already conceded that you have only a vague idea of
> what these people you're so upset about are up to, but that's not stopping
> you from righteously frothing about them.
Vague idea, no - I spent three months arguing with a passel of pomos
(along with a few other folks), so I got a good hefty dose of their
worldview, thanks very much. What we did not spend a great deal of time on
was digging into the primary literature during the debate, so my direct
exposure to pomo writings is what is limited. I think the argument can be
made that a running debate gives you decent insight into a person - more
so, certainly, than trying to extrapolate their mindset from a person's
occupation, or a single written work.
In article <19991104005458...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
> I'm just teasing you a little, Doug, settle down. Sheesh, "Devoted my life
> to."
It may seem absurd, but some people DO devote themselves to things. You
have no idea what kind of efforts and sacrifices I've had to make in my
life to be where I am today, doing what I'm doing, the nature of the work
I've done, and how I feel about it, so you have no right to scoff.
> I do not know that anyone seriously advances the view that there is no
> physical reality, so it seems you (and Sokal) are attacking a strawman, huh?
Some folks do claim essentially that, but in general the claim seems to be
more along the lines "IF we assume that there are aspects of reality which
science cannot reveal to us, then we cannot trust science to tell us
ANYTHING about reality, because we can never have a clue when it's right
and when it's wrong". Claiming that our physical models tell us nothing
about reality is NOT all that different from claiming that physical
reality is an illusion.
>In any case, the idea that reality is merely
> the interaction of matter and energy is neatly refuted.
To you, maybe. But in the process you are (to dredge up a popular old
metaphor) claiming that a tree that falls where no one hears it does NOT
make a sound. Shipka's entire logic hinges on human perception of reality
being the thing that *defines* it, and I am not convinced. The animals I
study do not see colors the way we do at all, but they do not exist in a
different universe because of it. Remove the lens from your eye, and you
can perceive a bit of ultraviolet - but has reality changed? The
scientific view of reality may be colorless and soundless, but that does
not mean it must be flawed because we see color and hear sounds.
> I think it's rather a system of beliefs and assumptions which is valued for
> its internal consistantcy. To insist that it is the same thing as the reality
> that it predicts or describes, or that this is the only level of experience we
> may encounter is somewhat wrong headed, and this is where the political or
> social bias does creep in.
No one insists that it is the same as the reality it describes, only that
the scientific approach is the best tool we have to evaluate which
description is closest to reality. If there are levels of experience we
can never know, using THOSE hypothetical "truths" as the basis for
political and social actions seems far riskier than using science.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California
Riverside, CA 92521 909-787-4315 (opinions are mine, not UCR's)
http://insects.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick