Woroni article - "Hardercore than thou"
Sevare
Written by Dr Insomnia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
HARDERCORE THAN THOU
The gothic subculture is built on opposition to mainstream society. Many
goths therefore have a personal goal to differentiate themselves as clearly
as possible from 'the normals' (as non-gothic people are sometimes called).
And for some goths this phenomenon takes two forms - they must prove that
they are not only gothic as fuck, but also that they are more gothic than
their counterparts. The result can either be amusing or disturbing to
behold - and ultimately ironic.
There is a stunning array of ways in which goths may seek to prove
themselves. Some are mild, eccentric and essentially harmless - for example,
walking around with a parasol to protect one's pale complexion. Sometimes,
however, goths can be more calculatedly pretentious - for example, they
might need to be seen in positions of gothic authority (e.g. by being
conspicuous as an organiser of a nightclub event). I have even seen members
of a self-appointed gothic 'God squad' literally kick someone off a dance
floor because they did not think she looked gothic enough.
Fortunatley, extreme events like the one described above are rare, but
it is supremely ironic that people who feel isolated from society should
then turn around and try to exclude others like them form their hierarchical
gothic group.
What is even stranger is the unthinking adherence that some goths show
to their own social norms - for example, some goths in Sydney believe that
you cannot be gothic without taking enough of the right drugs. This had led
to more free-thinking gothics joking that hardcore is when you spend 1.9
million hours getting dressed and doing your makeup to go out, but then
fall over after 15 minutes on the dance-floor because of all the drugs you
have taken.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Sevare xxx
Cosey Mo
Sevare wrote in message <8rAN3.11862$D33....@ozemail.com.au>...
>Read this article in the ANU student newspaper, volume 51, number 8, 1999.
>Written by Dr Insomnia.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>------------
And he's obviously familiar with Newtown Goth Gossip and reads this
newsgroup.
Hello Dr Insomnia! *waves madly with muppet-like abandon*
>
>HARDERCORE THAN THOU
>
> The gothic subculture is built on opposition to mainstream society.
Many
>goths therefore have a personal goal to differentiate themselves as clearly
>as possible from 'the normals' (as non-gothic people are sometimes called).
>And for some goths this phenomenon takes two forms - they must prove that
>they are not only gothic as fuck, but also that they are more gothic than
>their counterparts. The result can either be amusing or disturbing to
>behold - and ultimately ironic.
Oh everything looks ironic to uni students. I'm so fucking sick of that
word! I suspect it was the last interesting thing they learnt in highschool
english and so apply it everything they don't understand and therefore feel
the need to ridicule between engineering lectures. It makes them feel they
can hold their own with the humanities students.
> There is a stunning array of ways in which goths may seek to prove
>themselves. Some are mild, eccentric and essentially harmless - for
example,
>walking around with a parasol to protect one's pale complexion. Sometimes,
>however, goths can be more calculatedly pretentious - for example, they
>might need to be seen in positions of gothic authority (e.g. by being
>conspicuous as an organiser of a nightclub event). I have even seen members
>of a self-appointed gothic 'God squad' literally kick someone off a dance
>floor because they did not think she looked gothic enough.
For those who don't know The God Squad, they are a group of goths who are
usually immaculately turned out and hang around the Newtown and inner-west
area in Sydney. I am only aware of 1 of them actually making money from a
gothly pursuit, ie selling clothes through Handful of Nighshade and a stall
at the markets. I believe the God Squad were named that by others in an
attempt to bring them down a peg or 2. (Although I am personally unaware of
why that was deemed necessary.) Far from letting the label upset them they
claimed it as their own with a sence of humour that outsiders to the goth
scene keep insisting we do not have. They even made themselves little
braclets to wear labelling themselves as the God Squad. I think it's cute.
As for shoving someone off the dance floor this brings to mind an incident
at Ritual well over a year ago that centred around Wally, a Sydney DJ with
the reputation for being really fucking obnoxious and sometimes dangerous.
During her rampage through the dancefloor that evening she did throw Lilly
off the dancefloor for no apparent reason. Lilly does tend to wear a lot of
colour on a regular basis so perhaps this is what the story is based on.
Wally then went on to proposition and assalt a gay male member of the G.S.
Could Dr I be a friend of Wally's? As far as I know Wally has never been a
member of the G.S., but I might be wrong.
To date I have never heard of the G.S. behaving anything like as badly as
this piece of writing would imply. And believe me, I would have heard. I
hear _everything_ that goes on in Sydney. And BTW I am hardly close friends
with any of the G.S. so that is not why I am defending them.
> Fortunatley, extreme events like the one described above are rare, but
>it is supremely ironic that people who feel isolated from society should
>then turn around and try to exclude others like them form their
hierarchical
>gothic group.
It's interesting that the writer sees this excluding behaviour even where it
does not exist. Somewhat paranoid?
> What is even stranger is the unthinking adherence that some goths show
>to their own social norms - for example, some goths in Sydney believe that
>you cannot be gothic without taking enough of the right drugs. This had led
>to more free-thinking gothics joking that hardcore is when you spend 1.9
>million hours getting dressed and doing your makeup to go out, but then
>fall over after 15 minutes on the dance-floor because of all the drugs you
>have taken.
Does anyone remember the thread this comment was made in last year? I'll
have a look on deja....
Besides, it's crap. Yes, for some reason there does seem to be a small
problem with speed addiction in the scene but most goths I've met are fairly
clean-living, especially compared with the Cool Kids of the same age doing
more the mainstream trendy thing. The people I used to hang out with, and
would just consider themselves cool inner-city types, take by far more legal
and illegal drugs and are far bigger wankers than most goths. And those guys
are fast approaching 30. I've met more vegans, vegetarians, and non-smokers
amongst goths than anywhere else.
So nyer! *smirk*
CM
---------------
"This is a very silly conversation and you are a very naughty boy."
Miss Pain to Police Officer,
Personal Services.
Cosey Mo
>> Forum: aus.culture.gothic
>> Thread: Hi from Melbourne
>> Message 16 of 42
Subject: Re: Hi from Melbourne
Date: 1998/11/18
Author: Morgan Leigh <mor...@wirejunkie.com>
Posting History
lo...@ooze.net wrote in message ...
>[1] fun tends to invlove lots of alcohol and sex down here, in sydney I
>hear to has something to do with a concept called Hardcore, whatever that
>is
Hardcore is where you spend 178583465826 hours getting dressed up only to go
out and fall down 15minutes later as a result of all the drugs you have
consumed
Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone
writ in bright toxic green crayon :
>Oh everything looks ironic to uni students. I'm so fucking sick of that
>word! I suspect it was the last interesting thing they learnt in highschool
>english and so apply it everything they don't understand and therefore feel
>the need to ridicule between engineering lectures. It makes them feel they
>can hold their own with the humanities students.
>
hehe
I think I am visible proof that an engineeery type person called hold
their own against the art bludgers ;P
After all not only am I better looking but my music collection is
better too :>
>
>CM
daniel - Tongue Firmly in cheek
--
Demo Track for my band... DYHM (Shuddup we
haven't thought of a better name yet :P at
http://members.xoom.com/kraant/music/Fucked.bin
(Change the extension to .mp3 to listen... and no it
isn't totaly complete :P)
Obsolete
<cha...@healey.com.au> wrote:
at the risk of starting a flame war... this should be fun. Nothing
better then throwing a well aimed half brick into the face on mindless
drivel.
>Open your fekkin eyes, Annette. I love reading your posts - you're very
>witty and intelligent, always interesting never dull, blah blah. In the
>Sydney Gothic Community, lots of Bullshit, lots of stupid mindless juvenile
>shennaniganalia does in fact take place. I speak from experience. A
>particularly friendly perkygoff who is acquainted w/ a large portion of the
>SGC, i greet ppl, smile and make polite conversation. I'm out to have fun, i
>don't get involved in dramas.
Ok now i can speak from experience here. I dont think perky is the
right word for it.... misguided confused yes but not perky.... Seeing
as quoting is bad for i'll simply say that i have evidence to say the
opposite.
> One particular little girl, who i will leave
>as a nameless entity, for some reason doesnt appreciate my (apparent)
>care-free nature, or perhaps has a small jealous streak and is angered by a
>few of my closer friendships and hence has started making problems for me.
>How she came to the conclusion that being jealous justified an attack, i can
>only wonder. At first i laughed at her, but she is becoming tedious. She
>contacts Tailors on Central pretending to be my mother and tells them 'my
>daughter w/ a withered arm attends your club and shes underage'. I have ID.
>I am 20 years old. my arm is not withered. my arm is NOT THERE. i got montag
20.... now theres a slight exageration..... come on your not old
enough to have to lie about your age.... or could we just say that
your young enough that you have to.
>to speak w/ my REAL mother, the night i was almost refused entry, and it was
>all sorted, however it would appear that the phone calls have not ceased.
>Tailors is sick of it. Ritual is being looked upon unkindly by management
>and im seen as the reason.
>I may just have bad luck.
>But theres some very fucked up little chikins on the scene.
>I have hung around w/ a few girls whose lives are incomplete w/o 4 hour
>gossipy phone conversations, drama, torment and all other elements of an
>Aaron Spelling production. I couldnt take that too long.
As far as i caan remember you do fit into the above catagory.
>Um, when u leave high school... ill leave that there.
>If it happens to me, if i hear a lot of things, know the ppl, find it
>believable, i cant say these events are isolated. rather that targets are
>randomly generated.
>
>>Besides, it's crap. Yes, for some reason there does seem to be a small
>>problem with speed addiction in the scene but most goths I've met are
>fairly
>>clean-living,
Speed addiction is not a problem... its a priviledge
>
>*whistles, looking at the ceiling*
>
>especially compared with the Cool Kids of the same age doing
>>more the mainstream trendy thing. The people I used to hang out with, and
>>would just consider themselves cool inner-city types, take by far more
>legal
>>and illegal drugs and are far bigger wankers than most goths. And those
>guys
>>are fast approaching 30. I've met more vegans, vegetarians, and non-smokers
>>amongst goths than anywhere else.
>
>I guess you dont know many hippies, ferals, or get to sit down and chat to
>the general crowd of Glebe markets ;P heheh lucky for you i fully
>understand and appreciate that living in melbourne would make that very
>difficult.
>DeB
>
OK Fellow melbournites..... hands up who smokes.... comeone even you
social smokers..... ok now all of you who dont smoke... hands up those
of you who do drugs..... yes smile for the camera. And of the
remainder.... how many of you eat meat or drink.... Odd's on we've got
a majority with they're hands up....
I may have missed the point of it all... but atleast i got to make up
some statistics.
Obsolete
I'm not a complete idiot... parts are missing.
Neef
>Obsolete
>I'm not a complete idiot... parts are missing.
Killfile.
I've learned- that you cannot make someone love you. All you can do, is
stalk them and hope they panic and give in.
Donald Halloran
Obsolete being sbeckett... s for Simon? As in ex boyfriend Simon I
believe, but please correct me if I am mistaken. Everyone can see who I
am from my sig. Just letting the gallery know exactly where the calls
are coming from.
> right word for it.... misguided confused yes but not perky.... Seeing
> as quoting is bad for i'll simply say that i have evidence to say the
> opposite.
Well that's a compelling argument.
If I'm ever arguing in court (hey I did study law for 2 years... it's
possible... yeh sure), ill be sure to say "My client is not guilty.
Those guys sitting over there say s/he is but I have evidence to the
contrary", and leave it at that. Don't take this as an invitation to
start spreading gossip that may or may not be true, because it isn't.
It's just a comment on your style. Feel free to comment on mine.
> 20.... now theres a slight exageration..... come on your not old
> enough to have to lie about your age.... or could we just say that
> your young enough that you have to.
Perhaps you missed the "I have ID" part of her prior paragraph, not to
mention the next paragraph... the one that explained that the club
actually rang up and spoke to Deb's real mother.
I don't mean to make a personal attack here, just trying to blunt your
own, which didn't seem to have much factual basis despite it's obvious
edge.
--
Don Halloran
Yellow Electric Rat
wrote:
>
>OK Fellow melbournites..... hands up who smokes.... comeone even you
>social smokers.....
No, not for four weeks and never, ever again. So nyeer.
>ok now all of you who dont smoke... hands up those
>of you who do drugs.....
No.
HAVE done in the past, but presently, and for future plans, no.
>yes smile for the camera. And of the
>remainder.... how many of you eat meat or drink
Only because if I don't eat meat, I become very, very ill, even with
the help of iron tablets. I've tried.
And I drink on occasion, but never for the purpose of getting drunk,
but to enjoy the taste of decent wine or a pot of Guinness. Family
full of alcoholics, they don't need another one.
>.... Odd's on we've got
>a majority with they're hands up....
Whoopdido.
>I may have missed the point of it all... but atleast i got to make up
>some statistics.
Truly? Well, have a lollypop. Or speed, if you feel like it. I
don't care, but try not to include me in it, yes?
>Obsolete
>I'm not a complete idiot... parts are missing.
I /will/ refrain from speech here. I will.
Janie. Still in a rotten mood.
"Mmmp. Needs more Eye of Newt."
"You always want more Eye of Newt. If It were up
to you, this thing would be nothing but Newt Eyes..."
The Simpson's Halloween Special 8
Letterbomb
wrote:
>But "isn't it unfortunate" doesn't quite sound as good in a song, and do you
>think many Alanis Morrisette fans noticed that irony wasn't exactly right?
I wonder if eventually every word will mean everything, every shade of
meaning becoming equalised, until all we've got is a really thick,
obsolete layer of linguistic silt passing for a language.
Letterbomb
Letterbomb
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:41:24 GMT, tr...@gothic.net.au (Trayce) wrote:
>
>>Can't say I've seen anywhere NEAR like a heirarchy or god squad in
>>melbourne which is a blessed relief, and perhaps says something about
>>the laid-back attitude down here.
>hierarchy/rulers-of-the-goth-scene stories are usually amusing; not in
>the sense of providing anecdotes to laugh at, but that they provide
>people to laugh at. Such as the person a friend of mine mentioned who
>seriously spends her *entire* week planning what she's going to wear
>to Abyss that Friday based on what "the scene" is doing and who she
>wants to pick up.
I've heard similar stories. The ironic thing is (yes, it's *that*
word) that by virtue of crawling to the top of the Celestial Goth
Pedestal, they in effect become the last thing you'd want to worship.
98% artifice with just enough personality to keep them mobile and
breathing.
Just to clarify, I'm referring to the 'spend all week planning Friday
night's outfit' crew.
Letterbomb
James Robertson
>
>Just to clarify, I'm referring to the 'spend all week planning Friday
>night's outfit' crew.
>
I dont sit anywhere at abyss - I usually collapse.
I'm one of the "spending all week trying to decide what to buy for friday
nights drinking binge"
James
Morgan Jaffit
More a 'spend all week trying to remember what I drank last week - ah sod it,
lets make things blow up! Now I'll drink pure enthynol. Argh. I don't feel
so good. Let's make toilets explode. Bleck' kinda guy, I thought...
entrippy
Yellow Electric Rat
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:06:08 +1000, Misha <dra...@enternet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>I wonder if eventually every word will mean everything, every shade of
>meaning becoming equalised, until all we've got is a really thick,
>obsolete layer of linguistic silt passing for a language.
>
>
Yepyep.
This is for a few reasons, I would imagine. Firstly, there is a rise
in education nowadays, particularly primary schooling, of more
'freedom' to the students. Be free with words. Use and misuse them
as you like. Dictionary meanings? Bah! Not at all, be creative
child. And as much as encouraging creativity in children is a good
thing, some of the meanings of the words have been a touch lost as
they aren't being taught anymore, just used in the loosest sense.
This is also true of grammar, with rules of grammar no longer being
taught. Most of the people I know at school have only the most BASIC
knowledge of grammar - Which I only know, incidentally, because my
mother is an English teacher. Now, while the rigidity of old
Victorian style schools is certainly not for everyone, the fact that
they actually TAUGHT the language can't really be disputed.
Secondly, the rise of computers. This is related to the first
paragraph, the Australian schools (in particular - I can't speak for
any other system, as I don't know them well enough) don't really teach
grammar, spelling, word meanings anymore - Why? Because they have
spellcheckers and grammar checkers to do it for them. If something
does not come up with a green squiggly line under it, then it's
grammatically correct, forget the fact that it makes no sense
whatsoever.
Education for the masses is a third thing to talk about. No longer
are high schools and universities ivory towers (And I'm SURE not
saying they should be!! Education is the best thing a person can
have, and educating everybody is a FANTASTIC thing!!), stupid people
are entering them and, as stupid people are quite in the habit of
doing, completely mis-interpreting everything that goes on in there.
The teacher can say something (if the teacher DOES mention word
meanings!) and the student will take away something incredibly
different, and hence, that is, in the students mind, what the word now
means, very roughly. Say we're using the word 'indolent', which is
appropriate for many students, I can say now (and hope quite
desperately that /I'm/ not misusing the word). Student hears that, in
the loosest sense, it means, and I quote: Slothful or lazy. Student
whops 'Lazy' into his thesaurus and comes up with a list of words,
including 'easygoing'.
"AAH!" Thinks student, "Easygoing! That sounds much nicer than
indolent, I'll put it in my report!"
Alrighty, word one, with a negative connotation (undeniably, due to
humanities ideals, something going against these ideals is negative -
But that's an essay (tm) for another time), through two very basic
steps, has become something else altogether. With a positive
connotation. Yes, these two have similar meanings... And yet, one is
more positive than the other, and in the mind of the student, are
interchangable. This is just a tiny example of how language is
changing to fit the needs of dumb people.
And yet, to actually HAVE a language, there needs to be some level of
consistancy in order for it to be understood, otherwise we're all
speaking different languages comprised of the same words, and my
writing this was quite redundant.
Err.. It probably was anyhow. Heck, maybe I'll just hand this in for
a Theory of Knowledge essay on language that's meant to be done some
time in the near future.
The poor quality of what I'll hand in astounds even me. :):)
Janie.
Morgan Jaffit
>On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:45:04 GMT, cwro...@tig.com.au (Letterbomb)
>wrote:
>This is for a few reasons, I would imagine. Firstly, there is a rise
>in education nowadays, particularly primary schooling, of more
>'freedom' to the students. Be free with words. Use and misuse them
>as you like. Dictionary meanings? Bah! Not at all, be creative
>child. And as much as encouraging creativity in children is a good
>thing, some of the meanings of the words have been a touch lost as
>they aren't being taught anymore, just used in the loosest sense.
>This is also true of grammar, with rules of grammar no longer being
>taught. Most of the people I know at school have only the most BASIC
>knowledge of grammar - Which I only know, incidentally, because my
>mother is an English teacher. Now, while the rigidity of old
>Victorian style schools is certainly not for everyone, the fact that
>they actually TAUGHT the language can't really be disputed.
[huge amounts of snippage]
Language is all about communication. When it stops working for the purpose
of communication, then it won't be used. It's a nice self regulating
system. The fact that you can say (supposedly) that something is 'correct'
english by checking a set of rules and regulations is not only insane, but
damaging to the process of language development.
Langauge either works (ie - you communicate the idea you intended to) or it
doesn't. A rigid language deals badly with change and integration of new
concepts.
A good example is the word 'grok' - very common in the circles I tend to
converse in. Very useful for describing a concept thats to unweildy in
'correct' english. The flexibility of language and the adaptability of the
average human means that I can simply use the term, and people will grok
it. If they don't grok it, they'll pick it up in context, or ask about it.
Rules break the natural human capacity for developing a tool (language) to
fit thier needs. It gives them a fixed tool that *might* fit their
purposes, but ultimately that's nowhere near as useful as given them a tool
and encouraging them to shape it to their needs.
Just look at online communication - a variety of adjustments to standard
english to make use of a variety of new environments (ie - real time text
communication - who woulda thunk it back in the days of the Gutenberg?).
We *need* teachers who understand and encourage this. A fixed model of
'correct' english doesn't help.
BTW, it's my personal contention that it's the dynamism of language that
leads to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, and in fact the SW gets it exactly
backwards. A group is not limited to the concepts of it's language, it
*defines* it's language to the limit of it's concepts.
entrippy (worf!)
Letterbomb
wrote:
>Language is all about communication. When it stops working for the purpose
>of communication, then it won't be used. It's a nice self regulating
>system. The fact that you can say (supposedly) that something is 'correct'
>english by checking a set of rules and regulations is not only insane, but
>damaging to the process of language development.
Oh sure, I totally agree that language should be an ever-evolving
thing, with new depth of meaning being added to words, or new words
being invented in order to convey a new idea, concept or meaning.
Grok is a perfect example.
However, my point is stuff like Alanis Morisette's use of 'ironic.'
That's not adding to the language, that's diluting a word for which
there is no other meaning.
Another example is 'gay.' Since it has been adopted as a moniker for
'homosexual' there has never been another word that quite conveyed the
idea that that word was originally intended for.
Of course, I suppose that having words used as monikers or
associatives may be unavoidable, but whacking your own meaning onto a
piece of the English language because you couldn't be bothered working
out what it really means just shits me. It contributes to the general
dumbing down of society, and begins the slow process of whacking down
our sophistication of thought.
It's bad enough that nowadays a great many people think by associating
images, rather than actually weighing things in their minds.
>Rules break the natural human capacity for developing a tool (language) to
>fit thier needs. It gives them a fixed tool that *might* fit their
>purposes, but ultimately that's nowhere near as useful as given them a tool
>and encouraging them to shape it to their needs.
Absolutely agree. Invent a *new* tool, but don't destroy an existing
one in order to cobble together one that kindasorta works.
>BTW, it's my personal contention that it's the dynamism of language that
>leads to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, and in fact the SW gets it exactly
>backwards. A group is not limited to the concepts of it's language, it
>*defines* it's language to the limit of it's concepts.
My take on that would be that in dulling the language you dull the
ability of the populace to conceptualise ideas and vocalise those
ideas.
Letterbomb
Thorfinn
Letterbomb <cwro...@tig.com.au> wrote:
> Of course, I suppose that having words used as monikers or
> associatives may be unavoidable, but whacking your own meaning onto a
> piece of the English language because you couldn't be bothered working
> out what it really means just shits me. It contributes to the general
> dumbing down of society, and begins the slow process of whacking down
> our sophistication of thought.
*nodnod* Agreed. This is why, in the circles I hang about it, there's
quite a bit of time spent discussion definitions of words and their
connotations.
> It's bad enough that nowadays a great many people think by associating
> images, rather than actually weighing things in their minds.
Eh? Weighing *what* in their minds? Some people think visually, some
think auditorally, some think in odd symbolics. What of it?
Most of my thinking happens in symbolics, that I then have to
translate when I want to communicate. I've gotten pretty good at
doing that translation, but it's definitely all happening up there in
symbolic-land.
> On 19 Oct 1999 07:42:47 GMT, mor...@extro.vurt.net (Morgan Jaffit)
> wrote:
> >Rules break the natural human capacity for developing a tool (language) to
> >fit thier needs. It gives them a fixed tool that *might* fit their
> >purposes, but ultimately that's nowhere near as useful as given them a tool
> >and encouraging them to shape it to their needs.
> Absolutely agree. Invent a *new* tool, but don't destroy an existing
> one in order to cobble together one that kindasorta works.
Mmm. Jargon breaks that, particularly when the jargon *does*
adopt an existing word, and jargonises it to have a specific and
technical meaning. Often jargon is just invented words, but not
always.
Context is important. Audience is important. Getting the message
across in the method best suited to the audience is what really
counts. Other than that, *there are no rules*.
If the audience is not well read, then you don't talk to them in
polysyllables. OTOH, if you're at a technical conference, then you'd
better use the jargon, or you're going to be ignored.
> >BTW, it's my personal contention that it's the dynamism of language that
> >leads to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, and in fact the SW gets it exactly
> >backwards. A group is not limited to the concepts of it's language, it
> >*defines* it's language to the limit of it's concepts.
Hrm. The more I think about that, the more I think that's exactly
right, and Sapir-Worf *is* totally arse-about.
> My take on that would be that in dulling the language you dull the
> ability of the populace to conceptualise ideas and vocalise those
> ideas.
*grin* Who cares about the populace? Well, okay, to some extent, I
do, whenever I want to push a message across to the general populace,
but I can pretty easily shift my vocabulary and grammar to fit the
audience.
Language is defined by usage. I'm not going to bother commanding the
tide to roll back. That would be silly. I'm perfectly happy to use
whatever words are appropriate in the context they're being used in.
Ook,
Thorf
--
<a href = "http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn/">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
If it [bit of number theory] was UI for you, seek help now. Write a
perl compiler in FORTRAN, or a FORTRAN compiler in perl. Read
contemporary French philosophy. Write a stupid SF novel.
-- Anatoly Vorobey in the scary.devil.monastery
Letterbomb
>In aus.culture.gothic, on Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:03:35 GMT
>Letterbomb <cwro...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 1999 07:42:47 GMT, mor...@extro.vurt.net (Morgan Jaffit)
>> wrote:
>> >Rules break the natural human capacity for developing a tool (language) to
>> >fit thier needs. It gives them a fixed tool that *might* fit their
>> >purposes, but ultimately that's nowhere near as useful as given them a tool
>> >and encouraging them to shape it to their needs.
>> Absolutely agree. Invent a *new* tool, but don't destroy an existing
>> one in order to cobble together one that kindasorta works.
>
>Mmm. Jargon breaks that, particularly when the jargon *does*
>adopt an existing word, and jargonises it to have a specific and
>technical meaning.
Glomming one word to another in order to create a jargon word
oftentimes leaves the original word intact. Adopting the original
word _in toto_ as jargon - particularly jargon that will be widely
used - virtually destroys the original word. Personally, I feel this
is just part of the natural evolution and attrition rate of the
language, ce la vie. A few must die that more may live. That doesn't
steam me.
> Often jargon is just invented words, but not
>always.
Like I said in the original post, in my humble opinion *adding*
totally fresh content to the language is a good thing.
>Context is important. Audience is important. Getting the message
>across in the method best suited to the audience is what really
>counts. Other than that, *there are no rules*.
I'm not talking about rules. I'm not saying every English-speaking
man, woman and child should do so with a plum in their mouth. What
I'm railing against is the blunting of language by a majority that has
a 300 word vocabulary and has no problem appropriating and
bastardising other words of which they have no real understanding.
Like 'ironic.'
Do it enough and you rob the language of unique meanings with no gain
whatsoever.
>If the audience is not well read, then you don't talk to them in
>polysyllables. OTOH, if you're at a technical conference, then you'd
>better use the jargon, or you're going to be ignored.
I know.
>> My take on that would be that in dulling the language you dull the
>> ability of the populace to conceptualise ideas and vocalise those
>> ideas.
>
>*grin* Who cares about the populace?
You have to to some degree or this conversation is kinda pointless.
>do, whenever I want to push a message across to the general populace,
>but I can pretty easily shift my vocabulary and grammar to fit the
>audience.
Sure, but that's not my point.
>Language is defined by usage.
I'm not arguing that either.
> I'm not going to bother commanding the
>tide to roll back. That would be silly. I'm perfectly happy to use
>whatever words are appropriate in the context they're being used in.
Sure. As far as jargon and vernacular go in communicating with
members of certain communities they have to be employed, yes. Jargon
oftentimes adds to the mother language. As does vernacular, and words
from other languages entirely.
You can't reclaim the original meanings of words like 'gay', that's
pretty much writ in stone. And, personally, I doubt enough people
care enough about the language to use it properly and that eventually,
over time, it will be whittled and rounded down to the lowest common
denominator. As it is the average reading level of the *newspapers*
in this country fall around the 12 year old level (if memory serves.)
The consistent success of tabloid television and
switch-off-and-dribble programming I think supports this. Shows that
promote knee-jerk emotional reactionism (Springer, et al.) with no
gain for any individual involved, barring the host. As does the trend
for males in high school avoid being perceived as intelligent, and to
cut down any males that are. I understand the highschool dropout rate
for this group has also increased.
We live in a society that increasingly caters to the short attention
span; to the lowest common denominator. Part of a society's bedrock
is its language (along with its music and what it happens to be
throwing down its throat.) If the language, over time, becomes
erroded through ennui then I believe it is to our widespread
detriment.
Letterbomb
Obsolete
Electric Rat) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 06:01:15 GMT, sbec...@connect.com.au (Obsolete)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>OK Fellow melbournites..... hands up who smokes.... comeone even you
>>social smokers.....
>No, not for four weeks and never, ever again. So nyeer.
So if i did this a month ago then it would swing in my favour... that
sort of thing will happen no matter who or when you ask for
information like that
>
>
>>ok now all of you who dont smoke... hands up those
>>of you who do drugs.....
>No.
>HAVE done in the past, but presently, and for future plans, no.
again see above
>
>>yes smile for the camera. And of the
>>remainder.... how many of you eat meat or drink
>Only because if I don't eat meat, I become very, very ill, even with
>the help of iron tablets. I've tried.
So you mean "yes i eat meat"
>
>And I drink on occasion, but never for the purpose of getting drunk,
>but to enjoy the taste of decent wine or a pot of Guinness. Family
>full of alcoholics, they don't need another one.
Never asked for amounts... just simple yes or no.
>
>>.... Odd's on we've got
>>a majority with they're hands up....
>
>Whoopdido.
>>I may have missed the point of it all... but atleast i got to make up
>>some statistics.
>
>
>Truly? Well, have a lollypop. Or speed, if you feel like it. I
>don't care, but try not to include me in it, yes?
If you didnt want to be included... why did u participate?
>
>>Obsolete
>>I'm not a complete idiot... parts are missing.
>
>I /will/ refrain from speech here. I will.
Thank you... your silence is golden
>Janie. Still in a rotten mood.
>
>
>"Mmmp. Needs more Eye of Newt."
>"You always want more Eye of Newt. If It were up
>to you, this thing would be nothing but Newt Eyes..."
>
> The Simpson's Halloween Special 8
I'm not a complete idiot... parts are missing.
Obsolete
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:41:24 GMT, tr...@gothic.net.au (Trayce) wrote:
>
>>Can't say I've seen anywhere NEAR like a heirarchy or god squad in
>>melbourne which is a blessed relief, and perhaps says something about
>>the laid-back attitude down here.
>
>It's there. The extreme "more goth as fuck than thou" types, however,
>are on the other side of the bar at Abyss that the area where the
>roleplayers and the aus.connect.gothic crowd sit, lurk and chat.
>There's still a little bit of stuff in that area too, but it tends to
>get deliberately ignored a great deal in favour of alcohol, fun and
>other pursuits(tm).
>
>hierarchy/rulers-of-the-goth-scene stories are usually amusing; not in
>the sense of providing anecdotes to laugh at, but that they provide
>people to laugh at. Such as the person a friend of mine mentioned who
>seriously spends her *entire* week planning what she's going to wear
>to Abyss that Friday based on what "the scene" is doing and who she
>wants to pick up.
>
Ahhh but ben.... i think everything fails to compare to the "Prince of
the sydney goth scene" who i think i'll just refer to as M. (most
sydney siders who go to ritual will kinow who i'm talking about... a
few down here in melb too
>
>Regards,
>Ben
Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone
Electric Rat) writ in bright toxic green crayon :
*snip the rant*
>
>And yet, to actually HAVE a language, there needs to be some level of
>consistancy in order for it to be understood, otherwise we're all
>speaking different languages comprised of the same words, and my
>writing this was quite redundant.
You'll Love this project then
>
>Err.. It probably was anyhow. Heck, maybe I'll just hand this in for
>a Theory of Knowledge essay on language that's meant to be done some
>time in the near future.
I did IB... I feel your pain
I can't realy agree with your rant in some ways but it's not that
important and other people have covered it far better than I can...
Suffice to say I think language would be realy boring if you couldn't
play around with words and misuse them at will :>
So I'll just ramble on about stuff that all this reminds me from
school...
In English I was always rebelious... I had an attitude that
intelectual analysis of the text was totaly and utterly pointless and
that the only thing that was of worth about the text was how it made
me feel...
ie if it made me bored and yawn and made sleep come to my eyes then it
was a boring text.... If it made me _have_ to read it right to the end
then it was interesting... And if it inspired me and made me feel like
I was in another dimension then it was truly grand... As opposed to
examining the references and looking for "smart" use of language and
obscure references to some other boring cloggy work...
And because of this whenever I did hand in work (which was very rare)
I always got 3/7 or 2/7.... But my final english mark was 5/7... Which
meant that I must have gotten some ridiculously good mark (something
pretty close to perfect) for my exam since it was 50 50 exam vs
assignment based....
And I took exactly the same attitude into the exam and wrote exactly
the same style...
Says something about how much the personality and attitude plays in
the marks the markers give doesn't it?
Anyway what that was leading me to is that having a little piece of
paper saying that you got good marks in say music, english and other
such creative subjects is ultimately very useless unless you are
trying to impress the gullible who can't make a valid assesment of
your work from their own perspective...
The next bit is going to sound a bit egoish but I couldn't think of
any way of writing it that is going to sound humble :/
I was ranting on to a friend of mine about music[1] and playing her
some of my tracks over the phone as well as that of other bands... and
she mentioned that I knew way more about music and how to use it than
the people who where in a music course she was in...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that anything creative is pretty
much a personal journey... And you have to do it by yourself and
explore it all by yourself... otherwise it's pretty worthless and that
little piece of paper is ultimatly worth shit... since it's not about
getting a good mark[2]
It's all just about being you and getting your point across...
Otherwise you are journeying into intellectual wank land...
Personaly I think the best thing that can happen to art is for all
funding for
Ivory Tower style arts such as Art courses, Arts grants, Music
Conservatoriums to be totaly withdrawn and all the money that was
going there be pumped into librarys, art gallerys, parks and more
community based things where the main aim is to get people involved
and interested, not get good "marks"...
And just provide a good back drop for being creative and being
yourself... Of course once nanotech is fully realised the _only_
worthwhile thing is going to be human creativity so practice is _good_
Of course all of you are free to totaly disagree :)
>The poor quality of what I'll hand in astounds even me. :):)
How punk rawk ;)
I remember my TOK essay
It was a totaly bullshit essay on what the implications on the world
would be if instead of having digital computers based around
components with two states we had three states instead
(Now how is _that_ for ivory tower style bullshit)
BTW on a total tanget
I was somewhat disturbed at the total lack of _poetry_ at the drunk
poets society meet *grins*..... *ducks*
Anyway I may be forced to print out a whole heap of skinny puppy
lyrics and inflict them on you lot :>
"Mental shock.... Make it stop!"
Or maybe VNV Nation or Das Ich *g*
>
>Janie.
>
daniel - Who needs to be at uni and doing work at the moment but can't
find his stainless steel bangle and therefore just _can't_ leave the
house[3]
[1]As I do whenever someone calls me which is probably why no-one
calls me anymore *pout* :(
[2]Or at least it shouldn't be in my little version of reality
[3]Ever feel that way about something you need to do or wear?
--
Demo Track for my band... DYHM (Shuddup we
haven't thought of a better name yet :P at
http://members.xoom.com/kraant/music/Fucked.bin
(Change the extension to .mp3 to listen... )
jani...@my-deja.com
mor...@extro.vurt.net (Morgan Jaffit) wrote:
<further snipping>
And, naturally, in my extremely exhausted state I completely screwed up
what I was trying to say. Three hours of sleep in three days will do
that to a person.
ANYHOW, as I'm posting from school, and am supposedly alert and in a
thinky mood (after two cups of strong coffee), will try again.
Yes, development of language is a good thing, as humanity is
progressing at quite a rate, we need words to change to describe
things. That was never an issue. The point I was trying to make is
just this: Without SOME level of consistancy, words are entirely
meaningless. One person may be saying something that means another
thing to somebody else, this is the only reason we have certain 'rules'
in spelling, grammar etc. Not saying these shouldn't change, but they
should change along with society, not with the misunderstanding of one
individual, ie, ms. Morisette and her 'Ironic' song. If words have no
meaning that is at least similar between people, then language has no
purpose. Just... Err... Read what Letterbomb said. It makes more
sense than mine, and is roughly what I was trying to say.
Damned eloquent people... <razza frazza>....
Janie, debating going home early and resting.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Morgan Jaffit
>We live in a society that increasingly caters to the short attention
>span; to the lowest common denominator. Part of a society's bedrock
>is its language (along with its music and what it happens to be
>throwing down its throat.) If the language, over time, becomes
>erroded through ennui then I believe it is to our widespread
>detriment.
The word there is 'lowest common denominator' let's talk about definitions
for a moment ;)
The common demoninator is pretty much the average level of (in this case)
literacy, measured against 'correct english' and suitability for
comunication and elegance of concepts able to be communicated.
Guess what? The average is fucking low.
We have *no* choice but to deal. We can rail against it, we can try and
change it, but the inertia of all the stupid people is unassailable. So
the best thing to do is gather a group of like minded people, and develop
your concepts to elegance.
There is no 'lowest' common denominator. the simple fact is that the
common denominator is low. Very low. I absolutely understand protestation
of this, but it only does any good when you remove yourself (both
idealogically and generally) from the group with the low average. Seek out
company that averages where you average. Everything else is easy.
entrippy (the age of aquariums)
Yellow Electric Rat
(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:55:28 GMT, fe...@nospam.ains.net.au (Yellow
>Electric Rat) writ in bright toxic green crayon :
>
>
>I did IB... I feel your pain
<SQUIP> You did? I never thought it would be such hard work,
otherwise would never have agreed to do it when mr.
Careers-Counselor-with-scary-eyes suggested it.
>I can't realy agree with your rant in some ways but it's not that
>important and other people have covered it far better than I can...
And I didn't cover it well enough, to be honest. Couldn't quite say
what I meant. I seldom can.
>Suffice to say I think language would be realy boring if you couldn't
>play around with words and misuse them at will :>
Yes, but when it gets to the point of ridiculous people misusing every
single one of the 20 words they know...?
>So I'll just ramble on about stuff that all this reminds me from
>school...
>
>In English I was always rebelious... I had an attitude that
>intelectual analysis of the text was totaly and utterly pointless and
>that the only thing that was of worth about the text was how it made
>me feel...
Tried this once. It was the only piece of work I've done all year for
English, and it was about Great Expectations. A very long, very
unstructured essay on why it was so farking boring.
Got a 7. Obviously my English teacher agreed with me... Or was just
rilly impressed that I handed something in.
>ie if it made me bored and yawn and made sleep come to my eyes then it
>was a boring text.... If it made me _have_ to read it right to the end
>then it was interesting... And if it inspired me and made me feel like
>I was in another dimension then it was truly grand... As opposed to
>examining the references and looking for "smart" use of language and
>obscure references to some other boring cloggy work...
"King Lear is a fascinating dive into the human psyche, of the
frailties inherent in each of us... The character of the Fool is one
of Shakespeare's greatest devices, and is used in several of his
tragedies and comedies alike in order to display to the audience the
foibles of the human condition."
Will that do for the opposition?
>And because of this whenever I did hand in work (which was very rare)
>I always got 3/7 or 2/7.... But my final english mark was 5/7... Which
>meant that I must have gotten some ridiculously good mark (something
>pretty close to perfect) for my exam since it was 50 50 exam vs
>assignment based....
>And I took exactly the same attitude into the exam and wrote exactly
>the same style...
>
>Says something about how much the personality and attitude plays in
>the marks the markers give doesn't it?
<angelic smile, fluttering of eyelashes>
No, really, I /deserved/ my 7 on the latest report!
>Anyway what that was leading me to is that having a little piece of
>paper saying that you got good marks in say music, english and other
>such creative subjects is ultimately very useless unless you are
>trying to impress the gullible who can't make a valid assesment of
>your work from their own perspective...
I just say that it's a pity, with IB English, there's no Writing
Folio/Creative Writing part to it - All of it is Text Response. And
with IB Theatre Arts it's mostly Play Analysis and study Philosophy
is better, in that you actually get to... PHILOSOPHISE (I's used a big
word!)! I'm not sure about Art or Music, but it seems they're fairly
similar.
For a course that encourages independance of thought, IB is quite set
in its traditional base learning.
>The next bit is going to sound a bit egoish but I couldn't think of
>any way of writing it that is going to sound humble :/
>
>I was ranting on to a friend of mine about music[1] and playing her
>some of my tracks over the phone as well as that of other bands... and
>she mentioned that I knew way more about music and how to use it than
>the people who where in a music course she was in...
>I guess what I'm trying to say is that anything creative is pretty
>much a personal journey... And you have to do it by yourself and
>explore it all by yourself... otherwise it's pretty worthless and that
>little piece of paper is ultimatly worth shit... since it's not about
>getting a good mark[2]
I totally agree! And proved this happily to people by failing art
last year, but being selected to draw the front cover of the school
magazine. My ex art teacher thought it highly inappropriate,
naturally.
>It's all just about being you and getting your point across...
>Otherwise you are journeying into intellectual wank land...
Isn't that what the IB is all about?
>Personaly I think the best thing that can happen to art is for all
>funding for
>Ivory Tower style arts such as Art courses, Arts grants, Music
>Conservatoriums to be totaly withdrawn and all the money that was
>going there be pumped into librarys, art gallerys, parks and more
>community based things where the main aim is to get people involved
>and interested, not get good "marks"...
Perhaps, though at the same time, there needs to be some outlet for
creativity in the community. I'd say that places like that need be
opened to the people in general, not just for those who have the
training and the experience and all the elitism, but for those who are
/enthuisiastic/. That's what matters the most, really, because one
can be talented and get into art school because, well, they're good at
it and have training. Not that they particularly want to, or value
their gift at all, but do exactly what the teachers want and get
fantastic marks and graduate from art school. End of story.
OR somebody could have an immense passion for it, have a little
talent, though maybe not as much as the first person, but want to do
it so very, very, very badly. When the letter comes back from the art
school, they screw it up, throw it away, and, convinced of their lack
of talent, cry for four days before resolving to forget it and quietly
go about doing art with poor quality materials in their spare time.
Who is more deserving?
>And just provide a good back drop for being creative and being
>yourself... Of course once nanotech is fully realised the _only_
>worthwhile thing is going to be human creativity so practice is _good_
>
>Of course all of you are free to totaly disagree :)
>
Not at all.
>
>How punk rawk ;)
>
>I remember my TOK essay
>
>It was a totaly bullshit essay on what the implications on the world
>would be if instead of having digital computers based around
>components with two states we had three states instead
>(Now how is _that_ for ivory tower style bullshit)
IB /is/ ivory tower bullshit. At least at my school.
>BTW on a total tanget
>
>I was somewhat disturbed at the total lack of _poetry_ at the drunk
>poets society meet *grins*..... *ducks*
Bah! It's CREATIVITY. Creative uses of the word 'Poetry'. :)
>Anyway I may be forced to print out a whole heap of skinny puppy
>lyrics and inflict them on you lot :>
>
>"Mental shock.... Make it stop!"
Or maybe I'll actually SING at you all.
HAH! Eat THAT! :)
Janie, who is being told to get off the computer now.
Letterbomb
wrote:
>In article <380cdb8a...@news.ihug.com.au>, Letterbomb wrote:
>>We live in a society that increasingly caters to the short attention
>>span; to the lowest common denominator. Part of a society's bedrock
>>is its language (along with its music and what it happens to be
>>throwing down its throat.) If the language, over time, becomes
>>erroded through ennui then I believe it is to our widespread
>>detriment.
>
>The word there is 'lowest common denominator' let's talk about definitions
>for a moment ;)
>
>The common demoninator is pretty much the average level of (in this case)
>literacy, measured against 'correct english' and suitability for
>comunication and elegance of concepts able to be communicated.
>
>Guess what? The average is fucking low.
>
>We have *no* choice but to deal. We can rail against it, we can try and
>change it, but the inertia of all the stupid people is unassailable.
I don't believe so.
> So
>the best thing to do is gather a group of like minded people, and develop
>your concepts to elegance.
That'd help, but it would also help if the media in general didn't
keep slipping their sophistication down a notch as the public gets
progressively less and less literate. It's a downward spiral of
sympathetic reaction. People get 'dumber' so the media dumbs itself
down to compensate - meaning the next generation are even 'dumber',
and so on and so forth...
All it takes to arrest this is a consensus on the part of a decent
percentage of journalists and editors and publishers and producers of
things like newspapers and current affairs programs to not descend to
the level of baby talk and National Enquirer sensationalism for the
sake of a buck. A little pride in being a major outlet for the flow
of information and freedom of speech. John Swinton, the Chief of
Staff for the New York Times said it best in 1953:
"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our
talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other
men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Realisation of, and pride in, the vital role members of the media play
in our quality of life is all it'd take. Just a little refusal to not
whore themselves, to play the dancing bear. Shit, you'd think that'd
just be inherent in human nature, to not degrade yourself like that.
Which is, of course, a tall order in this day of profit and loss and
shortest route for most gain. But I believe it can be done, and that
certain media representatives are actually doing this.
>There is no 'lowest' common denominator. the simple fact is that the
>common denominator is low. Very low. I absolutely understand protestation
>of this, but it only does any good when you remove yourself (both
>idealogically and generally) from the group with the low average. Seek out
>company that averages where you average. Everything else is easy.
Because you deny the problem. It's the equivalent of burying your
head in the sand, only you're doing it with friends. If you do it
with friends and somehow extend your influence just a touch to include
some of the teeming masses, then you affect a little change. At
least, that's what I hope to do in my own small way.
Letterbomb
Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone
Electric Rat) writ in bright toxic green crayon :
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:31:58 GMT, kra...@depechemode.com.SPAMTRAP
>(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:55:28 GMT, fe...@nospam.ains.net.au (Yellow
>>Electric Rat) writ in bright toxic green crayon :
>>
>>I did IB... I feel your pain
>
><SQUIP> You did? I never thought it would be such hard work,
>otherwise would never have agreed to do it when mr.
>Careers-Counselor-with-scary-eyes suggested it.
Hehehee actualy I found IB mindlessly simple but still realy annoying
I sat down at the start of year 11 and figured out _exactly_ how to
get the mark I needed to keep my parents off my back (ie 1/ pass 2/
get an above "average" mark) and planned what I could afford not to do
and what where easy marks that wouldn't take much effort to do...
I tend to be a very good bargain hunter and also good at finding the
path of least resistance in "work" *g*
It's very usefull when music shopping :>
>
>>I can't realy agree with your rant in some ways but it's not that
>>important and other people have covered it far better than I can...
>
>And I didn't cover it well enough, to be honest. Couldn't quite say
>what I meant. I seldom can.
Just type it as you think it... Sure it may not be as nice and
polished as well thought out sentences... But this is UseNet not a
bunch of critics... People are far more interested in your opinion
that how pretty and slick you sound[1] :) And writing what you think
is the easiest way to say what _you_ want to say...
>>Suffice to say I think language would be realy boring if you couldn't
>>play around with words and misuse them at will :>
>
>Yes, but when it gets to the point of ridiculous people misusing every
>single one of the 20 words they know...?
It's an aluminium can it... maybe but there is no to ways of looking
at it... Or at least I think that it cannot be sent there since it
doesn't existance is ephemeral like... it or not it... is obvious that
it records are made of vinyl and are analogue as opposed to digital
is that which involves the fingers of light featherweight tendrils of
photons beam of wood and cold irons to get the creases out of the
clothes you in your fears and dreams are what give people hope and joy
is a good child and will not dissapoint us bombed serbia into dust the
window sill so it stays clean and the house-hold your head high on LSD
so don't trip or you will fall...
And then sometimes misusing the language abominably gets your point
across far better than any concise... precise use of it ever will...
But of course you already knew that didn't you? :)
>
>>So I'll just ramble on about stuff that all this reminds me from
>>school...
>>
>>In English I was always rebelious... I had an attitude that
>>intelectual analysis of the text was totaly and utterly pointless and
>>that the only thing that was of worth about the text was how it made
>>me feel...
>
>Tried this once. It was the only piece of work I've done all year for
>English, and it was about Great Expectations. A very long, very
>unstructured essay on why it was so farking boring.
>Got a 7. Obviously my English teacher agreed with me... Or was just
>rilly impressed that I handed something in.
Damn if I had your english teacher I would have gotten a truly great
mark for english which would have meant less work in the other
subjects...
>
>>ie if it made me bored and yawn and made sleep come to my eyes then it
>>was a boring text.... If it made me _have_ to read it right to the end
>>then it was interesting... And if it inspired me and made me feel like
>>I was in another dimension then it was truly grand... As opposed to
>>examining the references and looking for "smart" use of language and
>>obscure references to some other boring cloggy work...
>
>"King Lear is a fascinating dive into the human psyche, of the
>frailties inherent in each of us... The character of the Fool is one
>of Shakespeare's greatest devices, and is used in several of his
>tragedies and comedies alike in order to display to the audience the
>foibles of the human condition."
Aaaaaaaaaaaargh intellectual wank!!!!!! I'm meeeeeeeeeelting!!!!!!!!
*giggles*
>
>Will that do for the opposition?
It sounds very much like the stuff I called the teacher on and said
was bullshit in class
I'd say it's a very good example of what is expected of you at school
*g*
>
>>And because of this whenever I did hand in work (which was very rare)
>>I always got 3/7 or 2/7.... But my final english mark was 5/7... Which
>>meant that I must have gotten some ridiculously good mark (something
>>pretty close to perfect) for my exam since it was 50 50 exam vs
>>assignment based....
>>And I took exactly the same attitude into the exam and wrote exactly
>>the same style...
>>
>>Says something about how much the personality and attitude plays in
>>the marks the markers give doesn't it?
>
><angelic smile, fluttering of eyelashes>
>No, really, I /deserved/ my 7 on the latest report!
Unnnnn hunh? We believe you... reaaaaaaly don't you trust us? *blinks
innocently* *pouts*
>
>>Anyway what that was leading me to is that having a little piece of
>>paper saying that you got good marks in say music, english and other
>>such creative subjects is ultimately very useless unless you are
>>trying to impress the gullible who can't make a valid assesment of
>>your work from their own perspective...
>
>I just say that it's a pity, with IB English, there's no Writing
>Folio/Creative Writing part to it - All of it is Text Response. And
>with IB Theatre Arts it's mostly Play Analysis and study Philosophy
>is better, in that you actually get to... PHILOSOPHISE (I's used a big
>word!)! I'm not sure about Art or Music, but it seems they're fairly
>similar.
Well our english teacher near the end of the year when we were all way
ahead to just write what we felt like one period
I promptly churned out a massive saga (in verse) about Norse pillaging
their way across eastern europe and dumped it on his desk *g*
He makes us read long boring works using dead styles....
I returned the favour in triplicate :>
>For a course that encourages independance of thought, IB is quite set
>in its traditional base learning.
Of course it's that ivory tower thing again :)
>
*kersnip*
>
>>I guess what I'm trying to say is that anything creative is pretty
>>much a personal journey... And you have to do it by yourself and
>>explore it all by yourself... otherwise it's pretty worthless and that
>>little piece of paper is ultimatly worth shit... since it's not about
>>getting a good mark[2]
>
>I totally agree! And proved this happily to people by failing art
>last year, but being selected to draw the front cover of the school
>magazine. My ex art teacher thought it highly inappropriate,
>naturally.
>
>>It's all just about being you and getting your point across...
>>Otherwise you are journeying into intellectual wank land...
>
>Isn't that what the IB is all about?
Yeah well we already know about that basicaly it's run by old-school
academics and to them _everything_ even post-modernism is an orthodoxy
to be followed...
>
>>Personaly I think the best thing that can happen to art is for all
>>funding for
>>Ivory Tower style arts such as Art courses, Arts grants, Music
>>Conservatoriums to be totaly withdrawn and all the money that was
>>going there be pumped into librarys, art gallerys, parks and more
>>community based things where the main aim is to get people involved
>>and interested, not get good "marks"...
>
>Perhaps, though at the same time, there needs to be some outlet for
>creativity in the community. I'd say that places like that need be
>opened to the people in general, not just for those who have the
>training and the experience and all the elitism, but for those who are
>/enthuisiastic/. That's what matters the most, really, because one
>can be talented
Ok problem number 1 right here... This is purely my opinion of course
and no orthodox adherence to it is in any way implied or demanded from
others....
There isn't realy an objective "talent" factor... The only talent
required whether for others work or your own is it's ability to affect
_you_
it can never be objectivly right or wrong good or bad in the same way
that mathematics can be
as demonstrated here
(best viewed in _real_ ascii text ) ;)
Given an alphabet of
{a,b,`,*}
Function maps
(With one Unary and one binary function)
"`"
-----
"a"|"b"|
-----
"b"|"a"|
-----
_______
"*" "a" "b"
---------
"a"|"a"|"b"|
---------
"b"|"b"|"b"|
---------
_______
Such that
a = `b
b = `a
a = a * a
b = b * b
b = b * a
b = a * b
then it will always hold true that
`b * `a * a * b
=a * b * a * b
=b * b
=b
therefore `b * `a * a * b = b
and
`b * a * a
=a * a * a
=a * a
=a
therefore `b * a * a = a
and b != `b
!= <--- Not Equal to BTW
and so on so forth
with the arts it will never be like that there is no way to distill
the arts down as far to the basics as maths can go because as soon as
you do that you lose the basic humanity that makes art worthwhile
and that is why arts should not be marked as if they are something
objective because even at the most basic primal levels there is still
a massive amount of interactions and subtleties between the underlying
components...
And because one mans meat may be another mans poison it _totaly_
destroys any chance of looking at art at an objective level while
still viewing it as art...
ie you can't play numbers games with something so fundamentaly
emotional.
>and get into art school because, well, they're good at
>it and have training. Not that they particularly want to, or value
>their gift at all, but do exactly what the teachers want and get
>fantastic marks and graduate from art school. End of story.
>OR somebody could have an immense passion for it, have a little
>talent, though maybe not as much as the first person, but want to do
>it so very, very, very badly. When the letter comes back from the art
>school, they screw it up, throw it away, and, convinced of their lack
>of talent, cry for four days before resolving to forget it and quietly
>go about doing art with poor quality materials in their spare time.
But that's the whole mindfuck... a lot of the time to me personaly at
least the people working with the poor quality materials are faaaaaaar
more talented and interesting than all the stupid people in the stupid
courses producing by the numbers "art"
Places like that always make me think "Mutual Back Scratching"
ie the "I rub your back you rub mine" mentality
a sort of old boys club where some useless style is perpetuated just
because the people in the club say it is good and right and proper....
That's me ranting... it's probably more a case of 90% of everything
is crap...
but there are far more people playing around with little to work with
and no grant or course supporting them so there is far more work which
is of value....
because 90% of a lot is a lot more than 90% of a little...
or more mathematicaly
where x is the number of people getting knocked back by the elite and
y is the ones who get in...
x > y
therefore
9 * 10^-1 * x > 9 * 10^-1 * y
*grin*
Anyway everyone should like what they like and just give the finger to
anyone who tries to objectify talent and try and establish it as an
orthodoxy....
>
>Who is more deserving?
Neither
That's what I think anyway because I honestly don't think those ivory
tower things _realy_ add anything worthwhile to the world that
wouldn't have just happened anyway... And they destroy far more
worthwhile things....
>
>>And just provide a good back drop for being creative and being
>>yourself... Of course once nanotech is fully realised the _only_
>>worthwhile thing is going to be human creativity so practice is _good_
>>
>>Of course all of you are free to totaly disagree :)
>>
>Not at all.
Why thankyou :>
I try to phrase my attitudes well *grin*
>
>>
>>How punk rawk ;)
>>
>>I remember my TOK essay
>>
>>It was a totaly bullshit essay on what the implications on the world
>>would be if instead of having digital computers based around
>>components with two states we had three states instead
>>(Now how is _that_ for ivory tower style bullshit)
>
>IB /is/ ivory tower bullshit. At least at my school.
Yeah but VCE is still worse...
>>BTW on a total tanget
>>
>>I was somewhat disturbed at the total lack of _poetry_ at the drunk
>>poets society meet *grins*..... *ducks*
>
>Bah! It's CREATIVITY. Creative uses of the word 'Poetry'. :)
Hrrrrrrrrrm
This is a very about face from your previous view on words and their
sanctity :)
>
>>Anyway I may be forced to print out a whole heap of skinny puppy
>>lyrics and inflict them on you lot :>
>>
>>"Mental shock.... Make it stop!"
>
>Or maybe I'll actually SING at you all.
>
>HAH! Eat THAT! :)
You have given me ideas now
I am going to have to inflict Tommorow Wendy upon you all
May the lord have mercy on your frail souls ;)
>
>Janie, who is being told to get off the computer now.
>
daniel - Who should be in bed sleeping so he can work on the 6 week
assignment that is due in in 2 days tommorow (which he hasn't started
yet) but got cought up in typing up this post *wry grin*
[1]If it was the other way around I would have been flamed out of
existance loooong ago
Letterbomb
(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
>>Yes, but when it gets to the point of ridiculous people misusing every
>>single one of the 20 words they know...?
>
>It's an aluminium can it... maybe but there is no to ways of looking
>at it... Or at least I think that it cannot be sent there since it
>doesn't existance is ephemeral like... it or not it... is obvious that
>it records are made of vinyl and are analogue as opposed to digital
>is that which involves the fingers of light featherweight tendrils of
>photons beam of wood and cold irons to get the creases out of the
>clothes you in your fears and dreams are what give people hope and joy
>is a good child and will not dissapoint us bombed serbia into dust the
>window sill so it stays clean and the house-hold your head high on LSD
>so don't trip or you will fall...
>
>And then sometimes misusing the language abominably gets your point
>across far better than any concise... precise use of it ever will...
Provided the point you're trying to make is that you (or your
character) can't use the language. Or if it has a place within the
context of whatever you're creating.
Without a coherent context, ninety-nine times out of one hundred
misusing the language abominably leaves you with a product which is
totally lost on everyone, barring the person who wrote it. There's a
small, small, small market for freeform poetry and abstract stuff, but
solely because - I think - it taps into an audience with that kind of
focus who bring their own context to the piece. Which makes whatever
*you* think you've put into the piece pointless, because even your
audience won't see it.
Language is about communication. Random collections of pretty words
without order or context are just that. It's worse than muzak. Every
time I've seen the excuse of non-conformity slapped onto the creation
of something senseless it's usually been to defend a complete lack of
technique. It's usually a copout.
Of course, stories like Harlan Ellison's 'At the Mouse Circus' is a
pretty good example of a tripped-out surrealistic short story full of
lush imagery that works very, very well... because he has a fantastic
technique and works hard at his art. If it had just been a collection
of those lush words rambled out and splattered on the page it would
have been nothing more than masturbation. Totally self-indulgent and
not the kind of thing you want to bring your friends 'round to look
at.
Good writing, meaningful writing - be it books or songs or poetry or
whatever yanks your crank - should be a designer warhead created to
penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating.
Anything less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain.
I suppose it has its place but I can't recall the last time I read
anything like that which stuck with me after I turned the page.
>>>ie if it made me bored and yawn and made sleep come to my eyes then it
>>>was a boring text.... If it made me _have_ to read it right to the end
>>>then it was interesting... And if it inspired me and made me feel like
>>>I was in another dimension then it was truly grand... As opposed to
>>>examining the references and looking for "smart" use of language and
>>>obscure references to some other boring cloggy work...
>>
>>"King Lear is a fascinating dive into the human psyche, of the
>>frailties inherent in each of us... The character of the Fool is one
>>of Shakespeare's greatest devices, and is used in several of his
>>tragedies and comedies alike in order to display to the audience the
>>foibles of the human condition."
>
>Aaaaaaaaaaaargh intellectual wank!!!!!! I'm meeeeeeeeeelting!!!!!!!!
>*giggles*
What I just said above could be construed as intellectual wank. The
King Lear thing looks, to me, more like a simple observation.
>>Will that do for the opposition?
>
>It sounds very much like the stuff I called the teacher on and said
>was bullshit in class
You think the King Lear thing is bullshit?
>>>And because of this whenever I did hand in work (which was very rare)
>>>I always got 3/7 or 2/7.... But my final english mark was 5/7... Which
>>>meant that I must have gotten some ridiculously good mark (something
>>>pretty close to perfect) for my exam since it was 50 50 exam vs
>>>assignment based....
>>>And I took exactly the same attitude into the exam and wrote exactly
>>>the same style...
>>>
>>>Says something about how much the personality and attitude plays in
>>>the marks the markers give doesn't it?
>>
>><angelic smile, fluttering of eyelashes>
>>No, really, I /deserved/ my 7 on the latest report!
Just regurgitate the opinions of the teachers. Worked for my friends.
>There isn't realy an objective "talent" factor... The only talent
>required whether for others work or your own is it's ability to affect
>_you_
Are you talking about the creator of something, or the audience?
>it can never be objectivly right or wrong good or bad in the same way
>that mathematics can be
Getting back to my earlier rant, I agree. 'The Breakfast Club' won't
live on for eternity as a landmark of human creativity, but I still
get a kick out of seeing it. Course, it makes me wince now, but ten
years ago I thought it was great and so it brings back memories and I
like it for that reason. Same reason I like certain old songs that
are essentially nonsense. It's associative.
So if someone creates a poem that's just list of names pulled from
random pages of the phone book and someone somewhere who's feeling
small and alienated reads it and thinks the poet was strongly
identifying with her feelings of alienation - great. Someone
somewhere found something to comfort them in a time of misery and that
can't be a bad thing.
But insofar as getting a point across (from the point of view of the
artist) a poem that is just a list of names, numbers and addresses
from the phone book is utterly meaningless. Although, if it was
titled something like 'Alienation' then that would provide context.
But the 'aluminium can' thing you provided as an example of getting
your point across far better than any precise use of language ever
could didn't work. At least, not for me. I mean, that's what precise
is... it's dead on. Hell, half the time it's difficult enough being
clear, even with a strongly considered piece.
>with the arts it will never be like that there is no way to distill
>the arts down as far to the basics as maths can go because as soon as
>you do that you lose the basic humanity that makes art worthwhile
It'd also make the Arts a Science.
>and that is why arts should not be marked as if they are something
>objective because even at the most basic primal levels there is still
>a massive amount of interactions and subtleties between the underlying
>components...
Sure, but finding those in a song like "Boom Boom Boom" would require
a greater degree of "intellectual wank" that the aforementioned King
Lear incident.
The truth is, there's a lot of stuff out there that has no subtlety,
and no depth.
>And because one mans meat may be another mans poison it _totaly_
>destroys any chance of looking at art at an objective level while
>still viewing it as art...
>
>ie you can't play numbers games with something so fundamentaly
>emotional.
Or you could go lateral with that idea, view art as a numbers game and
see what kind of art that spawned.
Letterbomb
wico
>On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:05:36 GMT, kra...@depechemode.com.SPAMTRAP
>(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
<snip some excellent points>
>>>"King Lear is a fascinating dive into the human psyche, of the
>>>frailties inherent in each of us... The character of the Fool is one
>>>of Shakespeare's greatest devices, and is used in several of his
>>>tragedies and comedies alike in order to display to the audience the
>>>foibles of the human condition."
>>
>>Aaaaaaaaaaaargh intellectual wank!!!!!! I'm meeeeeeeeeelting!!!!!!!!
>>*giggles*
>
>What I just said above could be construed as intellectual wank. The
>King Lear thing looks, to me, more like a simple observation.
No, wanking implies self gratification and the boring King Lear snippet looks
like it was copied straight out of the "King Lear for Dummies" textbook.
Therefore, the only person to benefit from it is the writer because it gives
them a good mark in English class.
What you said above was both entertaining and interesting to lots of people so
it is probably more correctly termed intellectual intercourse or group sex or
something. Not wanking.
>>and that is why arts should not be marked as if they are something
>>objective because even at the most basic primal levels there is still
>>a massive amount of interactions and subtleties between the underlying
>>components...
>
>Sure, but finding those in a song like "Boom Boom Boom" would require
>a greater degree of "intellectual wank" that the aforementioned King
>Lear incident.
>
>The truth is, there's a lot of stuff out there that has no subtlety,
>and no depth.
I used to love King Lear. That was, however, before I spent two months ripping
it apart in Year 12 English class. In contrast, "Boom Boom Boom"s lack of
subtlety or depth will result in it never being chosen as an English text
(unless society *really* goes downhill) and therefore never being subject to
the same soul destroying analysis. There is no justice.
w.
--
"The sun rose and waked the cock. The cock a-doodled and waked the wild dog.
The dog gave a ho-o-o-owl and waked the crows, who took to the air, flying low,
going 'caw-caw-caw' and not stopping till the whole fucken valley was woke.
Little wonder every season is open season on crows." [Nick Cave - ATASTA]
Nile Evil Bastard
Letterbomb <cwro...@tig.com.au> wrote:
:Good writing, meaningful writing - be it books or songs or poetry or
:whatever yanks your crank - should be a designer warhead created to
:penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating.
:Anything less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain.
*snaffle*
(The '...' is to fit it in the statutory four lines.)
--
http://netizen.com.au/ http://www.caube.org.au/
"Good writing, meaningful writing ... should be a designer warhead created to
penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating. Anything
less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain." (Letterbomb)
Morgan Jaffit
>Good writing, meaningful writing - be it books or songs or poetry or
>whatever yanks your crank - should be a designer warhead created to
>penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating.
>Anything less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain.
So you'd not be a big supporter of Death of The Author, then :)
Damn. Spent too much time talking to cluey Lit students.
entrippy (lit!)
Morgan Jaffit
>"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
>We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our
>talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other
>men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
>
>Realisation of, and pride in, the vital role members of the media play
>in our quality of life is all it'd take. Just a little refusal to not
>whore themselves, to play the dancing bear. Shit, you'd think that'd
>just be inherent in human nature, to not degrade yourself like that.
>
>Which is, of course, a tall order in this day of profit and loss and
>shortest route for most gain. But I believe it can be done, and that
>certain media representatives are actually doing this.
Zigactly. We're a capitalist society. As a group, we place value in
dollar terms. Media has more 'value' if it brings more bucks. Playing to
the LCD brings in bucks. Ergo tabloid journalism has more value, and is
essentially *better* than 'real' journalism.
We can fight against it. But I'm old and tired (or young and tired - take
your pick) and I really don't think it's my fight anymore. You do. This
is great. It's good to have someone out there doing something. I think
you've got a lot of weight to move, and eventually you'll find you're
exhausted and the monolith hasn't moved.
I could be wrong - I hope I'm wrong. I still think idealism has 'value' -
but in this area I'm just fresh out of it.
>>There is no 'lowest' common denominator. the simple fact is that the
>>common denominator is low. Very low. I absolutely understand protestation
>>of this, but it only does any good when you remove yourself (both
>>idealogically and generally) from the group with the low average. Seek out
>>company that averages where you average. Everything else is easy.
>
>Because you deny the problem. It's the equivalent of burying your
>head in the sand, only you're doing it with friends. If you do it
>with friends and somehow extend your influence just a touch to include
>some of the teeming masses, then you affect a little change. At
>least, that's what I hope to do in my own small way.
I don't know that it's denial of the problem. I recognise it. I
understand it.
I just don't think it's my responsibility. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't
feel responsible for the millions of morons out there. I honestly don't.
There are far too many people I *do* feel responsible for, for me to waste
my time trying to 'heal the world' - I prefer to do good where I can see
the results, rather than waste my time trying to shift the collective mob
into a better direction. I still think every person is worthwhile, worth
effort, and as a group we should treat them well - I'm happy to pay for
medical services with my taxes for the unemployed etc etc. Mainly because
it's easy. I'm not going to spend a lot of effort trying to make things
better for them, or railing against the bad things when I can spend that
effort doing good things for my friends and loves.
entrippy (whoosh!)
Neef
>So you'd not be a big supporter of Death of The Author, then :)
>
>Damn. Spent too much time talking to cluey Lit students.
SHUTUPSHUTPSHUTPSHUTUP!!!!!
SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!
my god..Im having flashbacks..help..
Neef ( please..not another thesis....)
Daniel Milligan
wico wrote:
> I used to love King Lear. That was, however, before I spent two months ripping
> it apart in Year 12 English class. In contrast, "Boom Boom Boom"s lack of
> subtlety or depth will result in it never being chosen as an English text
> (unless society *really* goes downhill) and therefore never being subject to
> the same soul destroying analysis. There is no justice.
As someone said (I can't remember who):
A book is rather like a cat, once you pull it apart it's never quite the
same afterwards.
It's a shame how English study does that to good works, but then
sometimes it gets you into something you wouldn'y have heard of in any
other way.
spike
Yellow Electric Rat
<d.mil...@REMOVEALLCAPSchem.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>As someone said (I can't remember who):
>A book is rather like a cat, once you pull it apart it's never quite the
>same afterwards.
>
>It's a shame how English study does that to good works, but then
>sometimes it gets you into something you wouldn'y have heard of in any
>other way.
>
Actually, I found that analysing the books we have done so far in
English this year (Cloudstreet, Great Expectations, House of the
Spirits, King Lear, Letters to Olga, Jack Maggs, Antigone and a Doll's
House) has enhanced the experience. It not only gets me to read some
fantastic novels (and some not so fantastic ones), but makes me think
about them, and has introduced me to my new favorite author (Isabelle
Allende), not to mention some of the cool poetry we've studied. I
don't mind dissecting writing, for a lot of it, it's quite
inspirational.
Janie. Two cents? I'm /that/ cheap?
Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone
writ in bright toxic green crayon :
>On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:05:36 GMT, kra...@depechemode.com.SPAMTRAP
>(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
>>
>>It's an aluminium can it... maybe but there is no to ways of looking
>>at it... Or at least I think that it cannot be sent there since it
>>doesn't existance is ephemeral like... it or not it... is obvious that
>>it records are made of vinyl and are analogue as opposed to digital
>>is that which involves the fingers of light featherweight tendrils of
>>photons beam of wood and cold irons to get the creases out of the
>>clothes you in your fears and dreams are what give people hope and joy
>>is a good child and will not dissapoint us bombed serbia into dust the
>>window sill so it stays clean and the house-hold your head high on LSD
>>so don't trip or you will fall...
>>
>>And then sometimes misusing the language abominably gets your point
>>across far better than any concise... precise use of it ever will...
>
>Provided the point you're trying to make is that you (or your
>character) can't use the language. Or if it has a place within the
>context of whatever you're creating.
I'll asume that wasn't a barb directed at me... :)
But for me at least using language to create a mood without getting a
specific meaning across is very useful especialy when writing or
listening to lyrics...
I realy love listening to songs written in german for this reason
because I used to know german I get just enough of the meaning to get
the gist of it but not enough to actualy be able to think about it...
Sort of like japanese ink drawings where it's just a couple of
squiggly lines that look like something because the brain fills in the
gaps...
>
>Without a coherent context, ninety-nine times out of one hundred
>misusing the language abominably leaves you with a product which is
>totally lost on everyone, barring the person who wrote it. There's a
>small, small, small market for freeform poetry and abstract stuff, but
>solely because - I think - it taps into an audience with that kind of
>focus who bring their own context to the piece. Which makes whatever
>*you* think you've put into the piece pointless, because even your
>audience won't see it.
Actualy I cheated a bit with what I wrote... I pretty much stated
outright what is was about (hint near the end) *grin* I know some
people will be able to figure it out in 3 seconds now that I've said
that...
I wrote it more as a sorta wierd cross between a riddle and a mood
setting piece (in 5 seconds so obviously it's not going to be well
crafted)
If you felt confused reading it then I pretty much hit the bullseye...
:>
in other words I _used_ the language to confuse you
Because confusion is what it is about (more specificaly confusion
caused by "something")
Now the fun bit is to figure out what the hell I'm actualy on about
>
>Language is about communication. Random collections of pretty words
>without order or context are just that. It's worse than muzak. Every
>time I've seen the excuse of non-conformity slapped onto the creation
>of something senseless it's usually been to defend a complete lack of
>technique. It's usually a copout.
Of course _language_ is about communication
and _craft_ is about creating something functional and elegant...
Now what is _art_ about?
Just because something can be used one way doesn't make the other ways
of using it invalid *grin* I mean language is just a tool just like a
pen...
You can draw pictures with pens... you can write words with pens... If
you are realy smart (and know a fuckload lot of maths) you can even
draw in such a way that if people let the focus of their eyes wander
they will see something in 3D...
So for people who don't have the right perspective on the 3D picture
will see it as garbage...
Does that make it garbage?
What about a zen priests picture viewed by someone that doesn't take
the time or doesn't have the imagination to let their mind loose and
fill in the blanks?
___
With muzak I have seen almost _anything_ electronic that it's creators
want to give off an aura of experimentation labeled that... even when
it's totaly by the numbers music...
But I am assuming you mean specificaly the music that _is_ actualy
very experimental....
Such as Muslim Gauze or say some stuff on the Dorobo label...
I'd be very careful about making assertions about the quality or lack
of quality of them because they are working from a very different
perspective than what you probably think music is...
But then this is coming from the guy who once sat outside a bus depot
listening to the engines being tuned because it sounded realy
interesting... So feel free to ignore me :)
>
>Of course, stories like Harlan Ellison's 'At the Mouse Circus' is a
>pretty good example of a tripped-out surrealistic short story full of
>lush imagery that works very, very well... because he has a fantastic
>technique and works hard at his art. If it had just been a collection
>of those lush words rambled out and splattered on the page it would
>have been nothing more than masturbation. Totally self-indulgent and
>not the kind of thing you want to bring your friends 'round to look
>at.
Ok we have a problem here a totaly different view on intelectual
masturbation is...
I always view it as taking something silly and arbitrary defining that
as good and then writing to _that_ as being good
... like say sounding heavy(to the exclusion of all else)... or being
wierd and different just for the sake of being wierd (without having a
specific target(like being interesting) in mind)...
and then expecting people to worship them because they are "good"
___
I personaly view technique as a not very good thing... It's the first
step on the road to creating by the numbers pieces...
Have you ever talked to someone who's heavily into thrash metal and
internaly gagged when they explained how a certain band was the best
band on earth _because_ that band can thresh 10 chords in a second?
Viewing _technique_ as the most important thing is the first step
along the road to being obliterated into a puddle of ennui by long
boring guitar solos...
>
>Good writing, meaningful writing - be it books or songs or poetry or
>whatever yanks your crank - should be a designer warhead created to
>penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating.
>Anything less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain.
By this definition Venga Boys is sheer genius because they do do that
to their target audience (ie 12 year olds) :>
Actualy it is a _very_ good definition... the problem is that a lot of
the time to everyone except that target audience it is going to seem
like total and utter crap...
For me what defines whether something is truly great is being able to
read or listen to it hundreds of times and still find it
interesting...
For someone who wants to get the full meaning in one go what I like is
going to appear totaly worthless...
___
I'm not even sure whether I'm arguing with you or agreeing with you at
this point...
>
>I suppose it has its place but I can't recall the last time I read
>anything like that which stuck with me after I turned the page.
Go hunt down some skinny puppy lyrics then :)
Read them out loud... Screaming them would work nicely :>
>
>>>>ie if it made me bored and yawn and made sleep come to my eyes then it
>>>>was a boring text.... If it made me _have_ to read it right to the end
>>>>then it was interesting... And if it inspired me and made me feel like
>>>>I was in another dimension then it was truly grand... As opposed to
>>>>examining the references and looking for "smart" use of language and
>>>>obscure references to some other boring cloggy work...
>>>
>>>"King Lear is a fascinating dive into the human psyche, of the
>>>frailties inherent in each of us... The character of the Fool is one
>>>of Shakespeare's greatest devices, and is used in several of his
>>>tragedies and comedies alike in order to display to the audience the
>>>foibles of the human condition."
>>
>>Aaaaaaaaaaaargh intellectual wank!!!!!! I'm meeeeeeeeeelting!!!!!!!!
>>*giggles*
>
>What I just said above could be construed as intellectual wank. The
>King Lear thing looks, to me, more like a simple observation.
Well basicaly the problem with it is that it is highlighting technique
over the actual effect of the piece...
>
>>>Will that do for the opposition?
>>
>>It sounds very much like the stuff I called the teacher on and said
>>was bullshit in class
>
>You think the King Lear thing is bullshit?
Pretty much.... here's what I would have said in english class if that
turned up
*picture daniel leaning back and slouched on his seat a slight
sarcastic sneer on his face.... arms crossed over his chest*
"I mean do you think that shakespeare sat down one day and decided ...
hrrrrm I need to write a play.... I think I'll use the fool again to
demonstrate humanities foibles...
Why are we looking deeper than even the author would have originaly
done? All it does is teach us how to write like pale imitations of
shakespeare" *mutters under breath* "who ain't that great anyway..."
My arguments nowdays would be slightly better than that since I have
grown up a great deal....
heh I must have realy annoyed the english teacher sometimes....
>
>>>
>>><angelic smile, fluttering of eyelashes>
>>>No, really, I /deserved/ my 7 on the latest report!
>
>Just regurgitate the opinions of the teachers. Worked for my friends.
So what about the exams then?
>
>>There isn't realy an objective "talent" factor... The only talent
>>required whether for others work or your own is it's ability to affect
>>_you_
>
>Are you talking about the creator of something, or the audience?
When you are the creator you are your own audience...
When you are looking at someone elses work you are their audience...
either way the only value it has to _you_ is the value it has to _you_
not the value anyone else places on it....
Take for example a dance track I currently have on the boiler....
In it I suddenly cut to a sample from a johnny cash song and then back
again very quickly...
Some people love the confusion and disorientation it creates... some
people hate it....
However that is irrelevant...
The sample stays there because _I_ like it...
I am listening to The Tourists now...
Not because people think they are cool or worthwhile
but because _I_ like them[1]... same goes for everyone else
They should like what they like because _they_ like it...
>
>>it can never be objectivly right or wrong good or bad in the same way
>>that mathematics can be
>
>Getting back to my earlier rant, I agree. 'The Breakfast Club' won't
>live on for eternity as a landmark of human creativity, but I still
>get a kick out of seeing it. Course, it makes me wince now, but ten
>years ago I thought it was great and so it brings back memories and I
>like it for that reason. Same reason I like certain old songs that
>are essentially nonsense. It's associative.
And some memes and phrases are associative for massive numbers of
people.... so using them in a semi-nonsense style can be very
powerful...
>
>So if someone creates a poem that's just list of names pulled from
>random pages of the phone book and someone somewhere who's feeling
>small and alienated reads it and thinks the poet was strongly
>identifying with her feelings of alienation - great. Someone
>somewhere found something to comfort them in a time of misery and that
>can't be a bad thing.
It's a great thing....
>
>But insofar as getting a point across (from the point of view of the
>artist) a poem that is just a list of names, numbers and addresses
>from the phone book is utterly meaningless. Although, if it was
>titled something like 'Alienation' then that would provide context.
>But the 'aluminium can' thing you provided as an example of getting
>your point across far better than any precise use of language ever
>could didn't work. At least, not for me. I mean, that's what precise
>is... it's dead on. Hell, half the time it's difficult enough being
>clear, even with a strongly considered piece.
But what if the point is the mood not what is actualy being said?
If someone read that piece out loud to themselves... I bet pretty soon
they'd be feeling kind of alienated unless by some chance themselves
or someone they knew was in that list....
>
>>with the arts it will never be like that there is no way to distill
>>the arts down as far to the basics as maths can go because as soon as
>>you do that you lose the basic humanity that makes art worthwhile
>
>It'd also make the Arts a Science.
Which I think would be a bad thing... because being well constructed
doesn't neccesarily make something... _good_
>
>>and that is why arts should not be marked as if they are something
>>objective because even at the most basic primal levels there is still
>>a massive amount of interactions and subtleties between the underlying
>>components...
>
>Sure, but finding those in a song like "Boom Boom Boom" would require
>a greater degree of "intellectual wank" that the aforementioned King
>Lear incident.
To some extent yes...
But lets take a different perspective for a moment...
Musicaly it's very well put together... Because the people who get
hired by the big labels to write the music for those fake music groups
together are very _very_ good at what they do....
The lyrics are simple and obvious and get their point across even to
someone who is just hearing it as background music...
The tune is very catchy and so is the electronic bleeping that
constitutes the riff... The beat is simple but the underlying bassline
is slightly syncopated to give it that little extra catch that keeps
it from being boring...
And it is all mixed in as a cohesive whole... I mean c'mon hands up
here... how many people even _noticed_ the bassline before I pointed
it out? _That_ is damn good mixing.... it adds something to the song
but isn't noticed by people...
I still hate the godamn song tho... That's why I think focussing on
technique is a bad thing... :P
heh the only reason why I can do this is because when I watch rage
occasionaly I have to pull apart all the pop songs and see what makes
them tick to stop my brain from dripping out my ears...
>
>The truth is, there's a lot of stuff out there that has no subtlety,
>and no depth.
And depth and subtlety won't neccesarily make something interesting
IMNSHO
Because to be truly interesting it needs the human element...
YMMV of course
>
>>And because one mans meat may be another mans poison it _totaly_
>>destroys any chance of looking at art at an objective level while
>>still viewing it as art...
>>
>>ie you can't play numbers games with something so fundamentaly
>>emotional.
>
>Or you could go lateral with that idea, view art as a numbers game and
>see what kind of art that spawned.
Nothing new under the sun
Minimalism which I like is somewhat based around treating music as
mathematics it still has that human element that keeps it interesting
tho.... Although it is more based around deliberatly limiting what you
can do and then writing music that works around that to say what you
want it to say...
And then there's computer generated music and creative writing
Which can sometimes be _very_ polished and slick but always seem to be
lacking a certain... something and has to write to predefined genre's
>
>
>Letterbomb
daniel - Who has given up on uni because arguing on UseNet is far more
interesting :P
[1] And also as an excuse to perve on Annie Lennox *g*
Yellow Electric Rat
(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
>
>I personaly view technique as a not very good thing... It's the first
>step on the road to creating by the numbers pieces...
Alrighty, I disagree out of personal experience. I was, in year six,
a not terribly audible little singer with a whispery singing voice
which was, as a general rule, off-key and unpleasant. Five years
later, I'm a soprano with a bloody strong voice, if nothing else. The
method I learned is Bel Canto, if you must know, and I love learning
by technique. Now, my voice really hasn't changed that much (except
it's a little lower now), and I'm still the same person with the same
tastes in music, except now, due to TECHNIQUE, I am able to express
these tastes much, much better. Though, mind you, I'm a light opera
singer, so there's nothing overly experimental about it. Before
anybody calls me orthodox, they should probably know that I /LIKE/
light opera.
I've used inspiration and technique /together/ to become a better
singer.
And this is why I think it's fairly useful to learn technique,
especially if it is a style you're looking for, as it was with myself.
I also have written a few songs, in the same style, and because I like
this style, I see nothing wrong with it at all.
I guess it all depends what you're into, but in some circumstances,
technique is helpful.
>>
>>You think the King Lear thing is bullshit?
>
>Pretty much.... here's what I would have said in english class if that
>turned up
>
>*picture daniel leaning back and slouched on his seat a slight
>sarcastic sneer on his face.... arms crossed over his chest*
>
>"I mean do you think that shakespeare sat down one day and decided ...
>hrrrrm I need to write a play.... I think I'll use the fool again to
>demonstrate humanities foibles...
Actually, umm... It /does/ seem a little that Shakespeare intended to
use the Fool in order to show up more clearly Lear's failings as a
person. I'm not just being wanky, that's my honest opinion on the
matter.
>Why are we looking deeper than even the author would have originaly
>done? All it does is teach us how to write like pale imitations of
>shakespeare" *mutters under breath* "who ain't that great anyway..."
>My arguments nowdays would be slightly better than that since I have
>grown up a great deal....
>
>heh I must have realy annoyed the english teacher sometimes....
I annoy mine all the time, but still, my opinions are all valid, even
if they don't coincide with his. Or yours. :)
>>
>>Just regurgitate the opinions of the teachers. Worked for my friends.
>
>So what about the exams then?
Regurgitate them more, hell, the examiner won't know that it isn't
your opinion. Even if it isn't, it's /a/ take on the novel, which is
as good a thing as any.
<sha-nip>
>
>The sample stays there because _I_ like it...
Yes, and my singing, drawing and acting techniques all stay, because I
like them. And because I can use them to create something personal,
and something of, at least to me, some good value.
It all comes down to personal opinion, and nobody really is right in
this argument. Daniel's thoughts about how technique breeds
number-art are fair, and mine on how techinique can create personality
too are also fair.
And I'm being told to get off the computer again.
Janie.
Daniel Milligan
Yellow Electric Rat wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:44:00 +1300, Daniel Milligan
> <d.mil...@REMOVEALLCAPSchem.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >As someone said (I can't remember who):
> >A book is rather like a cat, once you pull it apart it's never quite
> >the same afterwards.
> >
> >It's a shame how English study does that to good works, but then
> >sometimes it gets you into something you wouldn'y have heard of in any
> >other way.
> >
> Actually, I found that analysing the books we have done so far in
> English this year (Cloudstreet, Great Expectations, House of the
> Spirits, King Lear, Letters to Olga, Jack Maggs, Antigone and a Doll's
> House) has enhanced the experience. It not only gets me to read some
> fantastic novels (and some not so fantastic ones), but makes me think
> about them, and has introduced me to my new favorite author (Isabelle
> Allende), not to mention some of the cool poetry we've studied. I
> don't mind dissecting writing, for a lot of it, it's quite
> inspirational.
Perhaps it depends just what sort of analysis you do. For King Lear I
think I have had my view of it forever changed and that has detracted
from it somewhat. The school I went to was an all boys school, very big
on sports, short on anything else. Especially feminism. So one of the
smarter and more academic teachers decided to teach Feminist
perspectives to the top class, filled mostly with Rugby players.
Lear was a stretch for most of them, feminist Lear a mighty fucking
leap. And the constant defending of a position that people wouldn't
accept brought the play down.
The Fox, by D.H. Lawerence however came over brilliantly, and opened up
parts of Lawerence I'd never really thought about questioning.
I think it in the end comes down to the quality of the analysis. Rote
stuff ruins works for me, and some books deserve to be left as a whole
as they are really just pieces of art as they are.
I think this is where I extract my foot from my mouth and agree with
you.
spike
bah humbug. Thesis Blues.
valeskah
Electric Rat) tippy-tapped:
>Actually, umm... It /does/ seem a little that Shakespeare intended to
>use the Fool in order to show up more clearly Lear's failings as a
>person. I'm not just being wanky, that's my honest opinion on the
>matter.
i agree with you there...
he uses the blind/seeing, fool/wise type of contrast too often for it
to be coincidence i think
stock characters have uses damnit! :)
valeskah, going to see the uni production of richard III tomorrow
night! :)
Morgan Jaffit
>And this is why I think it's fairly useful to learn technique,
>especially if it is a style you're looking for, as it was with myself.
>I also have written a few songs, in the same style, and because I like
>this style, I see nothing wrong with it at all.
>I guess it all depends what you're into, but in some circumstances,
>technique is helpful.
Yes, by all means learn technique - it always helps to know a subject
better if you've learnt it technically. But by no means feel bound to it.
The better you know it, the better you can bend around the edges. I think
the point that was being made was that slavish devotion to technique leads
to paint-by-the-numbers art, and it's always better to feel free to break
the walls, even if you don't actually do so...
entrippy (whoops!)
Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone
Electric Rat) writ in bright toxic green crayon :
Wow that was a quick reply O_o I'm impressed
>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:51:37 GMT, kra...@depechemode.com.SPAMTRAP
>(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
><snip to bit I wanted to reply to>
>>
>>I personaly view technique as a not very good thing... It's the first
>>step on the road to creating by the numbers pieces...
>
>Alrighty, I disagree out of personal experience. I was, in year six,
>a not terribly audible little singer with a whispery singing voice
>which was, as a general rule, off-key and unpleasant. Five years
>later, I'm a soprano with a bloody strong voice, if nothing else. The
>method I learned is Bel Canto, if you must know, and I love learning
>by technique. Now, my voice really hasn't changed that much (except
>it's a little lower now), and I'm still the same person with the same
>tastes in music, except now, due to TECHNIQUE, I am able to express
>these tastes much, much better. Though, mind you, I'm a light opera
>singer, so there's nothing overly experimental about it. Before
>anybody calls me orthodox, they should probably know that I /LIKE/
>light opera.
>I've used inspiration and technique /together/ to become a better
>singer.
<TongueFirmlyInCheek>
<DanielsOrthodoxChurchOfOpinionsOnMusic>
In the begining there was the sound... The sound of a billion voices
raised in glorious chaos and dischord... a sheer wall of noise... the
sibilant screaming of a million million people babbling at once...
pulsing... jagged... raw... ecstatic... Alive......
and the D*N**L heard it... curious he approached it[1]... for an aeon
he listened... and he found it to be good... Then...suddenly with no
warning individual threads slowly faltered and died to be replaced
with identical voices... filled with artifice and false beauty... the
life of the Chorus was lost...
D*N**L... disturbed with this development detatched a part of himself
and sent it...
Down to the UseNet where verily it whinged and whined until attention
was payed to the... One True Way... that it had been sent down to
impart to the apostates of the Chorus....
</DanielsOrthodoxChurchOfOpinionsOnMusic>
</TongueFirmlyInCheek>
*giggles*
Actualy to be honest I have no real problems with technique but I
think that it is very easy for people to forget that it is _just_ a
tool to achieve what you want to do... and end up thinking the
technique _is_ the art and dismissing anything that does not use it...
I mean of course I use techniques... I use minor and major chords and
sometimes I use verse and chorus as a structure... Alliteration in my
lyrics... knowledge of how to mix to make the music I record sound
fuller and less plastic...
But I do try and remind people that techniques aren't the art
they are just tools and if they do not do what you want them to do
then it's time for them to be discarded... And that use of techniques
doesn't neccesarily make something good...
And I object to the way that techniques tend to be taught as being the
_One_True_and_Right_Way... Can you still sing the way you used to sing
if you try? or is the way you sing now so automatic that you cant sing
any other way?
Because if a technique is viewed like just another tool in a tool
box... ie "Doing this achieves this effect"... "Doing that achieves
that effect" then when you need to tighten a bolt you have a spanner
and when you need a hammer instead you can go out to find one...
Where if it's taught as being the _right_way_ then you can be left
with one mighty fine hammer to tighten that bolt and a vague notion in
the back of your mind that using spanners is wrong *g*
___
(Not to mention no appreciation of anything not to do with hammers)
>
>And this is why I think it's fairly useful to learn technique,
>especially if it is a style you're looking for, as it was with myself.
>I also have written a few songs, in the same style, and because I like
>this style, I see nothing wrong with it at all.
>I guess it all depends what you're into, but in some circumstances,
>technique is helpful.
They are definetly useful tools... But I do object to people confusing
good technique with good art and lack of technique with lack of
merit...
Especialy if they do it with their own work because they will end up
with a dead shell of technique...
Imagine if neatness of handwriting and spelling and grammer was viewed
as important in Shakespeares time as it was until fairly recently in
the world(even to some extent while I was at school)....
English Teacher : I'm sorry Shakespeare but I'm afraid you will never
amount to anything... your handwriting is atrocious and your spelling
and grammer are even worse...
I remember pointing this out to my english teacher in year 9 when she
complained about my handwriting :>
>
>>>
>>>You think the King Lear thing is bullshit?
>>
>>Pretty much.... here's what I would have said in english class if that
>>turned up
>>
>>*picture daniel leaning back and slouched on his seat a slight
>>sarcastic sneer on his face.... arms crossed over his chest*
>>
>>"I mean do you think that shakespeare sat down one day and decided ...
>>hrrrrm I need to write a play.... I think I'll use the fool again to
>>demonstrate humanities foibles...
>
>Actually, umm... It /does/ seem a little that Shakespeare intended to
>use the Fool in order to show up more clearly Lear's failings as a
>person. I'm not just being wanky, that's my honest opinion on the
>matter.
I wasn't realy calling the statement on that...
"The character of the Fool is one
of Shakespeare's greatest devices, >and is used in several of his
tragedies and comedies alike in order to display to the audience the
foibles of the human condition."<
>< <---- This bit
I actualy got into major argument in the middle of an english class
once which was fairly similar....
But from the research[2] I did that I can remember of the top of my
head (it has been a long time)...
The reason why there seem to be reccuring characters in the plays that
my english teacher kept on insisting where powerful archetypal devices
that Shakespeare used deliberately for the effect...
Is actualy because Shakespeare was writing for a _specific_ acting
troupe that had all the specific stock characters that all the troupes
of that time had... such as the fool...
Most of which trace their roots to rennaisance italys comedy
troupes...
He was just using them because that was "how it was done"...
Which means that Shakespeare's Fool and Punch out of Punch and Judy
share the same roots
ie... The fool was most definetly _not_ Shakespeare's greatest
device... it was in use long before he was even born...
I dunno this is wierd this conversation has brought back all the sheer
hatred I felt for Shakespeare's work I felt at school because it was
being shoved down my throat... Excuse me if I'm not being rational
about it....
>
>>Why are we looking deeper than even the author would have originaly
>>done? All it does is teach us how to write like pale imitations of
>>shakespeare" *mutters under breath* "who ain't that great anyway..."
>>My arguments nowdays would be slightly better than that since I have
>>grown up a great deal....
>>
>>heh I must have realy annoyed the english teacher sometimes....
>
>I annoy mine all the time, but still, my opinions are all valid, even
>if they don't coincide with his. Or yours. :)
I definetly agree which is why I've been trying to preface all my
statements with things like "I personaly think" and even if I don't
pretend I do...
But I've never realy gotten over the fawning groveling respect that
Shakespeare was given during english class... When I knew that there
was far better works by far better authors (at least for me) in the
library...
So I pretty much set out to debunk every single innovation that was
attributed to him.... *grin*
>>>Just regurgitate the opinions of the teachers. Worked for my friends.
>>
>>So what about the exams then?
>
>Regurgitate them more, hell, the examiner won't know that it isn't
>your opinion. Even if it isn't, it's /a/ take on the novel, which is
>as good a thing as any.
><sha-nip>
Still doesn't explain how I got that amazing mark on the final exam
tho....
Aaaah well
Wierd... *shrug*
>>
>>The sample stays there because _I_ like it...
>Yes, and my singing, drawing and acting techniques all stay, because I
>like them. And because I can use them to create something personal,
>and something of, at least to me, some good value.
>It all comes down to personal opinion, and nobody really is right in
>this argument. Daniel's thoughts about how technique breeds
>number-art are fair, and mine on how techinique can create personality
>too are also fair.
Cool different perspectives are always good...
Just remember that techniques are just tools and everything will be
good :>
Actualy they most definetly can highlight personality...
I just start frothing in the mouth and jumping up and down when people
value technique over everything else... It's just one of those things
I guess....
Don't mind me...
>
>
>And I'm being told to get off the computer again.
Bleh.... Parents :P
>
>Janie.
>
daniel - Who should be asleep :<
[1]At this point I was so tempted to write "and was sucked in and
where he once was stood a massive oak tree" for wanky obscure
reference points in norse mythology but couldn't find a way to fit it
in :>
[2]That I did at the time for the express reason of pointing out that
a lot of the technical innovations and plotlines Shakespeare
supposedly pioneered[3] (in his infinite genius *hack spit ptooooie*)
were pretty much bog standard tools at the time for any playwright in
england or the continent[4]...
[3]According to our textbooks and teachers etc
[4]Gawd I'd forgotten all about it and now all this school talk is
bringing it all back *shudder* Can you tell how much I hated having
Shakespeare shoved down my throat when I'd rather be reading Michael
Moorcock?
Letterbomb
wrote:
>>whatever yanks your crank - should be a designer warhead created to
>>penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating.
>>Anything less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain.
>
>
>Damn. Spent too much time talking to cluey Lit students.
Actually, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Death of the
Author?
Letterbomb (educate me)
Trayce
wrote:
>
>Actually, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Death of the
>Author?
Gah, we had the death of the author idea hammered into us in my prof
writing course at RMIT.
The basic premise is that a good writer becomes "transperant" to the
story, so it stands on its own without any of the authors "prescence"
so to speak.
Its something I dont think is always the best thing. I can see its
validity, but (for example) one reason I like someone like say, Plath,
is because her vivid and overwhelming persona soaks her writing. But
that of course is personal preference. I guess good writing is good
because it's timeless and stands on its own.
Trayce (wazoo for conflicting statements!)
--
*** trace -at- connectnetau ***
"There are only two feelings. Love and fear" (Leunig)
Raif Sarcich
> That'd help, but it would also help if the media in general didn't
> keep slipping their sophistication down a notch as the public gets
> progressively less and less literate. It's a downward spiral of
> sympathetic reaction. People get 'dumber' so the media dumbs itself
> down to compensate - meaning the next generation are even 'dumber',
> and so on and so forth...
Which would be horrible if it weren't empirically untrue. People, against
all outward impressions, are getting smarter. Every 10 years or so, makers
of psychometric intelligence tests have to re-standardise the population
norms because the median score starts exceeding the mean. What that means
is that more people are getting higher scores with each generation.
You know those appalling little brats you see throwing tantrums while
their moribund phlegmatic parents take little or no action to stop them
causing cyclone-scale destruction to their environments? Or those snotty
obnoxious 14-year olds with their Britney Spears albums?
They're smarter than us.
------------------------
!!
(well, on average, that is.)
--
Raif Sarcich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Occasionally in vanity-love, habit, or despair of finding something
better, results in a friendship of the least attractive sort, which
will even boast of its *stability*, and so on." - Stendhal, Love, p.44
<nihi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
9286 2171
LiPsBLeeDPrEttY
'duh' is the latest addition to the the Webster's English Dictionary.
Just some trivia appropriate to the subject.
*shakes her head still somewhat disbelieving*
DeB
**i hear your pain...
...and i feel nothing**
LiPsBLeeDPrEttY
LiPsBLeeDPrEttY wrote in message <3810...@news.syd.healey.com.au>...
>
>'duh' is the latest addition to the the Webster's English Dictionary.
>Just some trivia appropriate to the subject.
>*shakes her head still somewhat disbelieving*
ok cut one of the 'the''s above. or both if you like. ergh. blegh. i need
sleep. ignore me. i dont poke my head out often. its not difficult. *yawn*
*stumble*
*crash*
Letterbomb
(Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:23:59 GMT, cwro...@tig.com.au (Letterbomb)
>writ in bright toxic green crayon :
>>>across far better than any concise... precise use of it ever will...
>>
>>Provided the point you're trying to make is that you (or your
>>character) can't use the language. Or if it has a place within the
>>context of whatever you're creating.
>
>I'll asume that wasn't a barb directed at me... :)
It wasn't.
>But for me at least using language to create a mood without getting a
>specific meaning across is very useful especialy when writing or
>listening to lyrics...
OK.
>I realy love listening to songs written in german for this reason
>because I used to know german I get just enough of the meaning to get
>the gist of it but not enough to actualy be able to think about it...
OK.
>Sort of like japanese ink drawings where it's just a couple of
>squiggly lines that look like something because the brain fills in the
>gaps...
Another case of providing your own context, I guess.
>>Without a coherent context, ninety-nine times out of one hundred
>>misusing the language abominably leaves you with a product which is
>>totally lost on everyone, barring the person who wrote it. There's a
>>small, small, small market for freeform poetry and abstract stuff, but
>>solely because - I think - it taps into an audience with that kind of
>>focus who bring their own context to the piece. Which makes whatever
>>*you* think you've put into the piece pointless, because even your
>>audience won't see it.
>
>Actualy I cheated a bit with what I wrote... I pretty much stated
>outright what is was about (hint near the end) *grin* I know some
>people will be able to figure it out in 3 seconds now that I've said
>that...
>
>I wrote it more as a sorta wierd cross between a riddle and a mood
>setting piece (in 5 seconds so obviously it's not going to be well
>crafted)
>
>If you felt confused reading it then I pretty much hit the bullseye...
>:>
In my case I read the first four lines and skipped to the end. No
offense, but my scanning kinda gained momentum at that point.
>in other words I _used_ the language to confuse you
Ever seen 'Silence of the Lambs'? Remember the bit at the end where
it looks like the FBI is about to bust the bad guy, and by breaking a
few cardinal rules of cinema the director had the whole audience
fooled into thinking this is where the killer gets his. Then in one
revelation you realise the FBI are actually at the wrong house - in
the worng *state* - and Clarice is knocking on the killer's door all
by herself.
That was a brilliant move. And one pulled off by his first learning
the rules so he could break them with flair (I'll get back to that
later.)
The direction of 'TheSixth Sense' is another excellent example of
technique, IMO.
However, tossing wordage into the stream of a run-on sentence and
saying you're confusing the audience is a little presumptuous. I
think most people would do what I did - read four lines, scan the rest
and realise it was all one run-on sentence - and jump to the end.
Art is subjective and I'm coming from a different perspective to
yours. You sound like you're happy catching the odd straggler with the
stray bullets of your art, whereas I want something like Hiroshima.
That's not a value judgment, it's just the way we're both calibrated
as individuals.
Art should have no boundaries and I'll defend that to the end. But,
while I believe people have the right to do what they want and call it
art, there remains certain kinds of art that'll mean zip to anyone but
the artist - and the few rare souls it touches in some way for some
random reason.
The 'Silence of the Lambs' thing was done because the director knew
and studied his craft and as a result was a deft hand at manipulating
the basic human expectations of pattern and order in his audience (ie.
knock on killer's door --> footage of FBI agents circling house -->
killer about to answer door = killer about to meet horde of FBI
agents) in order to completely blindside them and immediately escalate
the tension. You may say that as a result of employing technique the
director has become bland, has sold out, is the fawning lapdog of his
faceless corporate master who runs the machine of society that is
greased with the blood of failed artists... and so on and so forth.
I completely disagree.
I could argue that run-on sentences with no context are bland because
they communicate nothing without context. And if you provide context
you are employing a degree of technique which will provide a small
degree of impact or understanding.
I can't think of a piece of artwork that didn't employ technique.
The gaining of technique is a love offering you make to your chosen
profession. Waving such a tithe aside is the equivalent of knocking
on your dates door, scratching your balls and saying "Let's fuck."
See, the really amazing stuff happens when you learn technique and
understand it, then shatter it elegantly, or take it to higher places.
Fobbing off form as conformist and dull is a huge mistake. Technique
provides a crystal ball view of the human machine. It tells you what
people expect, what pleases them on the most human levels. And, armed
with that preliminary information, you can really mess with them. You
can know what you want to achieve in a given piece and nail it.
But by simply slouching back and saying you refuse to be bound by such
things means you embrace a philosophy of hit-and-miss. Anything that
you create which resonates will be a fluke. You may well wind up
with a disparate audience of fans who share a similar attitude, and
that may be enough for you.
>Because confusion is what it is about (more specificaly confusion
>caused by "something")
>
>Now the fun bit is to figure out what the hell I'm actualy on about
See above.
>>Language is about communication. Random collections of pretty words
>>without order or context are just that. It's worse than muzak. Every
>>time I've seen the excuse of non-conformity slapped onto the creation
>>of something senseless it's usually been to defend a complete lack of
>>technique. It's usually a copout.
>
>Of course _language_ is about communication
>and _craft_ is about creating something functional and elegant...
I'd debate the last.
>Now what is _art_ about?
That sounds like an attempt at sophistry.
>Just because something can be used one way doesn't make the other ways
>of using it invalid *grin* I mean language is just a tool just like a
>pen...
>
>You can draw pictures with pens... you can write words with pens... If
>you are realy smart (and know a fuckload lot of maths) you can even
>draw in such a way that if people let the focus of their eyes wander
>they will see something in 3D...
>
>So for people who don't have the right perspective on the 3D picture
>will see it as garbage...
>
>Does that make it garbage?
>
>What about a zen priests picture viewed by someone that doesn't take
>the time or doesn't have the imagination to let their mind loose and
>fill in the blanks?
I think the main problem we have here is that I write stories and you
write lyrics. If you are referring to the use of language and the
human voice in order to create soundscapes that evoke certain images
through the use of certain words, then yes, you're right, no argument,
words are tools.
>With muzak I have seen almost _anything_ electronic that it's creators
>want to give off an aura of experimentation labeled that... even when
>it's totaly by the numbers music...
>
>But I am assuming you mean specificaly the music that _is_ actualy
>very experimental....
I wasn't talking about music at all. I was talking about the
presumption on the part of many beginning artists to feel passionately
about something and splash it down on a piece of paper, and assume
that because they felt so passionate about it that passion will be
transmitted clearly through the jumble of words they just wrote.
Which is almost never the case.
Which, I feel, was the case with the aluminium can example you gave.
And it bugs me when said artists adopt a smug attitude about it.
Because I used to be one. And looking back now at what I wrote then I
wanna hack my own head off rather than have anyone see it. Ever.
It's not good.
I mean, such attempts usually elicit polite nods and smiles and words
of encouragement from friends, but in the cold light of People Who
Don't Know You such things become tinfoil. They're bright and shiny
and real easy to punch a hole through.
>Such as Muslim Gauze or say some stuff on the Dorobo label...
>
>I'd be very careful about making assertions about the quality or lack
>of quality of them because they are working from a very different
>perspective than what you probably think music is...
I wasn't talking about music. See my above statement about I do
stories/You do lyrics.
>I personaly view technique as a not very good thing... It's the first
>step on the road to creating by the numbers pieces...
I don't want you to take offense at this Daniel, but that really is so
much crap.
Crap.
Utter, utter, utter crap.
I cannot express to you what a steaming pile of yak dung that
assertation is.
>Have you ever talked to someone who's heavily into thrash metal and
>internaly gagged when they explained how a certain band was the best
>band on earth _because_ that band can thresh 10 chords in a second?
>
>Viewing _technique_ as the most important thing is the first step
>along the road to being obliterated into a puddle of ennui by long
>boring guitar solos...
Daniel, there is not ONE 'technique' in the world. You don't
subscribe to 'Technique' along with a million other artists and upload
this month's version into your brain.
Technique is a HIGHLY personal and personalised thing. It is your
Craft. It is something you have painstakingly refined over a number
of years. It is what YOU know to work.
Do you remember the first time you tried to write something of any
merit and how f**king hard it was?
If you slave away at that process for a few years it becomes much
easier because you've learned from your mistakes and learned what
works. THAT is technique for Chrissakes. It's not some Orwellian
1984-esque greyslate conformist nightmare.
>>Good writing, meaningful writing - be it books or songs or poetry or
>>whatever yanks your crank - should be a designer warhead created to
>>penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating.
>>Anything less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain.
>
>By this definition Venga Boys is sheer genius because they do do that
>to their target audience (ie 12 year olds) :>
You could argue that they're the best band for 12 year olds out at the
moment, sure.
Like you said, art is subjective.
>Actualy it is a _very_ good definition... the problem is that a lot of
>the time to everyone except that target audience it is going to seem
>like total and utter crap...
Sure. Ask a pygmy what he thinks of French poetry.
Ask me what I think of the aluminium can thing (I didn't get it, is
all.)
That doesn't mean the aluminium can thing isn't art - though the need
to label stuff just bugs me as well.
It doesn't mean the aluminium can thing isn't valid.
But it *does* mean, as far as I'm concerned, that you missed the mark
insofar as 'confusing' me or challenging me went - which was your
point. A little technique would have gone a long way.
I may be alone in this. Everyone who read it may have really
attempted to plumb it. So, in that case, I'm a philistine. If you
need me I'll be outside throwing rocks at the moon.
>For me what defines whether something is truly great is being able to
>read or listen to it hundreds of times and still find it
>interesting...
Same here.
>For someone who wants to get the full meaning in one go what I like is
>going to appear totaly worthless...
I suppose. I'd have to think about that.
>I'm not even sure whether I'm arguing with you or agreeing with you at
>this point...
I think we pretty much agree, just in different ways. But I really
would reconsider your stand on technique. Whether you know it or not,
you're developing one anyway. It's in your influences, and the way
you structure lyrics and music, and the themes you return to and the
way you use them.
>>You think the King Lear thing is bullshit?
>
>Pretty much.... here's what I would have said in english class if that
>turned up
>
>*picture daniel leaning back and slouched on his seat a slight
>sarcastic sneer on his face.... arms crossed over his chest*
>
>"I mean do you think that shakespeare sat down one day and decided ...
>hrrrrm I need to write a play.... I think I'll use the fool again to
>demonstrate humanities foibles...
AAAAGH!!! Fuck yes! Jesus!
Daniel, I'm not that familiar with Lear. I'm more Hamlet and Macbeth.
But if you copped that attitude and came out with that... you'd look
like a prize jerk.
All writers use devices of one sort or another - and a lot do it
consciously. I know I do.
>Why are we looking deeper than even the author would have originaly
>done?
What, so you think ol' Will just sat down one day and whacked out Lear
without so much as a single considered thought?
> All it does is teach us how to write like pale imitations of
>shakespeare" *mutters under breath* "who ain't that great anyway..."
Crap.
Each writer, poet, artist is a spokesperson for their times. It's all
you can be. You can learn a lot from the people who wore those shoes
before you, you can build on their experience and expertise and take
from them what you want or need. But if artists were as programmable
and unimaginative as you seem to think they are, they wouldn't be
artists to start with.
>My arguments nowdays would be slightly better than that since I have
>grown up a great deal....
What, better than Shakespeare's?
>heh I must have realy annoyed the english teacher sometimes....
I can believe that.
>>>><angelic smile, fluttering of eyelashes>
>>>>No, really, I /deserved/ my 7 on the latest report!
>>
>>Just regurgitate the opinions of the teachers. Worked for my friends.
>
>So what about the exams then?
I was talking about the exams.
>>>There isn't realy an objective "talent" factor... The only talent
>>>required whether for others work or your own is it's ability to affect
>>>_you_
>>
>>Are you talking about the creator of something, or the audience?
>
>When you are the creator you are your own audience...
>When you are looking at someone elses work you are their audience...
>
>either way the only value it has to _you_ is the value it has to _you_
>not the value anyone else places on it....
OK sure. There's two camps on this: those that create to affect
others, and those that would be just as happy doing their work sealed
for eternity in a cave.
If you're in the cave faction, no argument.
If you want other people to see your work, and maybe you'd even like
to be able to quit that job at Coles to pursue your art at some point,
then that's a whole other ballgame. That's when you have to do your
audience the courtesy of ensuring your art is intelligible. More of
an effort in writing books than painting, sure, but you know what I
mean.
>Take for example a dance track I currently have on the boiler....
>
>In it I suddenly cut to a sample from a johnny cash song and then back
>again very quickly...
>
>Some people love the confusion and disorientation it creates... some
>people hate it....
>
>However that is irrelevant...
>
>The sample stays there because _I_ like it...
>
>I am listening to The Tourists now...
>Not because people think they are cool or worthwhile
>but because _I_ like them[1]... same goes for everyone else
>
>They should like what they like because _they_ like it...
OK.
>>>it can never be objectivly right or wrong good or bad in the same way
>>>that mathematics can be
>>
>>Getting back to my earlier rant, I agree. 'The Breakfast Club' won't
>>live on for eternity as a landmark of human creativity, but I still
>>get a kick out of seeing it. Course, it makes me wince now, but ten
>>years ago I thought it was great and so it brings back memories and I
>>like it for that reason. Same reason I like certain old songs that
>>are essentially nonsense. It's associative.
>
>And some memes and phrases are associative for massive numbers of
>people.... so using them in a semi-nonsense style can be very
>powerful...
OK, bear with me here.
There are a great many things that people view as Evil. Things like
Saddam Hussein, child porn, cruelty to animals, and lip-synching at
rock concerts.
There are many things people view as Not Evil. Things like ice cream,
doves, libraries and blowjobs.
However, staggering these words side-by-side interspersed with this
and that doesn't make it interesting.
If anything it makes me sound like Rik Mayall doing the People's Poet.
Which is fine, if that's what yanks your crank. But it doesn't speak
to anything essential in me, or I imagine in most people. Well... it
does make me laugh but I don't think that was your point.
Do it with music and maybe you have an entirely different case.
>>So if someone creates a poem that's just list of names pulled from
>>random pages of the phone book and someone somewhere who's feeling
>>small and alienated reads it and thinks the poet was strongly
>>identifying with her feelings of alienation - great. Someone
>>somewhere found something to comfort them in a time of misery and that
>>can't be a bad thing.
>
>It's a great thing....
>>
>>But insofar as getting a point across (from the point of view of the
>>artist) a poem that is just a list of names, numbers and addresses
>>from the phone book is utterly meaningless. Although, if it was
>>titled something like 'Alienation' then that would provide context.
>>But the 'aluminium can' thing you provided as an example of getting
>>your point across far better than any precise use of language ever
>>could didn't work. At least, not for me. I mean, that's what precise
>>is... it's dead on. Hell, half the time it's difficult enough being
>>clear, even with a strongly considered piece.
>
>But what if the point is the mood not what is actualy being said?
What mood?
>If someone read that piece out loud to themselves... I bet pretty soon
>they'd be feeling kind of alienated unless by some chance themselves
>or someone they knew was in that list....
I challenge anyone to try it. Reading the phone book doesnt make me
feel alienated. Sitting on packed public transport with no one saying
a word, THAT makes me feel alienated.
Or just talking to the drones at work.
>>>with the arts it will never be like that there is no way to distill
>>>the arts down as far to the basics as maths can go because as soon as
>>>you do that you lose the basic humanity that makes art worthwhile
>>
>>It'd also make the Arts a Science.
>
>Which I think would be a bad thing... because being well constructed
>doesn't neccesarily make something... _good_
Of course not. Structure without content and content without
structure are just as crap as each other.
>>>and that is why arts should not be marked as if they are something
>>>objective because even at the most basic primal levels there is still
>>>a massive amount of interactions and subtleties between the underlying
>>>components...
>>
>>Sure, but finding those in a song like "Boom Boom Boom" would require
>>a greater degree of "intellectual wank" that the aforementioned King
>>Lear incident.
>
>To some extent yes...
>
>But lets take a different perspective for a moment...
>
>
>Musicaly it's very well put together... Because the people who get
>hired by the big labels to write the music for those fake music groups
>together are very _very_ good at what they do....
I'm not sure what we're debating here.
>The lyrics are simple and obvious and get their point across even to
>someone who is just hearing it as background music...
>
>The tune is very catchy and so is the electronic bleeping that
>constitutes the riff... The beat is simple but the underlying bassline
>is slightly syncopated to give it that little extra catch that keeps
>it from being boring...
>
>And it is all mixed in as a cohesive whole... I mean c'mon hands up
>here... how many people even _noticed_ the bassline before I pointed
>it out? _That_ is damn good mixing.... it adds something to the song
>but isn't noticed by people...
I listened to it five times yesterday and couldn't hear the bassline.
I was listening for it. Of course, the radio sucked.
Thank God.
>I still hate the godamn song tho... That's why I think focussing on
>technique is a bad thing... :P
Crap.
That song may have great structure technically (I'm taking your word
here) but it has zero content.
>>The truth is, there's a lot of stuff out there that has no subtlety,
>>and no depth.
>
>And depth and subtlety won't neccesarily make something interesting
>IMNSHO
>
>Because to be truly interesting it needs the human element...
You can't have depth without meaning. And meaning implies you're
speaking to a human audience, which means it has a human element
(whatever you meant by that, exactly.)
I think we're talking about the same thing. You seem to have an
aversion to possibly pretentious words, while kinda being pretentious
in other ways.
>YMMV of course
YMMV?
Again, I hope you don't take this as a jab at you. I think we agree on
many things, though sometimes in different terms.
Letterbomb
Letterbomb
<nihi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>> That'd help, but it would also help if the media in general didn't
>> keep slipping their sophistication down a notch as the public gets
>> progressively less and less literate. It's a downward spiral of
>> sympathetic reaction. People get 'dumber' so the media dumbs itself
>> down to compensate - meaning the next generation are even 'dumber',
>> and so on and so forth...
>
>Which would be horrible if it weren't empirically untrue. People, against
>all outward impressions, are getting smarter. Every 10 years or so, makers
>of psychometric intelligence tests have to re-standardise the population
>norms because the median score starts exceeding the mean. What that means
>is that more people are getting higher scores with each generation.
>
>You know those appalling little brats you see throwing tantrums while
>their moribund phlegmatic parents take little or no action to stop them
>causing cyclone-scale destruction to their environments? Or those snotty
>obnoxious 14-year olds with their Britney Spears albums?
>
>They're smarter than us.
What's the scope of the test groups?
Letterbomb
Letterbomb
>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:32:08 GMT, cwro...@tig.com.au (Letterbomb)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Actually, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Death of the
>>Author?
>
>Gah, we had the death of the author idea hammered into us in my prof
>writing course at RMIT.
>
>The basic premise is that a good writer becomes "transperant" to the
>story, so it stands on its own without any of the authors "prescence"
>so to speak.
GAH!
OK, colour me against.
Letterbomb
Yellow Electric Rat
I might actually argue that they're not smarter, just more learned as
the standards of education continue to get higher, and students are
learning more since they really don't have any option (no education,
no life). Things that sixty years ago you'd learn in university,
you're now learning in year 10. Or at least so I've heard, not having
been in university fifty years ago.
Another coming back to the masses being educated - Nowadays, if you
take a bunch of fourteen year olds, it's illegal for them to NOT go to
school. And while, yes, there are plenty who don't, I'd be willing to
guess that this was not taken into account by the people who were
running tests. Therefore, perhaps it's just the sample of teenagers
taken.
Of course, I could be wrong in all of this, in which case I stand as
an example that teenagers are not getting smarter. So neena neena
neena. :)
Morgan Jaffit
Hey, me too.
ish.
Kinda.
Oh for fucks sake - I'm more than a little undecided about the issue. I
love Phillip K. Dick. I appreciate him more than most, because I know he's
a raving nutter bastard. I have a deep appreciation of his personal
background, and am, when it comes down to it, one of the more knowledgable
people when it comes to his life and times, down to extensive chats (online
and off) with his old friends and relatives.
His work, while it stands alone, does not exist in a vacuum, and is far
better for deep knowledge of his personal circumstances...
However - one of the main points of 'DOA' is that no work transfers
information in the way the author intended - it's always filtered through
the perceptions and knowledge of the reader.... Which I agree with - the
intention is not identical to the result.
entrippy (whoosh!)