How to Wite Poetry for Nik
Michael T. Richter
herself the question "what specific steps would I have to take to write
poetry that Nik would describe as a 'firefly flash of something secret and
sweet'?" Well, wonder no more, good folk. I've discovered the secret and
the process is simple and mechanical, and I'm willing to share it all with
you.
The secret comes from looking at a poem that Nik admires as brilliant:
This Is Just To Say
by William Carlos Williams
I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold
At first glance, there isn't a poem here. There's no poetic devices in
evidence whatsoever. There is no rhyme nor rhythm. There's no simile nor
metaphor. There's no alliteration nor assonance. There is, in short,
absolutely nothing that marks this as poetry...
...or is there? This poem that Nik likes so much is formatted quite
differently from prose. (Unless, of course, you're reading your prose on an
old 25-column VDT.) What would happen if we tried to format the William
Carlos Williams poem as regular prose?:
"I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably
saving for breakfast Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold"
This is beginning to look a little familiar, isn't it? It's beginning to
look like plain, ordinary, regular, everyday sentences. (Indeed, the above
looks an awful lot like something that I'd write on a post-it note and stick
to the fridge at a friend's house.) What would happen if we added a little
punctuation?
"I have eaten the plumes that were in the icebox, and which you were
probably saving for breakfast. Forgive me: they were delicious -- so sweet
and so cold."
Now we have it! We know the trick of how to make poetry for Nik! The steps
are simple. First, take two consecutive sentences from any work of prose.
For example, here are two sentences taken from section 5.2.2 of ITU-T Rec.
X.520 (1997 E) a.k.a. ISO/IEC 9594-6: 1998 (E):
"The Common Name attribute type specifies an identifier of an object. A
Common Name is not a directory name; it is a (possibly ambiguous) name by
which the object is commonly known in some limited scope (such as an
organization) and conforms to the naming conventions of the country or
culture with which it is associated."
This is mind-numbing stuff, eh? But with a few quick transformations, you
can turn it into poetry that Nik would drool over. First, you remove all
punctuation.
"The Common Name attribute type specifies an identifier of an object A
Common Name is not a directory name it is a possibly ambiguous name by which
the object is commonly known in some limited scope such as an organization
and conforms to the naming conventions of the country or culture with which
it is associated"
You can already see the stirrings of poetry here. The next step is to give
it a title. The title should look like it relates to the prose, but which
doesn't actually do so. For this example, I will use the title "Heart of
Tedium".
Now comes the big moment; the moment which transforms this bland text into
the realms of high poetry: we reformat the text. When formatting the text,
don't worry about anything except making the poem look like the poems you
can get from any high school reader. Here's a possibility:
Heart of Tedium
by Michael T. Richter
(with material from the International
Telecommunication Union)
The Common Name
attribute type
specifies
an identifier
of
an
object
A Common Name
is not
a directory name
it is a possibly ambiguous
name by which
the object is commonly known
in some limited scope
such
as
an
organization
and conforms
to the
naming conventions
of the country
or culture
with which it is
associated
So, there you have it, people. A simple, yet very effective, mechanism to
generate reams and reams of poetry solely for the benefit of Nik!
Please stay tuned for my next missive: a thrilling game show called "William
Carlos Williams or Post-It Note".
--
"It seems that there are two equal and opposite mistakes one can make
about Star Trek. One is to find in it a worthy ideology - the other to
find in it an ideology worthy of refutation." -- Michael V. Voytinsky
SCK
> Please stay tuned for my next missive: a thrilling game show called "William
> Carlos Williams or Post-It Note".
>
Don't think you can hog all the fame and filthy lucre that is bound to
come from this new-age post-it note poetry. I have just written one
based on a portion of the lease agreement for the cafe. I call it:
Outdoor Fire
by SCK (with material from standard lease-holder agreement)
Any installation
of
a
patio barbecue
requires
written consent
from the Lessor
as
to
its
intended location
and
consent
from
the Municipality of Toronto
The use of the
patio
is to be used
exclusively
should the Lessee
desire
as an additional
serving area for
patrons
of
the
Coffee
Shop
You will now undoubtedly want to buy my book of poetry, where you can
read my even more breathtaking dew drop that I call, "Of Plate Glass and
Fire".
Nikolaus Maack
> I'm sure that everyone in this (and every) newsgroup has asked him- or
> herself the question "what specific steps would I have to take to write
> poetry that Nik would describe as a 'firefly flash of something secret and
> sweet'?"
Whenever you try to tell a joke, I have the strange feeling I'm watching a
man hammer a banana peel into the ground using his forehead.
"Rectal tumour! Get it? GET IT? That's where his BRAIN is! In his
RECTUM! Do you see what I'm saying?"
Presumably because you've never taken a course in literature without
having a seizure -- "That professor tried to tell ME what the truth is!
The fucker! So I dropped his class and never went back! That'll show
him! I know what the truth is, damn it!" -- you're unaware that the form
of a poem is meant to mimick the content. For example:
Richter fell
down the stairs
making
squawks
like a dying
mongoose.
The shape mimicks the stairs, and the motions of falling. This is the
most blatant form of this idea. Slightly less blatant forms look
something like this:
The cat
gingerly
stepped
over the
spilled
flower
pot.
The reason, in this case, the breaks are in the shape that they are, is to
imply the slow moving and careful pace of the cat's paws, seeking a clear
path around the dirt. Again, the breaks are meant to describe movement.
In other cases, the breaks are for the sake of mood, such as in the
William Carlos Williams poem you're showering with your yellow ignorance.
The breaks, in my opinion, imply intimacy, slowness, and even describe the
cold of the plums. That's why the poem amazes me. In such a short space,
Williams describes an icy fruit, an intimacy, and a silence. The form
contributes to the content perfectly. It's simple, but sweet. Like a
freeform haiku.
It is possible to use breaks without contributing anything to the poem.
Some poets are prone to just throwing in breaks to make writing look like
poetry. If the breaks don't add to the subject matter, then they are of
no use. For that matter, any convention -- such as aliteration, rhymes,
punctuation, odd spelling (thru for through), etc -- that doesn't somehow
contribute to the overall effect of the poem, should be torn out at the
roots.
There. Now you know a little more about poetry, and you can walk around
talking about it without sounding like a lout with a chip on your shoulder
so large it can be mistaken for your head.
By the way, I have had to explain this little poetry lesson to MANY people
on the internet who are utterly ignorant on the topic of poetry. Many of
them are teenagers trying to write poetry. Some, like you, are boorish
critics.
Other lessons of mine include:
- why it's important to avoid cliche and stereotypes -- "dead as a
doornail" doesn't evoke anything because it's so common, old, known. "Dead
as Diana" works, partly because it's shocking, partly because it's "new"
and unusual. (Not that new and unusual, mind you.)
- learn to express the complexity of an emotion instead of applying a
simple label, like "sad". Every sorrow, tear, misery, depression is
unique and different, and it's up to the poet to express that. I'm
focussing on these particular emotions because so many teenage poets focus
on their angst, and fail to describe it.
- when to use rhymes and when to avoid them. Thanks to Dr. Seuss and the
like, rhymes have become almost childish and silly. It's difficult to use
them nowdays and maintain any other sort of mood.
- the importance of tying poetry to concrete imagery, instead of writing
words that exist only as intellectual and philosophical notions. "My love
is a flutter with the twinkling of sorrow," doesn't work as well as
describing who is loved, why, describing her, and describing what
interaction brings about the sorrow. Focus on the concrete imagery, and
the reader has a better notion of what the feelings are all about.
- avoid vagueness. Never call a woman simple "she" or a man "he". Never
avoid giving details for the sake of "universality". This trick doesn't
work. Instead of getting the reader to project their own lives into the
poem, you distance them from the text. It's the details that make an
event real. Saying they ate "in a restaurant" tells us nothing. The
reader might fill in the details, but then again, they won't be drawn in
BY the details. Saying they went to a musty and dark room full of
blackened timbers, with black candles stuffed into old arsenic bottles,
where they ate what was supposed to be chicken but looked suspiciously
like rat -- that tells us something.
- the complex "show don't tell" trick. The trick is to know when to show,
and when to tell. Most people make the mistake of simply telling. Others
show every tiny detail, which is equally unncessary. The trick is to show
what's important, and quickly tell what isn't, and knowing WHAT is
important and what isn't.
- know when to throw away the rules.
If you'd like more lessons, just let me know. Frankly, you need them.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Michael T. Richter
It doesn't explain why with simple reformatting "This is Just to Say" is
indistinguishable from a post-it note on a fridge door in outer suburbia.
Interestingly, other WCW poems are far superior. Think "To Waken an Old
Lady", for example. It still has his disposable title problem, but it at
least expresses something non-trivial using poetic devices: specifically
metaphor in this case -- and even two layers of it. Then there's
"Blizzard". Even "Spring Storm", a pretty trite poem of strict reportage,
at least has some descriptive language. "This is Just to Say" has nothing
going for it whatsoever.
SCK
> Richter fell
> down the stairs
> making
> squawks
> like a dying
> mongoose.
>
> The shape mimicks the stairs, and the motions of falling. This is the
> most blatant form of this idea. Slightly less blatant forms look
> something like this:
>
So basically, good poetry is supposed to be like macaroni art? You glue
the macaronis onto the vague shape of a picture and try to use different
types of pasta, like angel hair or linguini or those springy ones, to
show the relief? I get it now, who cares that the picture is bad and is
really just noodles stuck together, it's the integration that counts.
Your poem above would be better if you replaced the word "squawks" with
"fetuccini". I know that it makes less sense that way, but "squawks" has
too few characters in it to really get a good stairway going.
Nikolaus Maack
> It doesn't explain why with simple reformatting "This is Just to Say" is
> indistinguishable from a post-it note on a fridge door in outer suburbia.
Rant? Oh dear. You didn't read it, did you?
You are mistaken, as you usually are on topics that involve thinking
outside of boxes. I quite clearly explained to you why I liked the poem.
I specifically talked about form and how it contributes to a poem, and why
the form that "This is Just to Say" takes is, in my opinion, perfect. The
breaks, which you seem to think of as nothing more than con artistry,
express a great deal.
You just don't get it. A poem can be short, sweet, and trivial. Even
silly. There are no rules in art and poetry. None. There are only
passing fashions and aesthetic theories. I suspect that this, above all
else, is what makes you gnash your teeth and growl into your breakfast
cereal.
If there is one thing that tents your trousers in this world, it's rules.
Because if there are rules, and everyone follows them, you can set your
mind to finding a way to exploit them to your fullest advantage, and thus
triumph. But if everyone else looks at the rules, laughs, and then does
whatever they want, there is no equal footing -- there is chaos, there is
anarchy. Which you seem to think is a bad thing.
(It's not really chaos, of course, but we'll ignore that, for the sake of
convenience.)
Too much chaos is bad -- but so is too much order. I suspect you lean to
the side where all of one's pencils are neatly lined up in measured rows.
A comical aside: speaking of trivial, puffery poetry, I have two more
movie review haikus for you, from some noble contributor.
> "This is Just to Say" has nothing
> going for it whatsoever.
You do tend to express your ill-formed opinions in the most forceful of
ways. I suspect this is because on some level you don't trust your own
ideas. You've concluded that, if you express them with force, there will
be force behind them. But no matter how hard you stab someone with a warm
stick of butter, it's not going to disembowel them. However, if you keep
stabbing a person with butter, they may eventually stop arguing with you,
just to get you to stop.
How about answering a question for me -- how many "true perspectives" are
there, Richter, in this world? I'll give you two hints. There's more
than one, there's more than just yours.
Nikolaus Maack
> So basically, good poetry is supposed to be like macaroni art? You glue
> the macaronis onto the vague shape of a picture and try to use different
> types of pasta, like angel hair or linguini or those springy ones, to
> show the relief?
No. Good poetry is expression, in words, that takes a form that best
expresses its subject matter. If I wanted to describe how you are as
slimey as overcooked pasta, then I would make a portrait of you using
noodles. Or maybe oysters. If I wanted to describe your drunkness, I'd
use bottle tops and cardboard coasters. If I wanted to describe pushing
you off your back deck when you were drunk, I'd use gravity, levity, and
brevity.
Or if I was an artist and I wanted to describe how women are treated like
meat, maybe I'd make a dress out of meat?
Think of that stupid expression, "the medium is the message". In
literature and art, this makes perfect sense. If I want to describe a
tense, terse scene, I'd use short, sharp, stuccato sentences and hard,
crunchy, poppy words. For example, you suck. You know nothing about
poetry. You can't write poetry for shit. If I had shit, and you had a
poem, it would be no trade. Screw you. Why am I bothering? Idiot.
Creep.
If I want to describe a laissez faire attitude towards your frippery, your
teasing, you inability to comprehend poetry, I'd use long, flowing, liquid
words, with long, lazy sentences that drool around the inside of your head
-- your noodle -- like so much pasta sauce. The style captures the
subject matter, delivers the content, becomes the content, feeds you my
lack of caring. A sentence is more than just an envelope for meaning, but
is the meaning, soaks it up like a sponge. A sentence is a sweet,
swirling blur of meaning and mumbling, of sound and substance, that can
crack open your imagination like a punk's head with a crowbar.
Poetry takes these notions and exploits them. A poem is more than just a
short story snipped into rhyme and meter. It takes the very basic
elements of language and uses them at their rawest. Beats with em. Dances.
That's why a pause
a break
the blank space
on the page
is so useful.
It can
be used
to change
the sounds
the words
make
when you read them.
Combine these patterns -- slip, slide, sligher -- with an appropriate
subject matter, and you gots yourself a poem.
A painter can use different lines, different colours, different shades to
create different moods. A musician can use different notes, different
instruments, different rhythms, different beats to express different
emotions. And a poet can use words, spaces, gaps, shapes, staccatoes,
twists and turns and trips, dances and prances, pounds of sounds -- a
million ways to say different things with just words on a page.
Or
(in this case)
a screen.
> I get it now, who cares that the picture is bad and is
> really just noodles stuck together, it's the integration that counts.
How you tie your noodles together is just one minutiae of the meal.
Although angelhair tastes different from bowtie, you still have to slather
the suckers with sauce. Otherwise you've just got bland strands on hand.
Pick a vino, select salad, and maybe then you've got a pretty poem, with
pasta.
JHall
the many who have crossed my path during my journey of scaling the sublime
ridiculing the ridiculous mounting the heights while climbing out from
beneath the layers of the past that have been rewritten if not ignored
I leave the rest to you so that Nik may feel its beauty and appreciate my
journey. Not to mention my love for you.
Great piece of work let me know if you get published. I will pay for a
signed copy and I'll even throw in a signed copy of that fab CD by the
IrrAdIct AmYs.
a,e,i,o,u & sometimes y
Only problem is that it will be sck's copy.
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> I'm sure that everyone in this (and every) newsgroup has asked him- or
> ...
as much as I disliked doing that.
JHall
words I used to suggest that Nik, not you, (but I have now drawn you in)
a reader, is educated, sophisticated and a wordsmith (note the break from
a past tense verbs and the switch to a noun - rule breaking technique) who
enjoys the acedemic to such a degree that maybe he should consider
teacher's college (note to link to the past), obtain a B. Ed., and enter
talking.
As an added treat he may then move to the role of counselor, no that's
for the mafia or lawyers, Nik's role would be councilor. Now he is a
ranking member of the power elite (entry level).
Both the belows posts are great but are snipped nonetheless (Oooooo).
On 7 Jul 2000, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> "Michael T. Richter" (m...@igs.net) writes:
> > ...
> ...
(rarely done).
JHall
I appreciated this post very much, like way cool, learning and laughing,
what a fine way to travel, if only for a short burst.
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, SCK wrote:
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> > Richter fell
> > down the stairs
> > making
> > squawks
> > like a dying
> > mongoose.
> >
> > The shape mimicks the stairs, and the motions of falling. This is the
> > most blatant form of this idea. Slightly less blatant forms look
> > something like this:
> >
>
>
> So basically, good poetry is supposed to be like macaroni art? You glue
> the macaronis onto the vague shape of a picture and try to use different
> types of pasta, like angel hair or linguini or those springy ones, to
> show the relief? I get it now, who cares that the picture is bad and is
> really just noodles stuck together, it's the integration that counts.
>
> Your poem above would be better if you replaced the word "squawks" with
> "fetuccini". I know that it makes less sense that way, but "squawks" has
> too few characters in it to really get a good stairway going.
Of course the fact that I also pictured a dying mongoose making fetuccini
certainly helped. Not mention Andy Warhol. An eye opener and that is
what writing is about. Background helps - still,,, always.
Michael T. Richter
news:8k58l1$btk$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> None of your rant even begins to explain why you like "This is Just
>> to Say". It doesn't explain why with simple reformatting "This is
>> Just to Say" is indistinguishable from a post-it note on a fridge
>> door in outer suburbia.
> Rant? Oh dear. You didn't read it, did you?
Yes I did.
> You are mistaken, as you usually are on topics that involve thinking
> outside of boxes. I quite clearly explained to you why I liked the poem.
No you didn't. You jabbered away about form without explaining *HOW* that
form enhanced *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER*. Perhaps you're not using the same
definition of "explain" that I am?
> I specifically talked about form and how it contributes to a poem,
> and why the form that "This is Just to Say" takes is, in my opinion,
> perfect. The breaks, which you seem to think of as nothing more
> than con artistry, express a great deal.
Good. There's only 12 lines in that post-it poem. Show me what the breaks
express and how. Here's the poem again:
I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold
Show me how the breaks imply intimacy, slowness and cold. Don't just assert
it. *SHOW* it. "Show, don't tell", to quote someone obscure....
> How about answering a question for me -- how many "true perspectives"
> are there, Richter, in this world?
Define a "true perspective" and I'll answer your question.
BlueBug
> ...or is there? This poem that Nik likes so much is formatted quite
> differently from prose.
It also has a quality that goes a little deeper.
From my dictionary:
"A compostition in verse, characterized by the imaginative treatment of
experience and a condensed use of language that is more vivid and intense
than ordinary prose." "Any composition characterized by intensity and
beauty of language or thought."
For example, my favourite poem, by Alden Nowlan:
"When I die,
I'll grow wings
and fly,"
said the caterpillar,
crawling by.
The simple words evoke (in me, anyway) emotion. My guts twist around and
I can feel something that the author (probably) felt.
BlueBug
> Show me how the breaks imply intimacy, slowness and cold. Don't just assert
> it. *SHOW* it. "Show, don't tell", to quote someone obscure....
Grrr. You can't show these things, Mr. Logic. You have to be introduced
to someone named Mr. Emotion. Mr. Emotion grows a beard on one cheek,
shaves the other. Mr. Emotion jumps into bed with you at night and
throttles your throat. He kisses you gently on the neck when you gaze at
a beautiful woman. He tickles your toes when you walk barefoot in the
grass.
No one can *SHOW* you love. No one can *show* you comtempt, nor give you
happy to hold in your hand. You must *feel* these things. Poetry is felt
inside -- it resonates some biological structure within our brains. Poems
are a mortal attempt to make visible the invisible.
Don't scan poems quickly in front of your computer. Read them out loud,
playing the words with your tongue. Breathe deep and feel your breath
resonate inside of you. Now how do you feel?
BlueBug
> "When I die,
> I'll grow wings
> and fly.
Don't grin,"
> said the caterpillar
> crawling by.
JHall
> ...
> Don't scan poems quickly in front of your computer. Read them out loud,
> playing the words with your tongue. Breathe deep and feel your breath
> resonate inside of you. Now how do you feel?
Dizzy, light-headed and ready to dance.
Nikolaus Maack
> form enhanced *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER*. Perhaps you're not using the same
> definition of "explain" that I am?
I tend to agree with Michelle about this.
"Show me the subjective experience you have in a manner which I,
subjectively, can understand it."
Shit man, I've been trying to do that for years -- with every piece of
writing I type, with every piece of art I slop together. I haven't been
successful so far, as far as I can tell. How the hell am I supposed to do
it now?
> I have eaten
> the plums
> that were in
> the icebox
>
> and which
> you were probably
> saving
> for breakfast
>
> Forgive me
> they were delicious
> so sweet
> and so cold
>
> Show me how the breaks imply intimacy, slowness and cold. Don't just assert
> it. *SHOW* it. "Show, don't tell", to quote someone obscure....
*sigh* Why do I feel like I'm teaching a chimp sign-language? It also
feels suspiciously like explaining a joke to somebody who just doesn't get
it. Maybe I'm explaining a joke to a chimp using sign language. I know I
can explain it, but to what end?
First off, I should mention that this is a poem that is often
anthologized. I'm not the only one who reads this and FEELS something.
This is important to stress, just in case you think I'm making all
of this up.
Okay, the easy one is slowness.
If I take
these words
and break them...
Your mind is forced to pause for a beat at the end of each line, as it
readjusts and moves to the next line. Like an invisible period or comma,
you pause. You read the poem slower. So a sense of stillness is created.
This makes
you read
the text
more slowly
... than you would if it were all strung together in one sentence.
The effect, in this poem, is increased through paragraphing, forcing you
to go even slower.
> I have eaten
> the plums
> that were in
> the icebox
>
> and which
> you were probably
> saving
> for breakfast
These two stanzas could be one single sentence. The gap between ICEBOX
and AND makes you read even slower. You have to make a leap from ICEBOX
to AND -- and while making that leap, time is momentarily frozen. That's
the purpose of space, in a poem.
Also, the awkward phrasing drags you down slower still.
"I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably
saving for breakfast."
"and which you were probably", in this case, is quite a stumbling block in
clarity. But in the context of the poem, it makes sense. It drags time
down. It forces us to read slowly.
> Forgive me
> they were delicious
> so sweet
> and so cold
This final stanza could be three separate sentences.
Forgive me.
They were delicious.
So weet and so cold.
By blurring the last three sentences together, the reader has to think
their way through. "Oh, this is a new sentence, not the same sentence,
like in the last two stanzas.
"Forgive me they were..."
The connection between ME and THEY doesn't make sense. Ah, it's a new
idea. We pause to figure it out, again, slowing us down. This effect is
emphasized by the first two stanzas, which were read as though they were
one long sentence. We come to expect things to flow in that natural,
sentence manner, because that's what we read in the first two stanzas.
The third stanza behaves differently, confounding expectation. Again, a
stumbling block, and again, we're slowed down.
One last thing emphasizes the slowness all the more. The final stanza
begins with a capital letter. Why? The second one didn't.
"...for breakfast
Forgive me..."
That capital "F" is yet another way to make the reader pause. What the
hell? It's a new sentence. Why didn't the last one end in a period? All
of these thoughts happen so quickly we hardly notice them, but they are
there, making us read more slowly.
All of this, in my mind, clearly slows down the poem, forcing the
attentive reader to take things much more slowly than they ordinarily
would.
To me, the slow moving, broken way this poem is written emphasizes
coldness by its almost "teeth chattering" way it is written. Read it out
loud -- or in your head -- over-emphasizing the pause at the end of each
line, and you can feel that chatter.
Of course, the imagery contributes to the cold -- "in the icebox", "the
plums", "so cold", and even it being breakfast time (ie. early morning).
> I have eaten
> the plums
> that were in
> the icebox
>
> and which
> you were probably
> saving
> for breakfast
>
> Forgive me
> they were delicious
> so sweet
> and so cold
To me, the sense of intimacy comes from the very subject matter as well as
the form. This poem is clearly a note left for someone. "Yo, Bill! I
ate your plums. Sorry about that." We have stumbled across this in our
travels. We aren't supposed to be reading it. We're invading someone
else's space. Intimacy.
What time is it, when the note is found? Breakfast time. Someone wrote
this note while we were asleep. We just woke up and found it. All of
this adds to the sense of privacy and intimacy in the note.
As for form and intimacy, the slowness, to me, feels intimate. It's a
long, drawn out, private moment. We find the note in the kitchen, it's
early in the morning. It's cold. Time is elongated. Stretched. We read
it through, slowly...
When we are with a loved one, time runs slower. To use a cliche, time
stands still. So as the poem slows things down in the way I described, it
builds that sense of intimacy. This chilled plum can last forever.
Also, it is overly romantic in the way it speaks. Do we really need to
say "Forgive me" if we eat somebody's plums? It's a romantic notion. It
emphasizes the romance of the cold plums.
I could not resist them, they were perfect and cold and wonderful, and I
could not escape their drawing power. You must understand this and
forgive me, because such a temptation cannot be resisted.
This is not the kind of note we leave for a roommate. We ask forgiveness
from lovers and people who matter. Again, more intimacy.
All of what I've described create a sense of intimacy, cold (physical, not
emotional), slowness, and stillness. What looks like a simple little poem
actually has many complicated features that force you to read it slowly,
to spend time with it, to feel that intimate moment.
Does this clear anything up?
>> How about answering a question for me -- how many "true perspectives"
>> are there, Richter, in this world?
>
> Define a "true perspective" and I'll answer your question.
Well, I often feel that you talk as though there is only one truth --
yours. Do you believe this to be the case? Are you so unwilling to
entertain the notion that another person can also possess the "truth",
even if you disagree with it?
I think two people in an argument, who seem to be polar opposites, can
both be right, simply because they're approaching a question from
different angles.
You seem to always state your opinions as facts, and use your tone of
voice to bully other truths out of your way. I don't think you do this
out of malice, or even out of ignorance. I think you expect other
"truths" to fight for airtime. If it were true, people would fight for
it, slap you with it, duel with you. Many of us don't enjoy the battle,
and just let you win so you'll stop arguing.
How many times, do you suppose, you've missed hearing what someone else
had to say, simply because you were so loudly arguing the validity of your
own position?
John Angus
SCK
> No. Good poetry is expression, in words, that takes a form that best
> expresses its subject matter. If I wanted to describe how you are as
> slimey as overcooked pasta, then I would make a portrait of you using
It seems to me if you are going to use the physical arrangement of the
language to convey an image it is an admission that you are too
untalented to do it using the language itself.
> Or if I was an artist and I wanted to describe how women are treated like
> meat, maybe I'd make a dress out of meat?
>
> Think of that stupid expression, "the medium is the message". In
> literature and art, this makes perfect sense.
It doesn't make sense to me unless you think art is wholly ideology.
Art, whether it is good or bad is something which is reproducible only
by the artist. Art has a balance between the statement of it and the
stylistic way it is created. The talent is both in having a good idea,
and in the talent to create it well.
The meat dress only has one of these aspects. Once you have the idea,
pretty much anyone except a multiple war amputee can create a meat dress
and achieve its intended message. The balance is so far skewed towards
the statement side that it renders the style irrelevant. As far as the
meat dress parallel the art world, it is at best an "essay in
non-traditional format".
> That's why a pause
> a break
> the blank space
> on the page
> is so useful.
>
I think there's one thing you may not have considered when you state
that breaking poems into pieces like this is meant to slow the reader
down deliberately: the individual reading it. Slashing up the poem may
work on you, but it doesn't work on anyone who has been driving for more
than a few years and has come into the habit of reading obscure road
signage quickly. I can read five lines that are vaguely in the shape of
an octogon in two seconds, I absorb it all at once, and maybe Richter
does this too (even though I imagine him having a shitty car).
"Beware
of falling
rocks"
"7% grade is
slippery
when
wet"
"Watch for
X
crossing
X
iguanas"
Are these poems?
So maybe some forms of poetry are killed for people who drive cars and
have developed certain skills that defeat the intent of their form.
Still, I think this isn't a problem with the reader's short-comings, but
the writer's lazy reliance on cheap gimmickry to mask his inability to
achieve the pauses through literary skill.
Anyway, if you think achieving the pauses in a poem is the important
part, then it must not really matter how those pauses are achieved as
long as they are there during the reading, is that right? What if I
write the same poem as William Carlos Williams, all in one sentence,
except at the desired "slow down point" where Williams' breaks the line,
I hit you on the head and break your concentration? Is this an equally
valid tool in poetry since the effect will be the same?
"I have eaten (whap) the plums (smack) that were in (whomp)..."
Nikolaus Maack
> It seems to me if you are going to use the physical arrangement of the
> language to convey an image it is an admission that you are too
> untalented to do it using the language itself.
That's like saying that an artist who uses black and white is too
chickenshit to risk using colours. A poet, writer, painter, should use
whatever tools they have in front of them, whatever tools please them, and
every other day hunt down weird tools and tricks they've never tried
before and test them out.
If positioning words on the page does something for you, by all means do
it. If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. (If you REALLY hate it,
don't even read it.) Don't make the mistake of assuming what works for you
will work for everyone else, and that what does't work for you can't work
for anyone else.
> Art, whether it is good or bad is something which is reproducible only
> by the artist.
I disagree. Art can, literally, be anything. If I snap a photograph of a
man getting shot in the head, execution style, in the middle of a war --
is it news or art or both? Crime scene photos, hung in the context of an
art gallery or the wall in my home, instantly become ART. If I pick up an
egg-timer -- there's one on the desk in front of me -- and call it art, it
instantly becomes art. If I go outside dressed as a chicken and hand out
eggs to passersby, it's art. Literally ANYTHING can be called art. My
bowel movements, the sound of my fingers scratching my ankle, tattoos,
cracks in the sidewalk... Life is art.
The real question that people constantly toss around, without really
defining it, is "what makes art of VALUE to me?" There are an almost
infinite number of theories as to what makes art valuable -- value in the
sense of finance and aesthetics.
- it is unique. Only the artist could make it.
- it is mass produced, readilly accessable, and everyone likes it.
- it expresses an emotional experience.
- it questions an emotional experience.
- it makes a statement.
- it mocks a statement.
- it is contraversial.
- it supports the status quo.
- it is beautiful.
- it is ugly.
- it is ironic.
- it is simple.
- it is complicated.
And on and on. What makes art valueable changes over time, and is
different from culture to culture. Or, on a personal level, the value of
an artwork can change as your mood changes. Today, you're depressed, so
you listen to Nine Inch Nails. Tomorrow, you're happy, so you like the
stylings of new age music. Maybe one day you're so happy, you can't
understand why you ever liked Nine Inch Nails in the first place.
There are even different aesthetics within a culture. Right now, for
example, "folk art" is really big in the art scene. In the mass culture
of old ladies, commemorative plates are losing their appeal and dolls have
more pull. Among teenagers, tagging is still big, but more and more
taggers are starting to do faces and recognizable drawings instead of just
scrawling their signatures.
If you go into rec.arts.fine, the debate over "What is art?" rages
endlessly. It's, in the end, an unaswerable question. Reframing it as
"What gives art value to me?" changes the focus to where it belongs, to
where the debate inevitably ends up taking place anyway -- what does a
piece of art have to be in order for you, personally, to like it?
> The meat dress only has one of these aspects. Once you have the idea,
> pretty much anyone except a multiple war amputee can create a meat dress
> and achieve its intended message. The balance is so far skewed towards
> the statement side that it renders the style irrelevant. As far as the
> meat dress parallel the art world, it is at best an "essay in
> non-traditional format".
Having never tried to stitch pieces of meat together, I'm not so sure this
is a job that can be done by just about anyone. It's probably tougher
than it looks. Also, you seem to be implying in the above that an
"essay", even a non-traditional one, isn't art. Why is that?
> I think there's one thing you may not have considered when you state
> that breaking poems into pieces like this is meant to slow the reader
> down deliberately: the individual reading it. Slashing up the poem may
> work on you, but it doesn't work on anyone who has been driving for more
> than a few years and has come into the habit of reading obscure road
> signage quickly.
Everyone is different. However, I think expectation plays a part. We
English readers expect to read text in neat lines, from left to right,
across the pages of a book. Even if you're used to reading:
WARNING!
Nun crossing ahead
Break For Penguins
...you still have certain expectations when faced with a text in a book.
But sure, I'm willing to grant you that maybe because you read road signs,
you read the text faster than normal. It's possible.
[street signs]
> Are these poems?
Any text can be a poem. Are these poems of value?
> Still, I think this isn't a problem with the reader's short-comings, but
> the writer's lazy reliance on cheap gimmickry to mask his inability to
> achieve the pauses through literary skill.
Well, one of the tricks of poetry is condensing things into a small space.
Whatever works well is, inevitably, a "trick" or a "gimmick".
An impressionist painter takes a face and reduces it to a few lines and
coloured blobs. It's still a recognizable face, but it's a sloppy,
expressive approximation of the "real thing". Is that a "gimmick"?
Shouldn't they be forced to reproduce the face realistically?
Almost all representational art removes something from the world in order
to make it more "pure". Classic example -- dialogue in a book.
"Well, uh, cough, uh, yes, I see... See what you... Yeah, I get it, but,
uh, why did... Why'd you do the... Um, why was it done in that, that
particular, you know, style?"
A writer, unless they're aiming for this particular form, hacks all the
extra hems and haws out, giving us something shorter and more "pure".
"I see, but, uh, why was it done in that particular style?" he asked
hesitantly.
Cleaning up language is as much a "gimmick" as using breaks to make
pauses, or blotches of colour to catch the shape of a face.
> Anyway, if you think achieving the pauses in a poem is the important
> part, then it must not really matter how those pauses are achieved as
> long as they are there during the reading, is that right?
Making pauses is just one particular "gimmick" that can be used by a poet.
It's only important if it's used in a particularly useful way in a
particular poem. If you wanted to make pauses in some other way, sure,
that works. But it depends on the style of the poem.
How about:
The leaf (fell)
slowly (down)
from the branch
to the (ground).
Brackets are used to seperate asides from the main text. Does the above
slow the poem down for you?
If you wanted to write about falling off a building, plummeting towards
the ground, you probably wouldn't want to use pauses. Instead, you'd try
to write everything in a style that speeds everything up to an insane
pace. Eliminate all punctuation and slur some text together.
Omigod I just fell off the building and theres the ground below me so
close so close and soon Im gonna be ded-ded-ded splat-crunch-pop and I
member a story in the paper about a guy who fell off a house onto a white
picket fence and now Im the guy falling and its not quite so funny anymore
and here comes the ground-ground-ground! CRUNCH!
Whatever particular "gimmick" helps capture the mood you're aiming for is
worth while.
> What if I
> write the same poem as William Carlos Williams, all in one sentence,
> except at the desired "slow down point" where Williams' breaks the line,
> I hit you on the head and break your concentration? Is this an equally
> valid tool in poetry since the effect will be the same?
>
> "I have eaten (whap) the plums (smack) that were in (whomp)..."
This kind of takes the serene quality out of the poem, but do whatever
works for you. Assuming you can find a willing participant for this
experiment.
sinister
> Think of that stupid expression, "the medium is the message". In literature
> and art, this makes perfect sense.
no, it doesn't. by definition, a medium is a carrier of a message. when
mcluhan made this statement, he was making a statement about understanding the
implied *power* and impact of a medium (particularly advanced technology based
communication media).
this phrase is commonly misunderstood (because it's used outside of the
intended context) and misapplied to the point that it has become a joke or
cliché
literature is a medium. literature, itself, is not a message. what is
conveyed *by* literature are messages. it's the same for art. granite is a
medium, a sculpture is a message.
since you've been going on about how lazy you are, it make some sort of
perverse sense that you'd be one of those who misunderstood the expression. do
you realize that by continuing along this lazy path you are doing more to
devalue the very things you claim to hold dear? this applies both to the
creator (artist) as well as those who patron (read, buy, observe, et cetera).
massive amounts of poorly executed art only serves to obscure that which is
actually worthwhile. it diminishes the impact the worthwhile would have had on
the population while promoting the bland and the banal as something it is not.
/sin.
Nikolaus Maack
> literature is a medium. literature, itself, is not a message. what is
> conveyed *by* literature are messages. it's the same for art. granite is a
> medium, a sculpture is a message.
I humbly disagree. By choosing to convey a message in high falluntin'
literature, as opposed to say mass produced best seller paperbacks, the
writer shapes their message differently. By choosing to sculpt in granite
-- instead of, say, soapstone or margarine or fecal matter -- the artist
shapes the message a certain way. Art is the perfect form for describing
this idea, the medium is the message.
As I understand it, McLuhan originally intended this statement to express
the notion that television is limited in what it presents because of the
way it is formatted. The same would obviously hold true for other "media"
formats -- sculptures, novels, paintings, poetry, radio, film, speech,
mime, semiphore, etc.
You've just limited the scope of the statement to technological systems,
ignoring the various art media, which is very silly of you. Bad, bad
intellectual.
>since you've been going on about how lazy you are, it make some sort of
>perverse sense that you'd be one of those who misunderstood the expression.
Seeing as how I disagree, and would argue that it's you that's
misunderstood, I wonder what this says about laziness? Perhaps by being
indolent and lax I gain access to more truths than you do, even as you run
about, being productive and useful.
SCK
> That's like saying that an artist who uses black and white is too
> chickenshit to risk using colours. A poet, writer, painter, should use
Not really. Painting is about visual images, which contain colours, any
colours. A correct analogy in the painting world for writing poems in
the shame of their subject matter is writing the word "rock" on a
painting of something that's supposed to be a rock, then expecting any
viewers to forgive the fact that your painting doesn't look anything
like any kind of rock they've ever seen.
> whatever tools they have in front of them, whatever tools please them, and
> every other day hunt down weird tools and tricks they've never tried
> before and test them out.
Why do you think that the creation of art is about whatever pleases the
artist? To me, that's just self-satifying playing, like kids making
mudpies.
We differ on these subjects because you go on to describe art as
"anything". To you, it basically is happily sitting there and making a
mud pie. The quality isn't so much in the finished pie, but the quality
of your enjoyment as you made it. I think the reason for this is because
to you, art is about yourself and your emotions, and you want to unleash
them all on your canvas on your paper or your macaroni page. Creating
art to you is more about the process than about the product. It is
ultimately about expressing yourself and that's it.
You rephrase the question of what is art to "What gives art value to
me?", but I don't acknowledge the validity of that question. What has
value *to you* really only says something about you, and says nothing
about any intrinsic value to the art. I strike out the 'to me' and only
ask, "What gives art (absolute) value?"
When I try to decide what art has value, I ignore me and I try to
imagine the symbol of a perfect man. Man as he was meant to be, wise,
creative, happy, moral, great, like some amalgamation of Michelangelo's
David and Rodin's Thinker and the hero from adventure movies who kills
himself in order to save the planet from an asteroid. Individual man as
he would be if the world were perfect. Then I try to imagine what this
man would think of this art and I wonder if he would appreciate it,
think it is trivial, or weep at its feet.
Whether I *like* the art is secondary to whether it is *good art* to the
symbol of Ideal Man. The only useful purpose of whether I like the art
is as a statement about myself, and how my tastes do and don't overlap
with those of Ideal Man.
To this end, I am capable of being in two minds: I can recognize what
art would have value to Ideal Man, but has little value to me, and thus
I achieve the only thing art in all of history has ever been able to do
for anyone, to show us, if we are willing, our own imperfections.
sinister
> By choosing to sculpt in granite -- instead of, say, soapstone or margarine or
> fecal matter -- the artist shapes the message a certain way.
of course. although, your margarine, soapstone, or fecal matter is nothing more
than a medium. each type has its own limitations, advantages, et cetera. fecal
matter on the sidewalk conveys the same base reaction as a sculpture of mike
harris in fecal matter. the latter, though, provides a message along with the
base reaction. in this case, the artist has taken advantage of something that is
inherent in the medium to promote his message.
> Art is the perfect form for describing this idea, the medium is the message.
this is nonsense, nik. art is a physical representation of an idea and is used
to transmit a message. by misapplying mcluhan's statement, you reduce any
shaping of the medium (this is called modulation, by the way) to being
meaningless as, by your words, the message was the medium. applied to my
example above, the mike harris statuette would convey no additional information
(or meaning) than the fecal matter on the sidewalk. the shaping is wasted
effort.
> As I understand it, McLuhan originally intended this statement to express the
> notion that television is limited in what it presents because of the way it is
> formatted.
no. the limitations of television are it's own. the same goes for paper,
voice, flags, in fact all media. mcluhan was trying to enlighten anyone paying
attention that television (or other modern technology based communications)
contains a "message" (lesson) because its *impact* is more widespread and
far-reaching than traditional types and we need to be aware of this.
> You've just limited the scope of the statement to technological systems,
> ignoring the various art media, which is very silly of you.
I did no such thing. perhaps, you were too lazy and didn't follow the analogy
properly? I did say that literature and granite are media, the contents of the
book and the sculpture are messages. in both cases, the message was the shaping
of the media. I even re-iterated this same argument again, above.
when applied to technological systems, the technology (television et al) is the
medium and the modulation (t.v. programmes) contains messages.
now, a comparison of media results in information (their differences, suitability
for ideas, et cetera) through an analysis of their respective impacts (which, by
the way, is a function of their "limitations"). the examination of this
information is certainly contains a message.
> Perhaps by being indolent and lax I gain access to more truths than you do,
> even as you run about, being productive and useful.
I have never claimed to be productive or useful. I think you should think about
how being indolent and lax can, in any way, enlighten you to anything more than a
random (and likely infrequent) occurrence of a truth. do these "truths" just pop
in to your head because you aren't using your brain for anything else? is it
some sort of osmosis thing?
being indolent will rob you of any contributions (good or bad) that others have
made because you won't look for them or take the time to understand them. being
lax will rob you of any passion you might feel toward an idea, concept, or
thing. indolence combined with laxness approaches entropy. you might as well be
dead.
/sin.
Nikolaus Maack
> Not really. Painting is about visual images, which contain colours, any
> colours. A correct analogy in the painting world for writing poems in
> the shame of their subject matter is writing the word "rock" on a
> painting of something that's supposed to be a rock, then expecting any
> viewers to forgive the fact that your painting doesn't look anything
> like any kind of rock they've ever seen.
I disagree with you, but I don't have a problem with a painter who writes
ROCK instead of painting a rock. That might work, if done in an
interesting way.
> Why do you think that the creation of art is about whatever pleases the
> artist? To me, that's just self-satifying playing, like kids making
> mudpies.
I don't see it that way, exactly. Anything can be art. I as an artist --
or you as an artist, or ANYONE as an artist -- can declare a thing to be
art. Presumably, when I do so, I am saying:
"This object/perfomance I have created/found is a piece of artwork that
has value to me. Tah dah!"
(This assumes that I'm not some kind of con artist out to make a quick
buck with an all blue canvas. That's a whole other bowl of chicken soup.)
Hopefully there is some kind of overlap between my values, and the world's
values in regards to art. It would be nice if people looked at my L. Ron
Hubbard portrait and said, "Yes, this is art that has value to me."
If not, I've declared something to be art than no one else could care less
about. It's still art, but it only has value to me. It will therefore
hang on my wall, and maybe give me some comfort, but no one else will
care.
Consider, for example, the teenager rife with angst who writes a poem
about how utterly depressed they are. To them, personally, this might be
a masterpiece, and it helps them with all the pain they are going through.
To the rest of the world, it's shit, because we've seen these angst poems
over and over again, and who cares about another one?
Maybe other angst riddled teenagers will get something out of it. They'll
praise it up and down. It captures exactly what they feel. Again, to
this select group, this is great art. To me, and probably you, it's still
shit.
By the way, I do not see the artist as in any particularly special
position. The only difference between an artist and someone who isn't an
artist is that one of them has declared themselves to be an artist.
Usually it's the artist.
Anyone can make art and express something. If making art and the art
itself has value to that individual, great. If they want it to have value
for the rest of the world, that might be a problem if all they do is
pictures of coyotes run over by steamrollers. They might have to expand
their scope. On the other hand, they might not. Maybe a new fashion will
spring up, and dead coyote paintings will be all the rage.
> I think the reason for this is because
> to you, art is about yourself and your emotions, and you want to unleash
> them all on your canvas on your paper or your macaroni page. Creating
> art to you is more about the process than about the product. It is
> ultimately about expressing yourself and that's it.
Not entirely. I have done comissioned work. To me, I want to capture the
life in a face by "clownifying" it. Lots of colours, lots of life, lots
of OOMPH. I try to paint the way life SHOULD look. This is both my
vision, but it's also a vision I hope to share with others. It's not just
for me. I do anticipate, on some level, the values of the world.
> You rephrase the question of what is art to "What gives art value to
> me?", but I don't acknowledge the validity of that question. What has
> value *to you* really only says something about you, and says nothing
> about any intrinsic value to the art. I strike out the 'to me' and only
> ask, "What gives art (absolute) value?"
I don't think it's possible to strike yourself out of the equation.
There's no such thing as pure objectivity. For example, you go on to say
"I try to imagine the symbol of a perfect man". Well, why the perfect
man? What made you choose a "man" and not a woman or a goldfish or a tree
or a sewer grating or a square or a line or a single point in space?
Making that choice reflects personal bias.
And then, what kind of man would you choose to represent this perfect
ideal? Some would say a stick figure would catch all that's necessary.
Others would say Michaelangelo's David does the trick. Or maybe one of
Giocametti's sculptures, where the man is a long, skinny, spaghetti shaped
ghost of chalk.
Despite what Plato told you, there is more than one perfect man. To
imagine what would be the perfect one is still YOUR quest for the perfect
man. Maybe your perfect man would overlap with other people's quest for
the perfect man, maybe not. And maybe some cultures would ask, "Who cares
what the perfect man looks like?"
> To this end, I am capable of being in two minds: I can recognize what
> art would have value to Ideal Man, but has little value to me
I can imagine what I think other people might like, but in the end, this
is my perception of people around me, and me projecting my values on to
them. I tend to think of people as fairly stupid, and I think their ideal
man would probably be Martin Lawrence, the star of "Big Momma's House".
This isn't really fair. Lots of people think Lawrence is an idiot. In
the end, I have to HOPE they would make the right choice and come to the
conclusion that the ideal portrait of a man, that captures the pure
essence of man-ness, is my portrait of L. Ron Hubbard.
Nikolaus Maack
> this is nonsense, nik. art is a physical representation of an idea and
> is used to transmit a message.
Post-modern theory disagrees with you. An artist can intend for there to
be a message, but in the end, the artist only shapes a piece of paper, or
clay, and then attempts to "broadcast" it. If there was an intended
message, it hardly ever comes across intact. People bring their own sense
of meaning to the artwork. Their notions of "paintingness" clouds over
any intended message put there by the artist.
To say that a painter (me) is broadcasting in a particular medium (my
paintings) is close to the notion that a television system (medium) has
individual TV shows (modulations, as you call it) that attempt to
broadcast a message.
In both circumstances, each medium has an inherent message. What does the
mere notion of a painting, stripped of content, say about blank walls,
aesthetics, and the way people think? See, what I am arguing is that the
very notion of PAINTINGS has, in itself, a message, before an artist so
much as touches it. It comes with principles and values and ideas.
Just like McLuhan was saying television has a message before it broadcasts
a TV show?
>the limitations of television are it's own. the same goes for paper,
>voice, flags, in fact all media. mcluhan was trying to enlighten anyone
>paying attention that television (or other modern technology based
>communications) contains a "message" (lesson) because its *impact* is
>more widespread and far-reaching than traditional types and we need to be
>aware of this.
And you are arguing that "paintings" or "poetry" or "prose" don't contain
a lesson of their own?
Andrew Nellis was recently giving me a hard time because I watch TV. He
doesn't. So he was telling me, Nik, stop watching, because it's
programming your brain. It's teaching you something, forcing you to
digest information in a certain way.
I thought about this for a week or two. The next time I saw Andrew, I
said, hey, Andrew, stop reading science fiction novels. Why? For the
same reason you told me to stop watching TV. They're programming you to
think and process information in a certain way.
All mediums contain particular messages simply based on the way a viewer
consumes them. Ideally, we should consume a number of different mediums,
so that we learn to "ingest information" in a variety of ways.
This probably goes a long way from whatever the hell you're trying to say
Mcluhan was saying. Oh well.
> I did no such thing. perhaps, you were too lazy and didn't follow the
> analogy properly?
Or perhaps your love for Mcluhan is getting in the way of your
understanding what it is I am trying to say? I suppose if you used a
Freudian notion to describe some thought, I might want to tear a piece out
of your ass -- but that doesn't mean whatever you were trying to say has
no value.
> being indolent will rob you of any contributions (good or bad) that
>others have made because you won't look for them or take the time to
>understand them.
I do actually read books and think. I even research topics that interest
me. If I have used the phrase "the medium is the message" in a way that
offends you, I am genuinely sorry. It was not my intention to cause you
pain, or even irritation, or even heartburn.
I was using the phrase to explain the notion that the FORM of a poem (the
medium, in my usage of the word) should reflect the CONTENT (message) of
the poem. That is, using rhyme, meter, aliteration, etc should not be
arbitrary, but be used in such a way as to add to the expression. If this
is so absolutely alien to the intentions of Mcluhan, and it pisses you off
because you studied communications or something, I am very, very sorry.
> you might as well be dead.
Perhaps I already am, this is hell, and you are my personal demon sent to
torment me?
JHall
Being art is an art form, non ?
I believe it is. Bland is different from wild primarily because of the
energy factor. Many believe bland is always low-key. Not so many, many
people put much effort into being bland.
Thus bland is their art form. The way they wished to be viewed or maybe
more than wish. It is. What I don't understand is how so many people
put so much into so little.
Wooow, that is my view & no-one else's - another art form.
Art is expression, thus would not any expression be art ? Why art is life
and life is art.
So we have art
&
form
&
expression
we have a relationship.
A relationship that everyone relates to different. Is it art that
separates one from the other ? It ain't the colour of one's shoes.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, sinister wrote:
> ...
>
> no, it doesn't. by definition, a medium is a carrier of a message. when
> mcluhan made this statement, he was making a statement about understanding
> the implied *power* and impact of a medium (particularly advanced
> technology based communication media).
Finally, and I mean finally I have heard another human bean, and I mean
heard, write what I have felt (that would be believe but that would make
me a stranger in a strange land where one is always standing in the
shadows) about Marshall's Message.
Marshall was using the art form of literature to imply (thru his message)
all about power and the how & whys were not as important.
The truth of Marshall's assertion and sin's comment lies in R. Murdoch.
This my viewpoint which may be agrued forever (both my viewpoint &
forever just may be forever).
Murdoch buys everything media-related, everything. He buys not to improve
anything but his power. Yes, it is that simple. All one has to do is
strip the art down. Pull back what the eyes see and starting reaching
past what the heart desires (all deals are done to improve the lot of
the majority) to what the heart feels. One's intelligence plays a role
but the mind only sees what the heart feels and thus was born "go with
your heart, baby go with your heart".
My Dad feels that men like Murdoch are necessary. Must be something to do
with order and change. Wait maybe Murdoch has his hand's on my Dad's
pension. OoooooooO.
>
this phrase is commonly misunderstood (because it's used outside of the
> intended context) and misapplied to the point that it has become a joke or
> cliché
And used too much by too many who have never read a word written by good
old Marshall 0 note to readers I have a couple of 1st eds, one very
difficult to obtain for sale. Lending is possible but there are 2 rules.
Hey they are my books - 1. the books must be returned in the exact same
condition as they were when borrowed or you lose both your deposits and
the lending fees by females who are into shoe fetishes, 2. there is a
deposit (= to the cost of the book) and a lending fee - $3.00/24 hours,
you have the book now read it.
> ...
>
> literature is a medium. literature, itself, is not a message. what is
> conveyed *by* literature are messages. it's the same for art. granite is a
> medium, a sculpture is a message.
Good, good points. Many will jump at the opportunity to write that they
view the different types of granite as a message. They are right but
what is transpiring is a type of stripping down of the art. Getting,
attempting to get even closer to the essence of the meaning.
TV ads are great, well not all of them, but enough. I quite like the
duck doing the aflac number. The duck played Howard did he not ? Howard
as in American Graf. And herding cats makes me feel lonely, dry and
dirty.
But so many carry so many messages and the media provides the eyes and
ears with a desire to find meanings. The tampo on ad, shown anytime
^
\___/
between 8:00 to 11:00 pm on any type of show every night of the week is
an fair example to use. The message is clear, concise and correct. The
media adds delightfully while carrying the message(s). So when the ad
reaches the point where the young female uses elevation to ensure that
we see for ourselves that it does indeed work. Makes me dream of
watching strippers work with a chair or 2.
It is only a commercial and the young female is not even in the throngs
of a thong so how the hell is this whole act real ? The only thing the
young female was in was the shower before entering stage left for the
shoot. Is the crotch-shot necessary or is the message all about power ?
Who cares, non ? I don't even use tampo ons, and if I did I would not
use that brand.
> since you've been going on about how lazy you are, it make some sort of
> perverse sense that you'd be one of those who misunderstood the
> expression. do
> you realize that by continuing along this lazy path you are doing more to
> devalue the very things you claim to hold dear? this applies both to the
> creator (artist) as well as those who patron (read, buy, observe, et cetera).
> massive amounts of poorly executed art only serves to obscure that which is
> actually worthwhile. it diminishes the impact the worthwhile would
> have had on
> the population while promoting the bland and the banal as something it is not.
>
> /sin.
Helps make my coins more of a stable collectible and no they are not for
loan. You may purchase them at (face + real value in the year it was
minted + desirability factor + handling (or not in the case of coins).
This is my message and this is the media or medium depending on how you
like & appreciate your art forms.
Geoffrey Dow
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> > No. Good poetry is expression, in words, that takes a form that best
> > expresses its subject matter. If I wanted to describe how you are as
> > slimey as overcooked pasta, then I would make a portrait of you using
>
> language to convey an image it is an admission that you are too
> untalented to do it using the language itself.
It seems to me your denial of the possibility that the physical
arrangement of words on a page or screen does not influence how
the words are read is proves you to be either disengenuous or
dead to learning. As a writer who has often played with such
things (timing, rhythm, choice of words - why *not* spacing?
For that matter, do you also despite punctuation?), your
protestation is simply ridiculous.
> > That's why a pause
> > a break
> > the blank space
> > on the page
> > is so useful.
> I think there's one thing you may not have considered when you state
> that breaking poems into pieces like this is meant to slow the reader
> down deliberately: the individual reading it. Slashing up the poem may
> work on you, but it doesn't work on anyone who has been driving for more
> than a few years and has come into the habit of reading obscure road
> signage quickly. I can read five lines that are vaguely in the shape of
> an octogon in two seconds, I absorb it all at once, and maybe Richter
> does this too (even though I imagine him having a shitty car).
Perhaps Nik should have added (though I thought it implicit):
is so useful
to
the diligent
reader.
If you read a work of literature as you do a road-sign you will
of course miss any and all subtleties. No wonder you believe
the works of Ayn Rand have literary and philosophical depth.
Geoffrey Dow
>
> SCK (s...@igs.net) writes:
> > It seems to me if you are going to use the physical arrangement of the
> > language to convey an image it is an admission that you are too
> > untalented to do it using the language itself.
>
> That's like saying that an artist who uses black and white is too
> chickenshit to risk using colours.
It's more like saying that a painter who uses colours does not
have the skill to express himself in black and white.
Nikolaus Maack
>> That's like saying that an artist who uses black and white is too
>> chickenshit to risk using colours.
>
> have the skill to express himself in black and white.
You're so right, Geoffrey. My mistake. Your way works much better.
Potential poetry material:
I went chasing fireflies tonight. It was too cold and they were all
asleep. I found one lying on the bicycle path. He farted out a cold
little light at nobody. I got out my jar, scooped him up, and biked him
home. He hates me, inside his jar. He climbs the walls, ignores the
grapes I gave him, and actively hates me. I can see it in each antenna
twitch.
All this to show a firefly to a little boy too lazy to go out into the
woods with me at night.
JHall
interesting, point - counterpoint and of course interpertation.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, sinister wrote:
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> ...
JHall
On 10 Jul 2000, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> ...
> the end, I have to HOPE they would make the right choice and come to the
> conclusion that the ideal portrait of a man, that captures the pure
> essence of man-ness, is my portrait of L. Ron Hubbard.
oppps, helps structure manness.
SCK
> I don't see it that way, exactly. Anything can be art. I as an artist --
> or you as an artist, or ANYONE as an artist -- can declare a thing to be
> art.
No, anything cannot be art. If anything can be art, the word is
meaningless, you may as well interchange it with "thing" and
"whatchamacallit".
Your assertion that anything anyone calls art is art is just a lax
permissiveness you allow yourself to justify whatever whim you have, so
that whenever you decide to make a painting with the word "rock", "car"
and "flower" written on indistinguishable, uncoloured blobs you can
still provide yourself with the illusion of productiveness, that you did
not just waste your day re-creating something you already created 25
years ago in day care. That you did not waste your day creating
something called crap because you everything can also be called art.
Widening the definition of art to encompass everything is just a
confidence trick you use to mask any visible evidence of progression to
your talent. You are an old spinster looking at herself in the mirror
every day, who, every day, lowers the standards for the man she will
marry until eventually, every man becomes marriable. She has settled,
just as you have.
> "This object/perfomance I have created/found is a piece of artwork that
> has value to me. Tah dah!"
>
I just found a tree outside my window which I declare my art. Please
keep this in mind for any future trees you happen upon which resemble my
tree and forward the royalty cheques accordingly.
JHall
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, SCK wrote:
> art would have value to Ideal Man, but has little value to me, and thus
> I achieve the only thing art in all of history has ever been able to do
> for anyone, to show us, if we are willing, our own imperfections.
most imperfect, past imperfect.
JHall
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Geoffrey Dow wrote:
> ...
> If you read a work of literature as you do a road-sign you will
> of course miss any and all subtleties. No wonder you believe
> the works of Ayn Rand have literary and philosophical depth.
as works of literature.
MacDonalds 200,000,000,000 sold
last WEEEEEEEK
JHall
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
> > SCK (s...@igs.net) writes:
> > > It seems to me if you are going to use the physical arrangement of the
> > > language to convey an image it is an admission that you are too
> > > untalented to do it using the language itself.
> >
> > That's like saying that an artist who uses black and white is too
> > chickenshit to risk using colours.
>
> It's more like saying that a painter who uses colours does not
> have the skill to express himself in black and white.
What about the colour-blind painter who ...
SCK
> It seems to me your denial of the possibility that the physical
> arrangement of words on a page or screen does not influence how
> the words are read is proves you to be either disengenuous or
> dead to learning. As a writer who has often played with such
> things (timing, rhythm, choice of words - why *not* spacing?
> For that matter, do you also despite punctuation?), your
> protestation is simply ridiculous.
>
If you follow your assertion to its logical conclusion, then anything
can be a poem. Why not dispense with the words altogether, eh? Here is a
poem:
- == \ 11!
I know it looks like gibberish I just produced by mashing my fists on
the keyboard, but actually it's a very abstract poem. You have to read
it backwards, but 11 is how many pizza slices I wish I could eat per
day. The exclamation point accentuates my desire. The slash represents
compromise, because I would also accept two stacks of two pancakes,
which in my new lexicography, can be represented by equals signs. The
minus sign is actually one, lone, uneaten pancake.
Why not just draw stuff and call it poetry, Young Geoffrey? Why don't we
be as permissive as we possibly can, and allow any nitwit with a pointed
stick and a pile of sand to draw his poetry?
Your problem, and Nik's problem and Vermin's problem, is that you are
all too waff-ly to stand up and decisively exclude shit from art,
because each of you harbours the same secret fear that this might one
day enable someone better to exclude you. You would rather hide behind
an inpenetrable shield of "judge not lest ye be judged" victim
psychology than live your life believing in your own superiority and
risk the plummet.
JHall
On 10 Jul 2000, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> sinister (sini...@sympatico.ca) writes:
> > this is nonsense, nik. art is a physical representation of an idea and
> > is used to transmit a message.
>
> Post-modern theory disagrees with you. An artist can intend for there to
> be a message, but in the end, the artist only shapes a piece of paper, or
> clay, and then attempts to "broadcast" it. If there was an intended
> message, it hardly ever comes across intact. People bring their own sense
> of meaning to the artwork. Their notions of "paintingness" clouds over
> any intended message put there by the artist.
So one way to cuss out verification would be finding a person who is
completely unaffected by a singular selected piece.
> To say that a painter (me) is broadcasting in a particular medium (my
> paintings) is close to the notion that a television system (medium) has
> individual TV shows (modulations, as you call it) that attempt to
> broadcast a message.
Thus we may conclude, quite correctly, that messages are in everything,
and do I have a message for youse folks - check your messages.
> ...
JHall
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, SCK wrote:
> ...
> your talent. You are an old spinster looking at herself in the mirror
> every day, who, every day, lowers the standards for the man she will
> marry until eventually, every man becomes marriable. She has settled,
> just as you have.
Every other opportunity presented you have delighted the readers with;
until eventually she looks at Jim Hall.
I feel much better now that I have fallen off the art table. It was very
difficult being a piece of art, always waiting to be appreciated.
> ...
> I just found a tree outside my window which I declare my art. Please
> keep this in mind for any future trees you happen upon which resemble my
> tree and forward the royalty cheques accordingly.
The squirrels are mine. The nuts belong to JIM.
sinister
> If there was an intended message, it hardly ever comes across intact.
art based "messaging" never comes across intact because it is not an accurate
means of communication. it's not suppose to be exact, we have language for
that.
> To say that a painter (me) is broadcasting in a particular medium (my
> paintings) is close to the notion that a television system (medium) has
> individual TV shows (modulations, as you call it) that attempt to broadcast
> a message.
it's not "close to", try "virtually the same as" or "analogous to".
> In both circumstances, each medium has an inherent message. What does the
> mere notion of a painting, stripped of content, say about blank walls,
> aesthetics, and the way people think? See, what I am arguing is that the
> very notion of PAINTINGS has, in itself, a message, before an artist so
> much as touches it. It comes with principles and values and ideas.
I know what you're trying to say here, but you're twisting in the wind.
paintings are a medium. the *properties* of that medium include aesthetics
and the ability to inspire thought in another. it cannot have principles,
values, or ideas (inspirational value). these are applied by the artist
through manipulation of the medium and are elements of the message.
what you are calling the inherent message of the medium is what I've been
calling the medium's properties of impact or power. otherwise, we're in
total agreement. can you state what the message in paintings is? every time
I try this, all I get is a property of the medium. what values or ideas are
being described by the general medium of paintings?
> Just like McLuhan was saying television has a message before it broadcasts
> a TV show?
I don't know how many times I have to say that this is *not* what mcluhan was
saying. the "message" in the medium of television is that it is an extremely
powerful, far-reaching tool, be careful how you use it. this is not a
message inherent to the medium. it is lesson derived from an *analysis* of
the medium.
I'd let a simpleton off the hook for this and nod happily if they said what
you did. you're not a simpleton, nik, and you also write; therefore, I'm
being particularly nit-picky about word definitions.
> And you are arguing that "paintings" or "poetry" or "prose" don't contain a
> lesson of their own?
of course not. the lesson, though, is a result of a comparative and impact
analysis. I can say paintings are can help you because they stir emotion
within you and this is beneficial. this is a lesson, something to be
learned, a result of an analysis of the medium. if I line my walls with
paintings of sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows; I'm presenting very specific
messages. the emotions stirred will be quite different from the same walls
lined with paintings of skulls, mausoleums, and rotting corn stalks. what
specific emotions will be stirred is subjective to the observer.
by definition, a medium *carries* a message. it is not a message itself.
you can play all the word games you want and develop nifty keen catch
phrases, but that activity doesn't change the meaning of the words. it may
obscure them, though.
> Andrew Nellis was recently giving me a hard time because I watch TV.
this was a great piece of comparative logic. I liked it. of course, you
were absolutely correct. although:
> Ideally, we should consume a number of different mediums, so that we learn
> to "ingest information" in a variety of ways.
doesn't this conclusion conflict with your desire to be indolent?
> Or perhaps your love for Mcluhan is getting in the way of your
> understanding what it is I am trying to say?
nah. I have no particular affection for mcluhan. I disagree with your use
of his phrase. it's a common misapplication and I think you should know
better. just for the record, I actually have some disdain for mcluhan
*because* of his coining of an obvious catch phrase to promote himself while
utilimatly obscuring his work.
> I was using the phrase to explain the notion that the FORM of a poem (the
> medium, in my usage of the word) should reflect the CONTENT (message) of
> the poem.
...and you were using it in a manner which is wrong. I agree with what
you're trying to say here, but you're expressing it poorly. the form of a
poem is inherent to the medium. the manipulation (shaping/modulation) of it
is part of the creative process. I would argue that what you're calling
content is also part of the form. a poem always expresses something, even if
that something is nonsense.
for example, a haiku:
green tile raining frog
papery ink baking sag
optical phonebook
> and you are my personal demon sent to torment me?
I doubt it. in all the years I've known you, you've always been able to
create your own to keep you company.
/sin.
Dre
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Making pauses is just one particular "gimmick" that can be used by a poet.
> It's only important if it's used in a particularly useful way in a
> particular poem. If you wanted to make pauses in some other way, sure,
> that works. But it depends on the style of the poem.
>
> How about:
>
> The leaf (fell)
> slowly (down)
> from the branch
> to the (ground).
The trouble with any "gimmick" is the question of its usefulness, like
you said, particularly when the artist uses it for one effect and gets
another. It took me longer to read the "falling off the building" bit
than it did the above leaf poem, and not because the falling piece was
longer. The sentence structure, repetitiveness, and garbled words was
closer to dictionary vomit than to any kind of fluid, moving imagery.
>
> If you wanted to write about falling off a building, plummeting towards
> the ground, you probably wouldn't want to use pauses. Instead, you'd try
> to write everything in a style that speeds everything up to an insane
> pace. Eliminate all punctuation and slur some text together.
>
> Omigod I just fell off the building and theres the ground below me so
> close so close and soon Im gonna be ded-ded-ded splat-crunch-pop and I
> member a story in the paper about a guy who fell off a house onto a white
> picket fence and now Im the guy falling and its not quite so funny anymore
> and here comes the ground-ground-ground! CRUNCH!
>
> Whatever particular "gimmick" helps capture the mood you're aiming for is
> worth while.
In my mind, anything that is a gimmick, which is recognizable as
something common if we're going to call it that, only has value if it is
a McDonald's commercial and more McAnalDrip Muffins are sold because of
it. Art that has the most value doesn't rely on or define itself by
something any audience could identify as a gimmick-- the calculated use
of something unoriginal that may get the right (or predictable) reaction
because everybody has seen it before. There is no way to predict a
gimmick's usefulness unless there are enough cases where it has been
used before to measure it by.
When the artist takes a risk, creates a poem or a painting without any
drawn-out plan to use gimmickry, there is an overall value to that art
that is greater than anything a student of literature could write with
all his knowledge of style and reaction. There is something more raw,
true, and elemental in art that the artist himself does not understand.
Would you say that your paintings are drawn out of some soul core within
you that puts brush to canvas out of mysterious inner inspiration, or do
you paint in bright, bold strokes because you know that sort of thing
has brought very specific and reasonably predictable reactions from
audiences who admire Picasso and scores of other artists?
Nikolaus Maack
> No, anything cannot be art. If anything can be art, the word is
> meaningless, you may as well interchange it with "thing" and
> "whatchamacallit".
The word "ART" is almost meaningless, I agree. Anything can be art,
because all it takes to make any object (or action) art is for a person to
find significance or meaning in it. Any object, any action, can possess
that meaning. All it takes is some close scutiny of the object or
performance and -- voila! It becomes rife with meaning.
Andy Warhol teaches us this with a painted Brillo box. Is it art? Mass
production teaches us this. Is the original Mona Lisa art, while poster
reproductions aren't art? Is the Mona Lisa on a t-shirt still art? The
surrealists taught us this. They used to wander the streets, looking for
two interesting objects -- scoop them up, take them home, and place them
next to each other. A window and a bicycle seat, side by side. Art.
Again, you can argue the VALUE of such art. Is the original Mona Lisa
worth more than a reproduction? Why? The reproduction is certainly much
more stable, less prone to erosion. It's not behind bullet proof glass,
it's easier to see. I can hang it in my bathroom. It looks, more or
less, exactly like the original. So why would it be worth less?
Is my bicycle seat and window worth nothing because other people can make
their own? Does that mean it isn't art? Why?
These are all assumptions about art that are relatively meaningless, and
have been actively attacked by cruel, vicious, and comical artists. The
dadaists played with the notion that gibberish is art. Nowadays, we see
dadaists as a funny group of weirdoes. During their time, they were hated
and despised because they threw the entire social order into CHAOS.
"Is a copy of the Mona Lisa with a moustache on it art? You sick Dada
fucker, you're going down!"
Dadists recognized, thanks to World War One and other social influences,
that humanity is made up of stupid fucking morons. Everything we do is a
meaningless construct. We praise one thing and piss on another, and if
you look closely, both things are the same. Dadists stuck their fingers
in the eyes of everyone and said, "How many fingers do you see if I use my
fingers to gouge out your eyes?"
I would think this would be the exact sort of behavior that you, Steve,
would adore in an artist. At least, some of your behavior seems to
resemble some of their behavior.
> Your assertion that anything anyone calls art is art is just a lax
> permissiveness you allow yourself to justify whatever whim you have, so
> that whenever you decide to make a painting with the word "rock", "car"
> and "flower" written on indistinguishable, uncoloured blobs you can
> still provide yourself with the illusion of productiveness, that you did
> not just waste your day re-creating something you already created 25
> years ago in day care.
This is a very long sentence. Despite its length, it has no basis in
reality. My personal method of constructing art involves a certain amount
of skill that I seek to improve over time. That doesn't change the truth
that good art does not necessarily require skill.
What little Timmy brings home from daycare can be a profound, interesting,
exciting piece of art. You might not get the National Gallery to buy it,
but it probably looks as good as some of Picasso's messier works.
And are you honestly telling me you can't imagine an interesting,
enjoyable painting where the artist has written "car", "rock" and "flower"
on coloured blobs? I can imagine it. In fact, I might even paint it and
send it to you.
> Widening the definition of art to encompass everything is just a
> confidence trick you use to mask any visible evidence of progression to
> your talent.
No. The definition of art as potentially anything for me describes art in
the world and the potential for what gets the label of "art". If you
genuinely wanted to fence off one particular tree in your front yard and
call it art, I suggest you do so. It might be easier just to hang a sign
on it that says "This is art." What might be even more interesting is to
put an enormous pot in your living room, build a huge skylight, and place
the artwork tree there. You might have to move your TV into one of its
lower branches.
I find that most people aren't willing to call an object art unless it is
taken out of its original environment and put in a new one. A shovel, for
example, is just a shovel, until a surrealist picks it up, signs it, and
leaves it the National Gallery. There really is such a shovel in the
gallery, by the way. Also, there is a urinal hanging off one of the walls
-- not in the bathroom, but near the ceiling, in the gallery itself.
I suppose you'd insist it isn't art, and get angry about it. Which would
make me laugh, because I think your angry reaction would prove that it's
art.
I suddenly had a vision of a t-shirt, button, and sticker campaign --
"This is art" plastered on every person, object, animal, plant, and
mineral. I wonder if I could sell this idea?
Geoffrey Dow
>
> Geoffrey Dow wrote:
>
> > It seems to me your denial of the possibility that the physical
> > arrangement of words on a page or screen does not influence how
> > the words are read is proves you to be either disengenuous or
> > dead to learning. As a writer who has often played with such
> > things (timing, rhythm, choice of words - why *not* spacing?
> > For that matter, do you also despite punctuation?), your
> > protestation is simply ridiculous.
> >
>
> If you follow your assertion to its logical conclusion, then anything
> can be a poem.
Perhaps anything *can* be a work of art. I have yet to come
across or to create a fully satisfactory definition of the term.
Why not dispense with the words altogether, eh? Here is a
> poem:
>
> - == \ 11!
>
> I know it looks like gibberish I just produced by mashing my fists on
> the keyboard, but actually it's a very abstract poem. You have to read
> it backwards, but 11 is how many pizza slices I wish I could eat per
> day. The exclamation point accentuates my desire. The slash represents
> compromise, because I would also accept two stacks of two pancakes,
> which in my new lexicography, can be represented by equals signs. The
> minus sign is actually one, lone, uneaten pancake.
Why not dispense with words altogether indeed; I see no intrinsic
reason why one shouldn't. Analogously, I believe a great deal of
post-modern art has done just that. If the goal of Art is to
communicate ideas clearly to a broad mass of people, this is
clearly a Bad Thing; if the goal of Art is to communicate with
fellow art school graduates, who *will* understand it and (one
presumes) appreciate its subtleties, it may be a Good Thing.
That said, I have no interest in taking a four-year degree in
order to enjoy three bars of primary colours on a large canvas.
Your poem (above), incidentally, is a pretty good example of
why I seldom go to galleries: the essay clearly took the "artist"
more time to write than the painting took them to paint.
> Why not just draw stuff and call it poetry, Young Geoffrey? Why don't we
> be as permissive as we possibly can, and allow any nitwit with a pointed
> stick and a pile of sand to draw his poetry?
Because, occasionally, one of those nitwits turns out to be,
in retrospect, another Van Gogh, breaking the rules of
acquired wisdom with good reason.
> Your problem, and Nik's problem and Vermin's problem, is that you are
> all too waff-ly to stand up and decisively exclude shit from art,
> because each of you harbours the same secret fear that this might one
> day enable someone better to exclude you. You would rather hide behind
> an inpenetrable shield of "judge not lest ye be judged" victim
> psychology than live your life believing in your own superiority and
> risk the plummet.
I won't speak for Nik or Vernon, but I am happy to exclude shit
from art and do so on a regular basis (my opinion of Ayn Rand,
as a ferinstance). However, I remain open to the possibility
that any particular judgement of mine may be incorrect.
Nik's "explanation" of William Carlos Williams' "plum" poem is
a good case in point. When I first read it I thought it was
meaningless crap. Nik opened for me the door that led to the
possibility that I had not read it carefully enough; it is
still not a poem that speaks to me, but I believe I now
understand how it might to someone else.
Nikolaus Maack
> Geoffrey Dow wrote:
> Your problem, and Nik's problem and Vermin's problem, is that you are
> all too waff-ly to stand up and decisively exclude shit from art,
> because each of you harbours the same secret fear that this might one
> day enable someone better to exclude you. You would rather hide behind
> an inpenetrable shield of "judge not lest ye be judged" victim
> psychology than live your life believing in your own superiority and
> risk the plummet.
There is an alternate theory, just as valid as your own theory.
You are so incredibly insecure that you have to defend your values as
though they apply to everyone. If I successfully rip your beliefs out of
your head, demonstrating to you that they are utterly meaningless, based
entirely on your personal whims, a mere construct to keep you warm at
night, you are left naked, cold, and shivering. In fear of this nude
chill, you argue that you know what real art is.
What is fascinating to me is that my beliefs, my values, my personal
notion of what my art should be -- all of this is bunk. It's made up.
Meaningless. Dust. I choose to believe in it because it defines me.
There is no TRUTH in morality, in art, in behavior.
You, on some level, know this. You confront people with it all the time.
"Why are you afraid to talk to strangers? That's stupid. Do it, and I'll
buy you a beer. Go on, you coward! Do it!"
Their fear is based on a social convention. They were raised in its
shadow. Its impolite to talk to strangers. Embarrassement is bad. I
don't want to be embarrassed.
You force them to confront all this.
Take this to its logical conclusion -- all social constructs are make
believe. The only reason you go to work and slave at computer shit is
because "that's how it's done" by most people. It doesn't have to be that
way. You live in a house. Why? You dress in pants and shirt. Why? You
believe that you are a good person, struggling to make the world a better
place? Why?
You can yell, "I know what is art and what is not art!" until your lungs
burst -- an artform in itself, in my opinion. This doesn't change the
fact that all you are doing is taking your particular virus-belief and
trying to infect the world with it.
You are welcome to believe what you want to believe. You're even welcome
to try to infect other people with that belief. And even if you and the
majority of the world held that it is sane and right to wear blue pants on
Monday, that wouldn't make it true. It would still be an arbitrary
construct based entirely on whim.
Some fun, huh?
Geoffrey Dow
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> > chickenshit to risk using colours. A poet, writer, painter, should use
>
> colours. A correct analogy in the painting world for writing poems in
> the shame of their subject matter is writing the word "rock" on a
> painting of something that's supposed to be a rock, then expecting any
> viewers to forgive the fact that your painting doesn't look anything
> like any kind of rock they've ever seen.
By this logic, Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is a piece of shit,
simply because the stars in the painting don't "look anything
like any kind of" star I have ever seen.
> > whatever tools they have in front of them, whatever tools please them, and
> > every other day hunt down weird tools and tricks they've never tried
> > before and test them out.
>
> Why do you think that the creation of art is about whatever pleases the
> artist? To me, that's just self-satifying playing, like kids making
> mudpies.
Self-satisfied playing is one of those things creative people do.
However, I agree with you that the results are not usually Art.
> We differ on these subjects because you go on to describe art as
> "anything". To you, it basically is happily sitting there and making a
> mud pie. The quality isn't so much in the finished pie, but the quality
> of your enjoyment as you made it. I think the reason for this is because
> to you, art is about yourself and your emotions, and you want to unleash
> them all on your canvas on your paper or your macaroni page. Creating
> art to you is more about the process than about the product. It is
> ultimately about expressing yourself and that's it.
>
> You rephrase the question of what is art to "What gives art value to
> me?", but I don't acknowledge the validity of that question. What has
> value *to you* really only says something about you, and says nothing
> about any intrinsic value to the art. I strike out the 'to me' and only
> ask, "What gives art (absolute) value?"
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "absolute value" in
anything but economics - and even there, values change. Values
are contingent upon scarcity, upon use-value and, yes, even upon
such malleable things as taste and (god help us) fashion.
> When I try to decide what art has value, I ignore me and I try to
> imagine the symbol of a perfect man. Man as he was meant to be, wise,
> creative, happy, moral, great, like some amalgamation of Michelangelo's
> David and Rodin's Thinker and the hero from adventure movies who kills
> himself in order to save the planet from an asteroid. Individual man as
> he would be if the world were perfect. Then I try to imagine what this
> man would think of this art and I wonder if he would appreciate it,
> think it is trivial, or weep at its feet.
>
> Whether I *like* the art is secondary to whether it is *good art* to the
> symbol of Ideal Man. The only useful purpose of whether I like the art
> is as a statement about myself, and how my tastes do and don't overlap
> with those of Ideal Man.
>
> To this end, I am capable of being in two minds: I can recognize what
> art would have value to Ideal Man, but has little value to me, and thus
> I achieve the only thing art in all of history has ever been able to do
> for anyone, to show us, if we are willing, our own imperfections.
It seems to me that judging things by the "standards" (how do you
know what they are?) of an Ideal Man, something which even you, I
believe, would admit to falling somewhat short of being - or of
being able to fully comprehend - is simply a license for you to
rationalize your own prejudices, to blindly dismiss that which you
don't like, without instead saying of, for instance, a meat dress,
that it is something you don't like and that you don't have time
to give it a fair chance because life is too short and you have
already given similar "experiments" a chance to fail (which they
did).
Geoffrey Dow
>
> SCK (s...@igs.net) writes:
> > Geoffrey Dow wrote:
> > Your problem, and Nik's problem and Vermin's problem, is that you are
> > all too waff-ly to stand up and decisively exclude shit from art,
> > because each of you harbours the same secret fear that this might one
> > day enable someone better to exclude you. You would rather hide behind
> > an inpenetrable shield of "judge not lest ye be judged" victim
> > psychology than live your life believing in your own superiority and
> > risk the plummet.
>
> There is an alternate theory, just as valid as your own theory.
This is where SCK is right. In any discussion of "truth", it
is highly unlikely that any two given theories are "as valid"
as the other. One is almost always closer to the truth than
the other. The Magus is a far better piece of Art than is
The Thorn Birds and no amount of post-modern claptrap can
show otherwise.
If I sound as if I am contradicting some of my earlier posts,
allow me to explain.
"Values" *do* apply to everyone. We all - yes, even you, Nik -
run around with beliefs; what we believe, we believe is better
than what those who disagree with us believe. That some of us
understand that our beliefs are and/or should be contingent
(I'm going to come to hate that word, but it is the appropriate
one) upon our level of knowledge and understanding - that is,
that we understand our judgements may be wrong or at least
incomplete - does not mean that we (honestly) believe every
opinion is as valid as our own.
Geoffrey Dow
>
> SCK (s...@igs.net) writes:
> > No, anything cannot be art. If anything can be art, the word is
> > meaningless, you may as well interchange it with "thing" and
> > "whatchamacallit".
>
> The word "ART" is almost meaningless, I agree. Anything can be art,
> because all it takes to make any object (or action) art is for a person to
> find significance or meaning in it. Any object, any action, can possess
> that meaning. All it takes is some close scutiny of the object or
> performance and -- voila! It becomes rife with meaning.
What a load of crap. If nothing else defines art, the application
of conscious *work* does. A beautiful piece of driftwood is not
art - by any reasonable definition - until an artists *does
something* with it. If all the artist does is arrange it on
some sort of pedestal, it is not the driftwood that is the art
it is the *arrangement* that is art.
> Andy Warhol teaches us this with a painted Brillo box.
Andy Warhol merely reiterates the lesson taught to us at the turn
of the 19th century by P.T. Barnum, a lesson Plato pointed out
more than 2,000 years ago.
> Is it art? Mass production teaches us this.
No, it is a confidence trick. Mass production teaches us what?
> Is the original Mona Lisa art, while poster reproductions aren't
> art? Is the Mona Lisa on a t-shirt still art?
The image of the Mona Lisa is art, whether on a canvas or
reproduced on a t-shirt. The t-shirt is no more art than is the
canvas.
> The surrealists taught us this. They used to wander the streets,
> looking for two interesting objects -- scoop them up, take them
> home, and place them next to each other. A window and a bicycle
> seat, side by side. Art.
Exactly. The conscious intent makes the art.
> Is my bicycle seat and window worth nothing because other people
> can make their own? Does that mean it isn't art? Why?
It isn't art until you make them into something other than a
bicycle seat and a window. Which you appear to acknowledge,
below.
> > Widening the definition of art to encompass everything is just a
> > confidence trick you use to mask any visible evidence of progression to
> > your talent.
>
> No. The definition of art as potentially anything for me describes art in
> the world and the potential for what gets the label of "art". If you
> genuinely wanted to fence off one particular tree in your front yard and
> call it art, I suggest you do so. It might be easier just to hang a sign
> on it that says "This is art." What might be even more interesting is to
> put an enormous pot in your living room, build a huge skylight, and place
> the artwork tree there. You might have to move your TV into one of its
> lower branches.
>
> I find that most people aren't willing to call an object art unless it is
> taken out of its original environment and put in a new one. A shovel, for
> example, is just a shovel, until a surrealist picks it up, signs it, and
> leaves it the National Gallery. There really is such a shovel in the
> gallery, by the way. Also, there is a urinal hanging off one of the walls
> -- not in the bathroom, but near the ceiling, in the gallery itself.
>
> I suppose you'd insist it isn't art, and get angry about it. Which would
> make me laugh, because I think your angry reaction would prove that it's
> art.
>
> I suddenly had a vision of a t-shirt, button, and sticker campaign --
> "This is art" plastered on every person, object, animal, plant, and
> mineral. I wonder if I could sell this idea?
You probably could. Which means we can now get serious and discuss
what makes for good art.
Geoffrey Dow
message and be done with it?
As one who has for a long time despised emoticons (though
admittedly, I found them useful when I first started using
email and usenet), I have recently discovered that they
are extremely useful in a slightly different medium, that
of "chat". It seems that the real-time, back and forth
quality of that medium changes the way one writes and so
the emoticon springs forth as an almost necessary tool to
full communication.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> sinister (sini...@sympatico.ca) writes:
> > literature is a medium. literature, itself, is not a message. what is
> > conveyed *by* literature are messages. it's the same for art. granite is a
> > medium, a sculpture is a message.
>
> I humbly disagree. By choosing to convey a message in high falluntin'
> literature, as opposed to say mass produced best seller paperbacks, the
> writer shapes their message differently. By choosing to sculpt in granite
> -- instead of, say, soapstone or margarine or fecal matter -- the artist
> shapes the message a certain way. Art is the perfect form for describing
> this idea, the medium is the message.
>
> As I understand it, McLuhan originally intended this statement to express
> the notion that television is limited in what it presents because of the
> way it is formatted. The same would obviously hold true for other "media"
> formats -- sculptures, novels, paintings, poetry, radio, film, speech,
> mime, semiphore, etc.
>
> You've just limited the scope of the statement to technological systems,
> ignoring the various art media, which is very silly of you. Bad, bad
> intellectual.
>
> >since you've been going on about how lazy you are, it make some sort of
> >perverse sense that you'd be one of those who misunderstood the expression.
>
> Seeing as how I disagree, and would argue that it's you that's
> misunderstood, I wonder what this says about laziness? Perhaps by being
> indolent and lax I gain access to more truths than you do, even as you run
> about, being productive and useful.
>
Nikolaus Maack
> In my mind, anything that is a gimmick, which is recognizable as
> something common if we're going to call it that, only has value if it is
> a McDonald's commercial and more McAnalDrip Muffins are sold because of
> it.
I think it's much more difficult to tell the difference between a
"gimmick" and a "technique" than we're admitting, here. The spacing in a
poem, in my mind, is not a gimmick. It's a technique. Using brackets,
weird spelling, odd punctuation, all of these are techniques we can use to
elaborate expression.
If I have a (message) I want to get across, or a (feeling) I want to
express, any technique that -- gets -- me -- there! is of use. Even
so-called gimmicky stuff used by Ronald McDonald has its uses. We can
steal the way Ron forms an advertisement, and use it to "sell" whatever
we'd like to sell.
Cut to, a kid in the woods, smiling like an idiot.
Kid: "Gee, I wish I had some dead cow to eat right now!"
Ronald McDonald appears behind the boy in a puff of golden fairy dust.
Ron is wearing a clown suit made entirely of leather.
Ron: "Did someone say dead cow!"
Kid, very excited: "RONALD!"
The boy takes Ronald's hand and they merrily skip along, off to a nearby
McDonald's as singers sing:
"McDonald's land is real neat!
Kill a cow and eat the meat!
Chew cow eyes for an extra treat!
Yay, McDonalds!"
Ron: "There's always fun to be had when dead cows are around! Bye boys
and girls!"
sinister
> Not so many, many people put much effort into being bland.
hmmm... I end up putting scads of effort in to being bland, when being bland is
required. I find it's a very difficult thing to do and requires concentration on
my part. a great deal of people manage this naturally; hence, the lower energy
requirement.
> Art is expression, thus would not any expression be art ?
I don't think so. art is expression because art is a *form* of expression, a
subset if you like. all expression cannot be art otherwise the two are equal and
the words mean the same thing. post modern theory attempts to extend art to
everything, which only makes art meaningless.
consider a well crafted contract. it is an expression of intent and obligations.
in the vernacular one might say it was a work of art. what they are really stating
is that it is efficient in its use and elegant in its composition.
> Marshall was using the art form of literature to imply (thru his message) all
> about power and the how & whys were not as important.
thank you. it's rare to find one who actually understands what mcluhan was
speaking about.
> Murdoch buys everything media-related, everything. He buys not to improve
> anything but his power.
a fact. murdoch accumulates all this power only for self-gratifying ends. he does
not wield for good or evil, just for the accumulation of personal wealth.
> And used too much by too many who have never read a word written by good old
> Marshall
this is most of the problem.
> TV ads are great, well not all of them, but enough. I quite like the duck doing
> the aflac number.
I like the one where the guy drives up to a stop sign and okays the squeegee kid to
clean his windshield. instead, he gets the nascar treatment. while I think it's
great, I can't for the life of me ever remember what the product was. thus, it
fails as advertising. although for me, this is the case for almost all
advertising.
/sin.
Dre
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Even so-called gimmicky stuff used by Ronald McDonald has its uses. We can
> steal the way Ron forms an advertisement, and use it to "sell" whatever
> we'd like to sell.
Of course we can, but with a golden carpet of possibility rolling out
from our foreheads, with all the choice we have when we create, why
would we want to "steal" anything? Especially when "selling" is the
major motivation?
SCK
> This is a very long sentence. Despite its length, it has no basis in
> reality. My personal method of constructing art involves a certain amount
> of skill that I seek to improve over time. That doesn't change the truth
> that good art does not necessarily require skill.
>
Why do you bother with skill?
The problem here is that you are trying to hold two mutually
contradictory opinions. On one hand, you agree that some art is better
than other art, as evidenced by your desire to improve your "skill" and
by the fact that you would probably agree that a book of poetry is
better art than nothing. On the other hand, you won't admit to an
absolute scale which defines which definitively points out which art is
good and which is bad.
You can't hold both of these opinions simultaneously, you are
contradicting yourself. If you admit to the existence of the spectrum of
bad--->good art at all, everything must, necessarily, fall somewhere in
the spectrum then. It has to fall somewhere, if the spectrum exists, and
the spectrum exists because you believe there is a point to improving
your "skill" rather than losing it. The only variable in the whole
equation therefore, is only your inability to know exactly where any
individual piece of art falls on the spectrum. It's on there somewhere,
absolutely, you just don't know where to put it. And that's your
problem, not art's problem.
(Who's Art?)
> And are you honestly telling me you can't imagine an interesting,
> enjoyable painting where the artist has written "car", "rock" and "flower"
> on coloured blobs? I can imagine it. In fact, I might even paint it and
> send it to you.
>
It would be amusing to me if you painted a busy scene filled with
ill-formed, awkward blobs and one well-painted flower, and chose only to
identify the flower. But I wouldn't hang it on my wall, no more than I
would hang a Dilbert strip on my wall, because it is nothing more than
an instantaneous, amusing joke. You cannot fall into it for hours.
> I suppose you'd insist it isn't art, and get angry about it. Which would
> make me laugh, because I think your angry reaction would prove that it's
> art.
>
I don't get angry about art. I like it when people create crappy art.
With such a profusion of uninspired, unproductive and pointless
non-sequiturs masquerading as art, it is easier for me to identify the
people I want to talk to by their comparative coherence. I also like
crappy art because it serves the useful purpose of giving me something
to insult the people who like it.
To wit: It wouldn't be very fun for me if all I had to insult Young
Geoffrey over was his height. Therefore, it's very convenient for me
that he chooses to furnish his apartment like a library for children
with learning disorders.
SCK
> By this logic, Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is a piece of shit,
> simply because the stars in the painting don't "look anything
> like any kind of" star I have ever seen.
>
I am unfamiliar with Van Gogh's "Starry Night", but it probably is a
piece of shit. Van Gogh is one of those artists who I widely regard as
having become successful by coincidence and luck.
I'm starting to wonder if the next generation of video games will turn
out to be the 21st century's art. I'm pretty sure that your cousin would
be largely unmoved by Van Gogh's "Starry Night", however, when she is
playing "Resident Evil" she is physically tense, her blood pressure is
high, the fine tulle on the back of her neck stands up, she's scared and
she shrieks with fright and leaps out of the chair. Now she won't play
any more.
> Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "absolute value" in
> anything but economics - and even there, values change. Values
> are contingent upon scarcity, upon use-value and, yes, even upon
> such malleable things as taste and (god help us) fashion.
I think there is such a thing as absolute value. The only problem with
my belief that I haven't sorted out yet is that it necessarily requires
the existence of a supreme being to set the value.
SCK
> Your poem (above), incidentally, is a pretty good example of
> why I seldom go to galleries: the essay clearly took the "artist"
> more time to write than the painting took them to paint.
>
All I can say to you is what I said to Nik. If you can tell me that my
brilliant "pancake poem expressed in symbols", "- == / 11!", is worse
art than Michaelangelo's David then you have admitted that there is a
spectrum to the quality of art. Now it's just math. The spectrum is an
infinite line, expressed mathematically thusly:
(-)infinity (ultimate bad) <--- 0 ---> (+)infinity (ultimate good)
Either everything is at zero, and my pancake poem and David are equally
good art, or else the spectrum exists and everything falls on it
somewhere, regardless of your incompetence or cowardice in placing it.
SCK
> You are so incredibly insecure that you have to defend your values as
> though they apply to everyone. If I successfully rip your beliefs out of
> your head, demonstrating to you that they are utterly meaningless, based
> entirely on your personal whims, a mere construct to keep you warm at
> night, you are left naked, cold, and shivering. In fear of this nude
> chill, you argue that you know what real art is.
I invite you to show me how my beliefs are whims. In the grand scheme,
everything is just a whim, sure, until the universe is definitively a
known quantity.
However; my values are based on how I define "progress" which is
observable. I am glad, for instance, that mankind evolved into a
creature capable of making art and is not still stuck in some primordeal
ooze trying to flipper its way up the beach. I am glad that the
industrial revolution took place and made man into something other than
a gatherer/forager and gave him more intellectual freedom. I am glad
that we have skyscrapers and technology and art and pizza pockets and
the human genome project, and are demonstrably, slowly, on the path to
finding out just exactly what the universe is. This is progress to me. I
value art which ultimately extols this quality I find so admirable in
man: his desire to find the answer.
So, then, I value art which portrays or inspires in a positive
direction, which exults in mankind's philosophical, technological and
spiritual achievements. I don't value art which is merely pointless, a
visual non-sequitur that shows a lonely tricycle on a lonely tree. When
you factor that down (again, almost mathematically) that kind of art
does not exult human progress, it exults chaos, which is precisely what
I am happy for mankind having gotten his flippers out of.
Geoffrey Dow
"real", "tangible") spectrum does not mean that I do not behave
*as if* there is such a thing. In practice, I agree with you
that some art is better than other art.
Of course, even that spectrum is pretty vague until we can agree
upon just what art is.
Is art supposed:
- to capture the essence of some idealized beauty?
- to express the state of the artist's "soul"?
- to show the artist's world to others in a new way?
- to entertain (the artist)?
- to entertain (the audience)?
- to improve members of the audience?
- to encourage a particular set of ideas?
Does art have to:
- adhere to certain rules (e.g., comics can't be art)?
- be the product of the conscious intent to create art
(e.g., can the work of a really good craftsman - who
considers himself such - be art anyway)?
- also be moral - does its message have to match its
place on the artistic spectrum to its place on the
ethical spectrum? In other words, can a piece of
art be good if it (implicitly or explicitly) supports
evil?
Also: is there only one spectrum along which one can place a
given work of art? Clearly there are many possible spectra
and no consensus upon which is the correct one. (Incidentally,
what bothers me about your position is not that you believe
that there is good art and bad art but that you also appear
to believe that you have reached the end-point of human
development and so are able to know what that point is.)
JHall
On 11 Jul 2000, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> ...
> I suddenly had a vision of a t-shirt, button, and sticker campaign --
> "This is art" plastered on every person, object, animal, plant, and
> mineral. I wonder if I could sell this idea?
they call them name tags. So you would have to go with "James is art",
"JIM is art" and "Art is art"
If have always enjoyed the guy who scratches the Book of Revelations on
the road monsters of the 70's. I have always wondered if Chris Carter
has ever stopped by only to meet Stephen King who is taking notes.
Nikolaus Maack
>art based "messaging" never comes across intact because it is not an
>accurate means of communication. it's not suppose to be exact, we have
>language for that.
I wish you were joking. Our own attempts at conversation here indicate
that language is just as prone to minsinterpretation and inaccuracies as
art is. This is not because we are horrible, stupid people but because --
wait for it -- language is an artform. It's as representational and as
flawed as painting or fiction writing or any other communication attempt.
> I know what you're trying to say here, but you're twisting in the wind.
> paintings are a medium. the *properties* of that medium include aesthetics
> and the ability to inspire thought in another. it cannot have principles,
> values, or ideas (inspirational value). these are applied by the artist
> through manipulation of the medium and are elements of the message.
We disagree. I will now try to list off the messages contained in the
notion of "painting" before an artist so much as picks up a brush. What
values does "painting" hold, on its own?
Emblem and definition of self. We hang on the wall what we feel in
ourselves. I was writing button slogans for a company in California, when
it suddenly dawned on me what buttons are "supposed to" do. People want
buttons that define themselves. They wear it like an insignia, or a
badge. The button is meant to represent their identity, their
individuality. The thought that I was making up slogans other people
would then use to define their unique identity made me laugh. And now
that I think of it, paintings work in much the same way. An insignia I
hang on my wall that defines me.
"Live Every Second Like Your Ass Is On Fire" was one of the slogans I
sold. People use this phrase -- and the accompanying art work -- to
define their belief system. It's a summary of themselves that they like.
Buttons as shields, as clothing, as identity.
To get even more complex on this one point, the very notion of
"possessions" has this same value. I own this book I bought. It is mine.
A little piece of me has been thrust inside of it. If you damage or steal
this object, which is mine, I will be upset. You have hurt the object,
and therefore you have hurt me. Whatever object I choose to "own" -- this
painting is MINE -- becomes a piece of me. This is inherent in the notion
of PAINTING.
It doesn't have to be this way, but that's the way it seems to be, in our
culture anyway. The notion of PAINTING is a complex button we wear on the
walls of "our" house. It defines me, and when you visit, it's a glimpse
into my tastes, my life, my brain. I use the painting to create an
environment that reflects ME-ness.
Interesting -- artist and viewer conspire together to create a notion of
identity, which the viewer then buys from the artist. What is the viewer
paying for, if not definition of self? Even if we're only talking about
aesthetic values -- the viewer buys a paintings they "like", that they
find pretty -- the painting serves to reinforce beliefs and emotions and
experiences that please the viewer.
Okay, I'm sort of rambling now, so I'll stop.
> can you state what the message in paintings is?
Does the above help?
> by definition, a medium *carries* a message. it is not a message itself.
Uh, the statement in question here is the phrase "The Medium is the
message," right? As you said, Mcluhan is saying that analysis of the
medium reveals that it possesses certain messages in itself before there
is even a message contained in it. Is that what you said? In other
words, television has a message even before it broadcasts a TV program.
I think other mediums can be said to carry a message unto themselves.
Think of the guy downtown, sitting in a coffee shop, who is READING A BOOK
as loudly as he can. It's a big, thick, dusty book, obviously something
to do with philosophy. He wants people to see he is reading a book,
because he wants to project a certain identity.
The medium of BIG DUSTY BOOK carries a certain message in our culture.
The same can be said for clothing, science fiction novels, pornography,
paintings, art. These objects are seen, by people, as to contain a
message in themselves -- even before the object itself is formed. If I
own GAP clothing, I will be popular. I will broadcast my GAP-ness to the
world. People will recognize my GAP-ness, and know that I am all that GAP
implies.
I used to wonder why people work clothes with the Nike swoosh on it. Then
I read a book -- I think it was "Influence" -- which described how people
try to associate their own identities with the winning team. That is,
when a sports team wins, we say, "We won!" If the team loses, we say,
"They lost."
We associate ourselves with winners. We invest our identity into them.
If we see Nike as a winner, as representing certain values, as holding
certain truths, we will slather ourselves with Nike-ness. Or
Coca-Cola-ness. Or Pepsi-ness. Or BIG DUSTY BOOK-ness.
It's clear that TV advertisers are well aware of this notion. What
demonstrates this more clearly than the "I AM CANADIAN!" beer commercials?
I've gotten very far away from "the medium is the message". Let's see if
I can drag this train of thought back to where it started.
Certain mediums are seen to possess certain defining characteristics. To
say, "I am the sort of person who listens to the radio all day at work,"
begins to help you see who this person is, how they "define" themselves.
if they say, "I listen to TOP 40 ROCK RADIO all day at work," you have a
clearer idea. If they say CBC or that new alternative station, or what
have you... They use these mediums to define themselves because of the
traits they perceive in the medium.
I'm not explaining myself so much as elaborating where I come from.
What does it mean to say, "I buy original art work from local artists and
hang it on the walls of my home"? Do you have an idea of who this person
is? Does the medium, here, as it is consumed, provide an identity? A
truth?
>> Ideally, we should consume a number of different mediums, so that we learn
>> to "ingest information" in a variety of ways.
>
> doesn't this conclusion conflict with your desire to be indolent?
I exaggerate my indolence to amuse you. You do know I'm joking, right? I
mean, right now, I live the life of a slacker. However, I read a great
deal, watch movies, and have lengthy conversations with people on the
internet. I think. I have a certain amount of freedom. I am happy. I
don't have what I'd call a stressful job. That makes me happy. I have a
minimalist lifestyle.
> for example, a haiku:
>
> green tile raining frog
> papery ink baking sag
> optical phonebook
I like this, actually.
>> and you are my personal demon sent to torment me?
>
> I doubt it. in all the years I've known you, you've always been able to
> create your own to keep you company.
Hell is other people, so choose your hell carefully?
Nikolaus Maack
> Why do you bother with skill?
Because I, personally, am trying to take my art to a specific place.
That's me.
> The problem here is that you are trying to hold two mutually
> contradictory opinions.
Sort of. I have my beliefs of what is good art and what is bad. My
personal bias, the flavours I like. But I enjoy the notion that anything
has the potential to be art, because I know that if I wake up one morning
in the right mood, and see a bug pinned to the forehead of a Barbie doll,
it might be the exact image I need to be happy.
Have you ever seen Japanese caligraphy art? To the untrained eye, it's a
black squiggle with shades of gray in it. If you didn't know what a poem
was, and you saw one, you'd say, "This is the stupidest short story I've
ever read."
> You can't hold both of these opinions simultaneously
I can do
whatever
the fuck
I want.
Screw you,
small fry.
You are not short, but you
FEEL
short to me.
Limit my (reality)
will you?
I chew out your eyes
like an optical
leech at your
optical buffet.
CHOMP
CHOMP
> And that's your
> problem, not art's problem.
It is extremely difficult
to tell
the difference
between me
and the universe.
I believe that
I am the one
with all the
swirling stars
in it.
> I don't get angry about art.
Do you get (passionate) about art?
> To wit: It wouldn't be very fun for me if all I had to insult Young
> Geoffrey over was his height. Therefore, it's very convenient for me
> that he chooses to furnish his apartment like a library for children
> with learning disorders.
Cool. I'd like to see that kind of a place.
I think
I might
write
all responses
in the
odd
poetic
form from
now on.
Try it, SiCK --
it's fun.
Shit, now I've figured you out, Steve. You don't enjoy having fun.
Geoffrey Dow
>
> Geoffrey Dow wrote:
>
> > simply because the stars in the painting don't "look anything
> > like any kind of" star I have ever seen.
> >
>
> I am unfamiliar with Van Gogh's "Starry Night", but it probably is a
> piece of shit. Van Gogh is one of those artists who I widely regard as
> having become successful by coincidence and luck.
Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is a magnificent glimpse into the
mind of the artist, and into that of every child who has first
looked up at the firmament in awe and wonder. The man did one
of those things I believe Art is meant to do: to show us a
different way of seeing reality, to expand our sense of the
possible.
> I'm starting to wonder if the next generation of video games will turn
> out to be the 21st century's art. I'm pretty sure that your cousin would
> be largely unmoved by Van Gogh's "Starry Night", however, when she is
> playing "Resident Evil" she is physically tense, her blood pressure is
> high, the fine tulle on the back of her neck stands up, she's scared and
> she shrieks with fright and leaps out of the chair. Now she won't play
> any more.
Why don't you ask her - actually, I'll do it. Dre, what do you
think of "Starry Night" in particular and of Van Gogh's work in
general?
As for video games, if in saying they "will turn out to be the
21st century's art" that the form will be explored, its boundaries
more or less established and its first classics created, then I
think they will. Video cames are an entirely new medium upon
which an artist can paint their vision; whether or not I ever
develop a taste for them, I am confident that a great deal of
significant work will be done in the field.
> > Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "absolute value" in
> > anything but economics - and even there, values change. Values
> > are contingent upon scarcity, upon use-value and, yes, even upon
> > such malleable things as taste and (god help us) fashion.
>
> I think there is such a thing as absolute value. The only problem with
> my belief that I haven't sorted out yet is that it necessarily requires
> the existence of a supreme being to set the value.
Yes. That is why the concept of absolute value is a silly one.
It is as if the nature of reality depended upon the existence
of Santa Claus.
Geoffrey Dow
>
> However; my values are based on how I define "progress" which is
> observable. I am glad, for instance, that mankind evolved into a
> creature capable of making art and is not still stuck in some primordeal
> ooze trying to flipper its way up the beach. I am glad that the
> industrial revolution took place and made man into something other than
> a gatherer/forager and gave him more intellectual freedom. I am glad
> that we have skyscrapers and technology and art and pizza pockets and
> the human genome project, and are demonstrably, slowly, on the path to
> finding out just exactly what the universe is. This is progress to me. I
> value art which ultimately extols this quality I find so admirable in
> man: his desire to find the answer.
>
> So, then, I value art which portrays or inspires in a positive
> direction, which exults in mankind's philosophical, technological and
> spiritual achievements. I don't value art which is merely pointless, a
> visual non-sequitur that shows a lonely tricycle on a lonely tree. When
> you factor that down (again, almost mathematically) that kind of art
> does not exult human progress, it exults chaos, which is precisely what
> I am happy for mankind having gotten his flippers out of.
I basically agree with your definition of progress. I also have
tendency to prefer art that is in some way uplifting. I am
curious, though, as to your opinion of art which is "merely"
beautiful - for example, a simple portrait of a beautiful
woman; where would that fall on your scale of value?
JHall
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, SCK wrote:
> ...
> you factor that down (again, almost mathematically) that kind of art
> does not exult human progress, it exults chaos, which is precisely what
> I am happy for mankind having gotten his flippers out of.
over ? OOOOooooooo.
JHall
travels to hogtown with an empty seat. I want to
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, SCK wrote:
> ...
> To wit: It wouldn't be very fun for me if all I had to insult Young
> Geoffrey over was his height. Therefore, it's very convenient for me
> that he chooses to furnish his apartment like a library for children
> with learning disorders.
visit your apartment.
Dre
SCK wrote:
>
> I am unfamiliar with Van Gogh's "Starry Night", but it probably is a
> piece of shit. Van Gogh is one of those artists who I widely regard as
> having become successful by coincidence and luck.
>
> I'm starting to wonder if the next generation of video games will turn
> out to be the 21st century's art. I'm pretty sure that your cousin would
> be largely unmoved by Van Gogh's "Starry Night", however, when she is
> playing "Resident Evil" she is physically tense, her blood pressure is
> high, the fine tulle on the back of her neck stands up, she's scared and
> she shrieks with fright and leaps out of the chair. Now she won't play
> any more.
>
Don't be a fool. "Starry Starry Night" is one of my favourite paintings.
The wildness in the trees and in the magically tempestuous sky is one
that I have never seen duplicated in life, ever. Not in a facial
expression, not in an action, not in music, not in photography. Have you
ever stood in front of a real Van Gogh? This may be presumptuous of me,
but for someone with your opinions and the way you chatise others, "I am
unfamiliar with 'Starry Night', but it is probably a piece of shit" may
be the stupidest thing you've ever said. Go to the art gallery in
downtown Boston, where I saw my first real collection of Van Gogh, and
see if you don't feel your entire body weep as mine did.
No video game could compare to that feeling, and no man has ever looked
back at me with such passionate ferocity in his eyes as Van Gogh in his
self portrait.
Dre
Geoffrey Dow wrote:
>
> Why don't you ask her - actually, I'll do it. Dre, what do you
> think of "Starry Night" in particular and of Van Gogh's work in
> general?
>
I'll say it again: There are probably still two little footprints on the
hardwood floor in front of each Van Gogh in the Boston collection, where
something like a golden thread shot through my eyes, down my legs, and
anchored me in place.
Dre
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> I will now try to list off the messages contained in the
> notion of "painting" before an artist so much as picks up a brush. What
> values does "painting" hold, on its own?
>
> Emblem and definition of self. We hang on the wall what we feel in
> ourselves. I was writing button slogans for a company in California, when
> it suddenly dawned on me what buttons are "supposed to" do. People want
> buttons that define themselves. They wear it like an insignia, or a
> badge. The button is meant to represent their identity, their
> individuality. The thought that I was making up slogans other people
> would then use to define their unique identity made me laugh. And now
> that I think of it, paintings work in much the same way. An insignia I
> hang on my wall that defines me.
If you hang a painting on your wall because it defines you, do you paint
a painting because it does the same? Is every painting you create an
expression of your identity? Or do you ever step outside of yourself and
try to paint from someone else's identity, paint as another person would
paint, the way a writer narrates a story with a character that is not
him or her?
And if you say that, yes, you can and do do this, isn't it then possible
that a person might hang a painting on a wall or button something to a
jacket because they are trying to project an identity that is not
theirs?
SCK
> Don't be a fool. "Starry Starry Night" is one of my favourite paintings.
> The wildness in the trees and in the magically tempestuous sky is one
> that I have never seen duplicated in life, ever.
Something I have always wondered about Van Gogh is if he paints with his
fingers. What "wildness in the trees"? All I see down there for trees
are some doodly circles.
As I have said before, the art and poetry a person likes tells you only
about the person and nothing about the art. I humbly submit to you that
here is the underlying source of your rapture for Starry Night: Van Gogh
has finger-painted a picture of possibilities and childish,
irresponsible magic over the sky of Mississauga.
He's actually a terrible painter and the message in it is threadbare and
simple. It's your personality and your circumstances and your fears
which incline you to want to romanticize it.
But at least Don McLean's song, "Vincent" finally makes sense now. I
thought he was outing himself.
> No video game could compare to that feeling, and no man has ever looked
> back at me with such passionate ferocity in his eyes as Van Gogh in his
> self portrait.
Nonsense -- and I can prove it. I have a video game that captures so
much atmosphere for you that you are, literally, *afraid to play it*.
That is a powerful proof of the emotion it instills in you.
You claim that this doesn't compare to the passion you feel for Van
Gogh's Starry Night or his self-portrait, so how do you explain the fact
that neither of these are posted on your bedroom wall? What kind of
passion is that, that in all your life of being moved so completely by
these things, you have never found the time or bother to even own copies
so that you might look at them when you most need their reassurance?
Go solve Resident Evil for me, I need to know how to get past the giant
worm.
Nikolaus Maack
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> If you hang a painting on your wall because it defines you, do you paint
> a painting because it does the same? Is every painting you create an
> expression of your identity? Or do you ever step outside of yourself and
> try to paint from someone else's identity, paint as another person would
> paint, the way a writer narrates a story with a character that is not
> him or her?
I saw a TV show where a man claimed to "channel" the spirits of dead
painters. He'd summon up Picasso, Van Gogh, whoever, and then quickly do
a painting in their style -- upside down.
I thought this was really interesting, and despite the fact that I don't
believe in channeling, I thought I'd give it a try. I went upstairs, sat
in front of paper and tried to think of how Picasso would paint.
It didn't work. I can't paint in the style of anyone but me.
> And if you say that, yes, you can and do do this, isn't it then possible
> that a person might hang a painting on a wall or button something to a
> jacket because they are trying to project an identity that is not
> theirs?
Sure. People have identities they wish belonged to them but don't. One
Ottawa painter I met depressed the hell out of me. He had all these tiny
canvases on his walls. He admitted to me that he hadn't painted anything
in over three years. All his works were, clearly, ripoffs of Salvadore
Dali. When I mentioned the obvious comparison, he was thrilled, like I'd
seen some great secret in his work.
It depressed me to think that this guy had put so much effort into doing
copies of Dali, and then given up on painting entirely. But it didn't
seem surprising. I think putting on false identities inevitably leads to
depression and loss. Of course, then there's the question of how you can
tell the difference between a false identity and a true one. And what if
there is no such thing as a true identity?
Nikolaus Maack
> Go solve Resident Evil for me, I need to know how to get past the giant
> worm.
In order to get past the giant worm, you will have to become the sort of
person who does not embrace worms, giant or otherwise.
SCK
> > Why do you bother with skill?
>
> Because I, personally, am trying to take my art to a specific place.
> That's me.
>
If you have a definition of what is skill, then you have a direction in
which to point your improvement. If you have a direction that you know
is towards "better", then you can also absolutely evaluate how far any
other piece of work is in that direction.
>
> > You can't hold both of these opinions simultaneously
>
> I can do
> whatever
> the fuck
>
> I want.
>
You can do whatever the fuck you want, but that's just shrugging and
giving up on truth. And you have contradicted yourself again. I accused
you of using art only for your personal self-satisfying playing. That is
the reason why you insist on doing whatever the fuck you want. Your art
probably has nothing to do with truth or even with the art itself, it
has to do with nothing but instant, self-gratification. You've always
been self-obsessed (which I think you admit), and art is just one more
outlet for you to have sex with yourself.
You probably paint when you're too tired to masturbate.
SCK
> Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is a magnificent glimpse into the
> mind of the artist, and into that of every child who has first
> looked up at the firmament in awe and wonder. The man did one
> of those things I believe Art is meant to do: to show us a
> different way of seeing reality, to expand our sense of the
> possible.
I know what "Starry Night" is supposed to show, it's painfully obvious
with just one glimpse of it. He used the most obvious, historical symbol
of unknown possibilities (sky, stars), and painted it in with the most
obvious vehicle to express awe and wonder (child-like).
Van Gogh paints the equivalent of a Michael Richter messages.
> > I think there is such a thing as absolute value. The only problem with
> > my belief that I haven't sorted out yet is that it necessarily requires
> > the existence of a supreme being to set the value.
>
> Yes. That is why the concept of absolute value is a silly one.
> It is as if the nature of reality depended upon the existence
> of Santa Claus.
I find it amusing that you are so reluctant to be decisive and close
doors on the trivial, like whether comic books are art, and yet you are
so adamantly self-defining about closing the door on the existence of
God. You're a very confused young man.
Dre
SCK wrote:
>
> Dre wrote:
>
> > Don't be a fool. "Starry Starry Night" is one of my favourite paintings.
> > The wildness in the trees and in the magically tempestuous sky is one
> > that I have never seen duplicated in life, ever.
>
> Something I have always wondered about Van Gogh is if he paints with his
> fingers. What "wildness in the trees"? All I see down there for trees
> are some doodly circles.
>
Did you just pull a picture of it off the Net? Eh? Think you can get a
true feel for a painting by looking at a picture of it out in
cyberspace? Those "doodly circle" trees are actually closer to those
tall scraggly pines that stand like tired skinny men on cliff tops, only
they've been formed by the wind instead of bending with it. Go paint
trees like that, and then tell me a child did it. First though, go put
the arms back on your sculpture.
> As I have said before, the art and poetry a person likes tells you only
> about the person and nothing about the art. I humbly submit to you that
> here is the underlying source of your rapture for Starry Night: Van Gogh
> has finger-painted a picture of possibilities and childish,
> irresponsible magic over the sky of Mississauga.
>
What if a whole bunch of people feel the same way about a particular
piece of art? What if those people are very different, philosophically,
socially, you name it, but they all like this one painting for the same
reason? Shouldn't that tell you something about the art, that perhaps
this painting almost definitely is an exploration into loneliness, or
what have you, and these very different people all see that about it?
To me, there is nothing childish about Van Gogh's painting. Nothing.
When I first saw it, I could hear the troubled wind swirling through Van
Gogh's mind, and see that perhaps he was at once amazed and terrified by
it. At this point in time I knew nothing about the artist, but I
recognized the emotional essence of the painting, and I said to myself,
"I think I know what that is like". The fact that he chose trees and
stars, in my mind, gives the painting another dimension; that the
wildness and awe in the human mind is reflected in the wilderness, and
perhaps accentuated by being in, and looking at it.
> He's actually a terrible painter and the message in it is threadbare and
> simple. It's your personality and your circumstances and your fears
> which incline you to want to romanticize it.
I don't think you know anything about him or his work. Again, maybe I'd
respect your opinion more if you take the time to go look at more of his
art. There may be no point in arguing with you about this however, you
have cheetahs and chains on your wall.
Perhaps I do romanticize his painting, but what the hell kind of a
reaction, to a piece that appeals to you romantically, is one void of
romance?
>
> But at least Don McLean's song, "Vincent" finally makes sense now. I
> thought he was outing himself.
>
> > No video game could compare to that feeling, and no man has ever looked
> > back at me with such passionate ferocity in his eyes as Van Gogh in his
> > self portrait.
>
> Nonsense -- and I can prove it. I have a video game that captures so
> much atmosphere for you that you are, literally, *afraid to play it*.
> That is a powerful proof of the emotion it instills in you.
>
Don't get ahead of yourself. How can you say that the emotional response
of fear is more powerful than passion? Perhaps what I'm feeling is more
obvious and unrestrained to others watching while I play Resident Evil
because I express fear differently than I express being spiritually
moved. If I wasn't normally so reticent, I would swoon and dance and
maybe kiss a glass of wine while I look at Van Gogh. Just because my
response is less noticeable, it is no less powerful. In fact, the more
moved I am emotionally by something, the more likely it is that others
watching will not see it.
I would rather not play that game because I don't like the way it makes
me feel. But that doesn't mean it holds more of a spell over me than Van
Gogh. Of course I still look at his art, it makes me feel good. Just
because I'm not too afraid to look at it doesn't mean if affects me
less. (Whap)
> You claim that this doesn't compare to the passion you feel for Van
> Gogh's Starry Night or his self-portrait, so how do you explain the fact
> that neither of these are posted on your bedroom wall? What kind of
> passion is that, that in all your life of being moved so completely by
> these things, you have never found the time or bother to even own copies
> so that you might look at them when you most need their reassurance?
My life is not moved "so completely" by that painting, I like it, but it
is not my religion. I can't think of anything material that I own that
will give me reassurance when I actually need that. You know I'm more
inclined to look to other things for that, to look within myself, not at
my walls. My walls, incidentally (you know this) are covered with more
actual photographs of people I know than with anything else. They, if
anything, are my reassurance. And the real night sky. If I had the money
to go out and buy prints of all the paintings I like, I would first find
that one of a man, standing over a dying fire, that hangs in the
magnificent red room covered with clunky gold-framed oils in the AGO.
>
> Go solve Resident Evil for me, I need to know how to get past the giant
> worm.
It is
29 degrees in
here
Almost too
hot to
lift a
beer
Solve it yourself
(stupidhead)
Nikolaus Maack
> If you have a definition of what is skill, then you have a direction in
> which to point your improvement. If you have a direction that you know
> is towards "better", then you can also absolutely evaluate how far any
> other piece of work is in that direction.
My improvement is not necessarily the same as your improvement. My truth
isn't necessarily the same as your truth. I know I have a place I aim
for, and I walk towards it. What you aim for might be an entirely new
place. I can judge you by my values -- what choice do I have but to do
so? -- but my judgment may or may not be meaningful to you, depending on
what it is you are striving for.
You believe in an objective world, and this is where we differ.
> You can do whatever the fuck you want, but that's just shrugging and
> giving up on truth.
Which truth? Whose truth?
You seem to believe that there is ONE truth. I disagree. There are many,
many different truths. An infinite number of them. In the end, my
harshest critic, the one who tells me if my art succeeds or not, is me.
> You probably paint when you're too tired to masturbate.
I suspect it's the other way around.
Geoffrey Dow
>
> SCK (s...@igs.net) writes:
> > If you have a definition of what is skill, then you have a direction in
> > which to point your improvement. If you have a direction that you know
> > is towards "better", then you can also absolutely evaluate how far any
> > other piece of work is in that direction.
>
> My improvement is not necessarily the same as your improvement. My truth
> isn't necessarily the same as your truth. I know I have a place I aim
> for, and I walk towards it. What you aim for might be an entirely new
> place. I can judge you by my values -- what choice do I have but to do
> so? -- but my judgment may or may not be meaningful to you, depending on
> what it is you are striving for.
>
> You believe in an objective world, and this is where we differ.
> <snip>
>
> Which truth? Whose truth?
Just out of pruient curiosity Nik (the last person who said this
to me refused to discuss the issue), upon what do you base your
contention that there is no such thing as absolute truth? Are you
really saying that reality depends on one's point of view or are
you in fact unwilling to face (what I believe to be) the fact that
reality is, at best, very difficult to understand and quite possibly
unknowable in principle?
Geoffrey Dow
>
> Geoffrey Dow wrote:
>
> > mind of the artist, and into that of every child who has first
> > looked up at the firmament in awe and wonder. The man did one
> > of those things I believe Art is meant to do: to show us a
> > different way of seeing reality, to expand our sense of the
> > possible.
>
> I know what "Starry Night" is supposed to show, it's painfully obvious
> with just one glimpse of it. He used the most obvious, historical symbol
> of unknown possibilities (sky, stars), and painted it in with the most
> obvious vehicle to express awe and wonder (child-like).
Which is it? You are not very familiar with his work or we
should take your opinion seriously?
To suggest that Van Gogh is not a good painter is, perhaps,
a tenable position. To say his painting is "child-like" is
simply asinine. The man, at his best, was neither
experimenting nor fucking around. He knew what he was
doing, he knew technique and he had Vision, whether or
not you are capable of understanding it.
> Van Gogh paints the equivalent of a Michael Richter messages.
Sneer on, my friend. I am reminded of an iliterate hill-billy
making smug, self-satisfied remarks about morons who waste
their time reading books.
> > > I think there is such a thing as absolute value. The only problem with
> > > my belief that I haven't sorted out yet is that it necessarily requires
> > > the existence of a supreme being to set the value.
> >
> > Yes. That is why the concept of absolute value is a silly one.
> > It is as if the nature of reality depended upon the existence
> > of Santa Claus.
>
> I find it amusing that you are so reluctant to be decisive and close
> doors on the trivial, like whether comic books are art, and yet you are
> so adamantly self-defining about closing the door on the existence of
> God. You're a very confused young man.
As you know very well, I have only argued that *some* comic
books are art, that the medium is as capable of being used
to produce art as is any other. Perhaps I ought to spend
more time discussing your belief that the painting of the
woman fucking the octopus is a pinnacle of human achievement.
Incidentally, why can't *you* come down on one side or the
other of the "god" question?
Geoffrey Dow
>
> Dre wrote:
>
> > No video game could compare to that feeling, and no man has ever looked
> > back at me with such passionate ferocity in his eyes as Van Gogh in his
> > self portrait.
>
> Nonsense -- and I can prove it. I have a video game that captures so
> much atmosphere for you that you are, literally, *afraid to play it*.
> That is a powerful proof of the emotion it instills in you.
Ah yes, blind terror: the epitome of art. This from the man who
wrote:
"When I try to decide what art has value, I ignore me and I try to
imagine the symbol of a perfect man. Man as he was meant to be,
wise,
creative, happy, moral, great, like some amalgamation of
Michelangelo's
David and Rodin's Thinker and the hero from adventure movies who
kills
himself in order to save the planet from an asteroid. Individual man
as
he would be if the world were perfect. Then I try to imagine what
this
man would think of this art and I wonder if he would appreciate it,
think it is trivial, or weep at its feet."
Vernon Pineau
: Your problem, and Nik's problem and Vermin's problem, is that you are
: all too waff-ly to stand up and decisively exclude shit from art,
: because each of you harbours the same secret fear that this might one
: day enable someone better to exclude you. You would rather hide behind
: an inpenetrable shield of "judge not lest ye be judged" victim
: psychology than live your life believing in your own superiority and
: risk the plummet.
And your problem is that you can't deal with what in your heart of hearts
you concieve to be this big huge uncaring meaningless universe. Basically,
your a god-boy, god-boy. You want there to be some kind of huge
heirerarchical structure justifying or villifying your and every body
else's actions. That's why Ayn.Rand makes you so hot; she's basically an
economic old testament, and appeals to your god-boy desires to see a just
universe. And just like the other god-boys of this world you try and
shape THE WORD to the THE LIFE.
"My hear rouses
thinking to bring you news
of something
that concerns you
and concerns many men. Look at
what passes for the new.
You will not find it there but in
despised poems.
It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
or what is found there.".
William Carlos Willams
Asphodel, That Greeny Flower.
--
SCK
> My improvement is not necessarily the same as your improvement. My truth
> isn't necessarily the same as your truth.
I suggest two things to you from the above statements. You don't know
the meaning of the word "improvement" and you don't know the meaning of
the word "truth". There is no relativity to truth, something is either
true or it isn't. Improvement is a consistent progression towards a
single direction.
When you say improvement you actually mean your arbitrary whim. When you
say truth you actually mean your opinion.
>
> You believe in an objective world, and this is where we differ.
>
Essentially, yes. Why do you believe in a subjective world when all
evidence points you to the contrary? Everything about the physical world
is objective. You can assuredly predict what will happen if you whap two
rocks together.
My question, more precisely, is this: With all the evidence provided by
the objectivity of the physical world, how do you know that willfully
viewing any part of the world subjectively isn't a facet of your
psychology to protect your self-esteem? A subjective framework is
designed to make everything you do more palatable.
> > You can do whatever the fuck you want, but that's just shrugging and
> > giving up on truth.
>
> Which truth? Whose truth?
>
From now on in your presence, my truth is that you do not get hurt when
I hit you with beer bottles. Is this valid?
Nikolaus Maack
> Just out of pruient curiosity Nik (the last person who said this
> to me refused to discuss the issue), upon what do you base your
> contention that there is no such thing as absolute truth?
When it comes to instructions on how to build a nuclear reactor, I
recognize that there is probably a good, objective way of going about
doing this. I will follow the instructions of people who came before me.
However, I will still be critical of some of their instructions -- "All
signs must be red on white, and all the buttons must make a DING! noise
when pressed."
In matters of morality, art, literature, and social practices, there is no
objective truth. For example, which is true?
a) Men must wear pants and women must wear dresses.
b) People must walk around naked.
c) Hats are to be taken off as soon as one goes indoors.
d) A bone through the nose indicates fertility.
e) None of the above.
f) All of the above.
g) Both E and F.
The answer has to be G. There is no truth in these matters. Social
convention is a consensual decision based on very little. There is a
certain amount of reason to it -- we can expect that Canadians won't start
walking around naked in January -- but for the most part, it's all a
game, a fashion.
SCK has argued that there is one true ideal vision of the concept "man",
and that in his art, he would strive to find that ideal. In my view, that
ideal changes over time, depending on the culture and the prevailing
fashion. At one point, fat men were considered the ideal. They could,
after all, afford to be fat. Male nudity was once considered a hot
commodity. An erect penis, in the North American movie industry, is worse
(morally speaking) than a bloody dagger.
What are these decisions based on, if not collective whim and fashion?
So while it can be argued that there are stars in the sky and they are
like our suns and they emit heat -- we still have to question this
regularly, just to keep in practice. But whether or not ostrich feathers
are acceptable in our hats this week has nothing to do with objective
reality.
Nikolaus Maack
> When you say improvement you actually mean your arbitrary whim. When you
> say truth you actually mean your opinion.
I can decide I want my art to improve by getting closer to the skill I see
in, say, Van Gogh or Picasso or whoever. But even then, my whim chooses
which artists I want my work to most look like. Essentially, in the realm
of art, morality, and social convention -- yes, we choose our behavior
based on whim.
Of course, indidividually, it's much easier to give in to the social norm
-- "People wear t-shirts, I will wear t-shirts!" -- than it is to fight
it.
"People wear t-shirts, I will wear ruffled, powder blue tuxedo dress
shirts."
> Essentially, yes. Why do you believe in a subjective world when all
> evidence points you to the contrary? Everything about the physical world
> is objective. You can assuredly predict what will happen if you whap two
> rocks together.
Yes, but in the realm of art, social mores, and literature, we aren't
talking about physics. Physics is predicting what happens when two rocks
are banged together. Art is trying to decide what colour to paint a rock
that you want to put in the middle of your garden. Social mores is
deciding whether or not gaucho pants look ridiculous on you. Literature
is deciding whether you prefer Poe or William Carlos Williams.
> From now on in your presence, my truth is that you do not get hurt when
> I hit you with beer bottles. Is this valid?
I'm sure you can recognize that some "truths" are arbitrary fashions. The
truth of which is better, wide lapels versus narrow ones, does not reflect
an objective reality that a physicist can predict for us.
SCK
> Shouldn't that tell you something about the art, that perhaps
> this painting almost definitely is an exploration into loneliness, or
> what have you, and these very different people all see that about it?
>
I don't disagree with that. Frankly, I don't find it very surprising at
all that a whole bunch of lonely people find art that speaks to that
loneliness is good. But that has nothing to do with the art, and
everything to do with the human compulsion to alleviate the source of
their discomfort.
Just as I expect you personally to like Van Gogh's Starry Night, I also
expect a man who is deathly afraid of weasels to think a finger-painting
of a weasel-trap is good. You fail to differentiate between the art
being "good" for empirical reasons and the art being "good" because it
happens to identify with your emotional shortcomings.
I like paintings of women and octopusses. I don't think they are
particularly "good", but I like them because the *subject matter* speaks
to me. I have the presence of mind to be able to distinguish subject
matter from intrinsic artistic quality.
> Don't get ahead of yourself. How can you say that the emotional response
> of fear is more powerful than passion?
Easy, I have the proof: You say Resident Evil makes you scared, and
therefore you refuse to play it (your actions are consistent with your
claim here). You say that Van Gogh arouses all this magical passion in
you and rivets you to the floor, yet you don't have a single Van Gogh
print adorning your walls (your actions are wholly inconsistent with
your claim).
> My life is not moved "so completely" by that painting, I like it, but it
> is not my religion. I can't think of anything material that I own that
Nonsense. In the same message you just told me: "If I wasn't normally so
reticent, I would swoon and dance and maybe kiss a glass of wine while I
look at Van Gogh." In a previous message you described a golden thread
darting from you to the Starry Night picture.
The fact is, you only like to think these things because you like to
think of yourself as being that kind of person. Your actions don't bear
you out. We surround ourselves automatically with the things that move
us most. Your bedroom wall doesn't have Starry Night on it, or anything
by Van Gogh anywhere, despite your passionate claims. There's simply no
room for him between Bono, David Bowie, John Irving and the other people
who move you most: your family and friends, and that inexplicable
photograph you have of Pee-Wee Herman.
Here, I'll make it easier for you to become consistent with your wild,
swooning claims. The following are a few links showing copies of Starry
Night currently available on E-bay. I would think that for something
that supposedly arrouses so much passion in you, you would rush to buy
one of these at the earliest possible moment.
Here are actual oil-painted reproductions by skilled, accredited artists
(so you can pretty much have all the details of the original in your
home to admire all the time):
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=374300474
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=374022233
Here are some nice, framed and matted prints:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=376821761
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=376814491
If you can't afford much, here are some posters:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=377006370
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=375900036
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=375899982
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=375680082
All of these are available right now ranging from $8.00 to $195.00 and
you don't even have to go anywhere to get them. Can you be bothered, or
is Starry Night really just not worth that much after all?
Dre
He's all over the place with this one, ain't he?
Let's lynch the bugger. We'll call it, "SCK Hanging by a Thread".
Dre
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> I saw a TV show where a man claimed to "channel" the spirits of dead
> painters. He'd summon up Picasso, Van Gogh, whoever, and then quickly do
> a painting in their style -- upside down.
>
> I thought this was really interesting, and despite the fact that I don't
> believe in channeling, I thought I'd give it a try. I went upstairs, sat
> in front of paper and tried to think of how Picasso would paint.
>
> It didn't work. I can't paint in the style of anyone but me.
>
I didn't mean copying another artist's style. I meant trying to paint as
someone who is completely different from you, someone with a different
past, different experiences, a different gender. Do you ever pick up
your brush and ask yourself, "What does an old, lonely woman with no
ambition left in her life see?" instead of, "What does Nik see today?"
> > And if you say that, yes, you can and do do this, isn't it then possible
> > that a person might hang a painting on a wall or button something to a
> > jacket because they are trying to project an identity that is not
> > theirs?
>
> Sure. People have identities they wish belonged to them but don't.
Do you think there are people out there who pin identities to themselves
not because they are wishing for something they don't have, but because
they admire something about the "identity" expressed in the work? Have
you never bought a piece of art, or a shirt, that you knew wasn't "you",
but you liked and decided to buy as a sort of experiment? "If I hang
this on my wall, and I see it there every day, will I be the same person
next year?" or "If I wear this shirt, how will people look at me
differently, how will I feel?"
Don't you think it's possible to feel completely OKAY with being a
certain way, and experimenting with different identities not as a way to
hide but as a way to grow?
> I think putting on false identities inevitably leads to
> depression and loss. Of course, then there's the question of how you can
> tell the difference between a false identity and a true one. And what if
> there is no such thing as a true identity?
>
If you pretend to be someone you are not, within limits and with a
certain amount of premeditated decisiveness, you are more likely to
learn more about who you really are.
If you think there is no such thing as true identity, that would explain
why you think everything can be art.
"I am everyone!"
SCK
> > Nonsense -- and I can prove it. I have a video game that captures so
> > much atmosphere for you that you are, literally, *afraid to play it*.
> > That is a powerful proof of the emotion it instills in you.
>
> Ah yes, blind terror: the epitome of art. This from the man who
> wrote:
>
Comic books about nude aardvarks have turned your brain to tofu. I did
not write that video games or blind terror are the epitome of art. I
merely pointed out that the magnitude of emotion which a video game can
inspire in your young cousin exceeds the magnitude of emotion that Van
Gogh can. Her actions are consistent with someone who feels a lot of
fear when she plays Resident Evil: she doesn't play. Her actions are
inconsistent with someone who cleams to feel a lot of passion for Van
Gogh: she can't be bothered overcoming the tiniest hurdles to acquire
one.
SCK
> In matters of morality, art, literature, and social practices, there is no
> objective truth. For example, which is true?
>
Actually, you're wrong again, but this time it only comes from lazy
thinking and not your concept of truth. Your objective/subjective
analogies don't correspond because in your objective example you state
*both* a condition and a qualifier. In your subjective ones you state
*only* the condition with no qualifier. I can turn all of these into the
opposites, whether they are objective or subjective examples.
Your objective example is (reworded to fit your format below):
I must follow the instructions ... if I want to build a nuclear reactor.
Notice the first part is just the condition. Taken by itself, "I must
follow the instructions", is neither true nor false because it has no
qualifier attached. That is why it is "true" in the objective case, you
have added the qualifier, and it has nothing to do with its inherent
root in the physical/objective world.
You did not add a single qualifier in your subjective examples. This is
not because there is an inherent difference in the nature of truth in
objective or subjective cases, it's 100% sloppy thinking from you.
For all of your subjective cases. See below:
> a) Men must wear pants and women must wear dresses.
> b) People must walk around naked.
> c) Hats are to be taken off as soon as one goes indoors.
> d) A bone through the nose indicates fertility.
> e) None of the above.
> f) All of the above.
> g) Both E and F.
>
Here, I can make them all true by adding the qualifier:
Men must wear pants and women must wear dresses... if they want to
follow established gender roles in contemporary Western society.
People must walk around naked... if they wish for others to be very sure
of their sex.
Hats are to be taken off as soon as one goes indoors... if you want to
reduce the possibility that you will bash your hat on low ceilings.
A bone through the nose indicates fertility... to some tribes in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
None of the above... are William Carlos Williams poems.
All of the above... are examples of your inability to apply critical
thinking to the construction of your examples.
Both E and F... are statements I appended qualifiers to which made them
true.
If you want to show a difference between the wavering nature of truth in
some subjective cases over others, you must be able to find an specific
example where you provide both a condition and the desired qualifying
effect, for which it can be answered that it is both TRUE and FALSE and
both are equally correct.
Can you do that?
SCK
> And your problem is that you can't deal with what in your heart of hearts
> you concieve to be this big huge uncaring meaningless universe. Basically,
> your a god-boy, god-boy. You want there to be some kind of huge
> heirerarchical structure justifying or villifying your and every body
> else's actions. That's why Ayn.Rand makes you so hot; she's basically an
> economic old testament, and appeals to your god-boy desires to see a just
> universe. And just like the other god-boys of this world you try and
> shape THE WORD to the THE LIFE.
This is the only message of yours that I liked today. I do not
particularly disagree with any of it.
Why don't you elaborate some more on what is in my heart of hearts? I'm
actually very interested to hear what you have to say on this subject.
>
> William Carlos Willams
>
> Asphodel, That Greeny Flower.
> --
How do you know he didn't steal that off James Hall?
Vernon Pineau
: I think there is such a thing as absolute value. The only problem with
: my belief that I haven't sorted out yet is that it necessarily requires
: the existence of a supreme being to set the value.
Ha. I knew you were a god boy.
--
Dre
SCK wrote:
>
> Dre wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't that tell you something about the art, that perhaps
> > this painting almost definitely is an exploration into loneliness, or
> > what have you, and these very different people all see that about it?
> >
>
> I don't disagree with that. Frankly, I don't find it very surprising at
> all that a whole bunch of lonely people find art that speaks to that
> loneliness is good. But that has nothing to do with the art, and
> everything to do with the human compulsion to alleviate the source of
> their discomfort.
>
I didn't say a crowd of "lonely" people. A group of *different* people.
Say there is a painting hung on a wall of a grey old man and his dowdy
wife. A small group of people walk up to it. One person is a happy, fat
man. Another is a young girl who has just gotten a bad haircut. Two
people are a couple about to have a child. The last is an evil doctor.
They each study the painting and come to the conclusion that it is a
piece about "enduring love". It doesn't matter whether or not they think
it's good. I wasn't arguing that a group of people who all *like* a
painting must all have something in common that makes the painting
attractive to them. That is a separate point, and you are so giggly and
eager to "break my mind" that you molded what I said into something that
would support your next arguments. My point was this: you said that what
people see in a piece of art tells you nothing about the art, only the
people. I'm saying that no, you're wrong. Some paintings are just
absolutely "about" something specific, and people who are completely
different and don't share any emotional or philosophical similarities
will all see the same thing.
There is a photo of a dog attacking another dog. Everyone who sees it
says, "that is probably about violence". It doesn't matter if they like
it or not. Some art is obvious. What people see in it *can* tell you
about the art. If you are unwilling to close the door on other possible
meanings a painting could project, that is the same as the "weakness"
you say Geoff and Vern and Nik harbour when deciding what makes art
good, or even art.
> Just as I expect you personally to like Van Gogh's Starry Night, I also
> expect a man who is deathly afraid of weasels to think a finger-painting
> of a weasel-trap is good. You fail to differentiate between the art
> being "good" for empirical reasons and the art being "good" because it
> happens to identify with your emotional shortcomings.
That's a bunch of pompous crap. You don't think it's possible to simply
like something without there being some kind of placation of insecurity
involved? If I look up at the stars and say that they are beautiful
enough to make me cry, will you say, "that's because you see in them
your inability
to stop isolating yourself..."? Can't you fathom that perhaps something
is attractive to me because whatever I think beauty is has somehow been
captured? What if I said, "You see that, if I was Ideal Man, I'd like
that". Can you tell me that, well, shit, my idea of Ideal Man must be
wrong, because your Ideal Man thinks Van Gogh sucks? By "'good' for
empirical reasons" do you mean "good by Ideal Man's definition"? Define
"empirical", prove that your definition of "empirical" is correct and
mine is not, and then tell me that I haven't used my definition in
deciding that "Starry Night" is good. Then I might take you seriously.
> > Don't get ahead of yourself. How can you say that the emotional response
> > of fear is more powerful than passion?
>
> Easy, I have the proof: You say Resident Evil makes you scared, and
> therefore you refuse to play it (your actions are consistent with your
> claim here). You say that Van Gogh arouses all this magical passion in
> you and rivets you to the floor, yet you don't have a single Van Gogh
> print adorning your walls (your actions are wholly inconsistent with
> your claim).
>
This isn't mathematical. It's not a case of "one plus one equals two,
how come one plus one doesn't equal two again?" Consider this: Imagine a
long skinny branch.
This branch is mine, and yours is completely different. On this branch,
there are a series of notches. Each notch represents a different niche
(let's call them niche notches) of captured beauty, or feeling, or
sentiment, or intrinsic emotion. Any piece of art I see or read or hear,
measures somewhere on that branch, captures a niche notch, or, if I've
never seen it before, carves in a new one of its own. Some notches are
more important to me than others - some rank higher on my list of
priorities when it comes to surrounding myself with the things that
capitulate each notch. The "Starry Night" notch is important to me, as
it
represents a notch of its own - nothing else shares that niche. But I
have placed a higher value on the carved lines that are there because of
other
things; photos of people I love or admire, real people. I am allowed to
make that decision, and it is not a result of any "psychological error".
It is a "value judgment", which you encourage people to make.
When are you going to put something on your wall that rivets you to the
floor?
Cheetahs: "They're so tacky I like them".
Dali: "It's interesting but I don't really like him that much".
Naked Woman: "I think I like something about the lines".
Octopus Chick: "It's not that good, but I think I like the subject
matter" (she is sitting on the floor)
Lucrezia: "I don't know who it's by" (if she entranced you, you would)
Most of your other walls are bare. Why? Haven't bothered? Nothing
impresses you enough? Have you made the decision that in your life,
putting nice pictures on your walls is not that important? The only
picture you admitted had a strong emotional effect on you is loose,
susceptible to damage, sitting like an old newspaper on your desk. Its
twin, you framed and gave to Vern. Do you think it's more important for
other people to be moved by art and then justify that reaction than for
you to do so yourself? Are you only truly moved by things that speak to
your insecurities, and that's why you can't see how it could work
differently for anyone else? Do you not put up pictures of things that
move you because they remind you of your insecurities?
>
> Here, I'll make it easier for you to become consistent with your wild,
> swooning claims. The following are a few links showing copies of Starry
> Night currently available on E-bay. I would think that for something
> that supposedly arrouses so much passion in you, you would rush to buy
> one of these at the earliest possible moment.
>
At the very tip of my branch there is a leaf. It is called real life.
And I deal with it and think about it more than any painting.
sinister
> I wish you were joking. Our own attempts at conversation here indicate that
> language is just as prone to minsinterpretation and inaccuracies as art is.
I hate to tell you this, nik, but the problems with accurate communication in
our conversation on this thread are strictly at your end.
submitted for your consideration (from webster's ...I'd prefer oxford, but these
will do):
property n. (pl. properties)
4. b. A characteristic attribute possessed by all members of a class.
5. A special capability or power; a virtue: a medicine with special properties.
medium n. (pl. media)
2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or
carried on.
7. a. A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined
by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of
lithography.
7. b. The materials used in a specific artistic technique: oils as a medium.
message n. (pl. messages)
1. b. The substance of such a communication; the point or points conveyed:
gestured to a waiter, who got the message and brought the bill.
keep these in mind, they're important.
> I will now try to list off the messages contained in the notion of "painting"
> before an artist so much as picks up a brush. What values does "painting"
> hold, on its own?
I don't know what *you* mean by "values" in this context. you said you were
going to list "messages". the use of "values" in this context is contradictory
and implies "properties". anyway...
> Emblem and definition of self.
this is a property (5).
I really like what you said about this, particularly the stuff about buttons.
unfortunately, it's the selection of the specific slogan that presents the
message to support an individual's definition of self or member of a group. the
general ability to present a message is a property (4.b.) of the media (2)
paintings and buttons.
> To get even more complex on this one point, the very notion of "possessions"
> has this same value.
this is another property (4.b). in fact, it is also the first definition of
"property": a possession. I tagged you with "4.b" because I think that what you
were trying to say is: "all paintings may be possessed". incidentally, all
paintings lack "value" until value is placed on a specific painting by someone.
all paintings are worthless until painted.
> Whatever object I choose to "own" -- this painting is MINE -- becomes a piece
> of me.
again, this is primary definition of "property".
> This is inherent in the notion of PAINTING.
well, these things you mentioned are certainly inherent, but they're properties
and not messages. a painting only becomes a possession, emblem, or what-not
when *a* painting containing a *specific* message or messages is chosen by an
individual for that purpose. the *medium* of paintings cannot do this - it only
provides the potential for this.
> As you said, Mcluhan is saying that analysis of the medium reveals that it
> possesses certain messages in itself before there is even a message contained
> in it.
I never said that. I said (adapted to your sentence): "[...], McLuhan was
saying that an analysis of the medium reveals that it possesses certain
properties. When the impact these properties on the masses are examined, we are
presented with a message telling us about the potential uses of this medium." .
> I think other mediums can be said to carry a message unto themselves.
okay...
> Think of the guy downtown, sitting in a coffee shop, who is READING A BOOK as
> loudly as he can.
> [...]
> because he wants to project a certain identity.
>
> The medium of BIG DUSTY BOOK carries a certain message in our culture.
"big dusty book" is not a medium. it is a thing. books are products that
utilize the medium of literature (or the written word, if you prefer). in your
example, you should have said: "Think of the guy downtown, sitting in a coffee
shop, who is reading Marx and Engel's 'The Communist Manifesto' as loudly as he
can". this guy *is* attempting to project a certain identity (that of an
obnoxious idiot, but anyway). regardless of what he is trying to do, the
*message* of "the communist manifesto" remains the same. it is the values
associated with the book by society (or any of society's subcultures) that he's
trying present as image. things like "smart", "counter-culture, "hip", or who
knows what else. the guy in question is probably doing this to get hot, young
(and stupid) university chicks to notice him,
> The same can be said for clothing, science fiction novels, pornography,
> paintings, art. These objects are seen, by people, as to contain a message in
> themselves -- even before the object itself is formed.
this is a non-sequiter. it is only when a specific object is worn, read, looked
at, examined, et cetera does the message exist. you are confusing mass
production of an already existing item with the medium it was first created
from.
> If I own GAP clothing, I will be popular.
this is only because the *existing* GAP *brand* (or emblem) has already been
established. this season's new line has implied acceptance before its creation
with the people who thrive on the messages already associated with the brand.
tear the label off and the new line loses this implied appeal to certain people
and must stand on it's own.
> which described how people try to associate their own identities with the
> winning team.
this is what emblems, flags, et al are all about. the elements (media (7.b))
from which you create the emblem have no collective meaning in this regard until
the emblem is actually created and its message is established.
> if they say, "I listen to TOP 40 ROCK RADIO all day at work," you have a
> clearer idea.
"top 40 rock radio" is not a medium. it is a thing that exists on the medium of
radio. it provides messages, that's certainly true. the radio station is to a
painting as radio waves are to the canvas, brush, and paint.
> Does the medium, here [radio], as it is consumed, provide an identity? A
> truth?
by the way, an identity is a truth. they are both unique singularities.
anyway, you cannot consume a medium, only the message carried upon it. thus,
you really asking one of two things:
a) "Does the consumption of "Top Forty Radio" contribute to one's identity?"
or
b) "Does the existence of the radio medium contribute to one's identity?"
obviously, for "a", the answer is "yes". likewise, for "b", the answer is "no".
> I exaggerate my indolence to amuse you. You do know I'm joking, right?
last week, I would have assumed that you were joking. I think you are
perilously close to becoming what you exaggerate.
oh yeah, where's my paglia portrait?
/sin.
Nikolaus Maack
> Her actions are
> inconsistent with someone who cleams to feel a lot of passion for Van
> Gogh: she can't be bothered overcoming the tiniest hurdles to acquire
> one.
I have to throw myself in the midst of all of this to smack you with a
rolled up newspaper. Why on earth do you insist that, if someone feels
passion for a thing, they must "own" it and have it in their presence? I
see no logical reason to accept this. It sounds like a very idiotic,
nearly nonsensical thing to say. I challenge you to explain this
assumption of yours, which I find ludicrous. Admit it -- you made it up.
I've read novels that I've adored, but I don't own copies of them. I've
seen dozens of paintings I've loved -- works by Miro, Picasso, Dali, etc
-- and they don't hang on my walls. There's a lot of music I want to own,
but don't. I love my cat, but it lives with my girlfriend. For that
matter, I love my girlfriend, Michelle, but she lives on the other side of
town. Does that mean I don't really love her?
So explain yourself, sir. Otherwise admit that this is nonsense.
Nikolaus Maack
> Actually, you're wrong again, but this time it only comes from lazy
> thinking and not your concept of truth.
(I'll rephrase, because you're being stupid.)
Say I want to let go of a rock, and have it float in the air. Objective
reality doesn't exist, I say, so when I let go of the rock, it will float.
I let it go, and it falls to the ground. Damn.
This represents a particular sort of truth, a particular slice of
objective reality. It's one I cannot deny.
When it comes to things like the styles of clothes, the proper way to bow,
whether one blows one's nose in kleenex or their fingers -- these are
determined by social values. These values not only vary from culture to
culture, they vary from social group to social group. The boys at the
golf club use hankies, the bikers downtown just plug one nostril and blow.
Are there "objective truths" behind these varying social mores? Not
really. They seem to be based on whim, tradition, "that's always the way
it's been done", etc, etc.
It is silly to label both sets of "rules" as truth. One set of rules is
merely fashion.
People in one country put bones through their noses, people in another
country don't. What does this say about the TRUTH that putting a bone
through her nose makes a woman "beautiful"? Is it TRUE or FALSE?
Let's test it.
I take a random woman off the streets of Ottawa, and I put a bone through
her nose. I then stop random men -- don't you find her sexier with a bone
through her nose? No? Not one of you? Hmmm.
So I go to Batswannalooloo land. I grab a random woman, and I stick a
bone through her nose. I then stop random men -- sexier with a bone?
Hotch, hotcha! All the men think this bone did wonders to her. She is
now sexier than ever.
What does this mean? The notion that a bone through the nose makes a
woman sexier is both TRUE and NOT TRUE. It's false in Ottawa, but it's
true in Batswannalooloo land.
What does this say about the nature of these kinds of TRUTH? What are
these truths based on? Are they, in fact, truths at all? It seems that
these particular sorts of truth change based on "culture", "fashion", and
"whim".
By the way, if I drop a rock in Batswannalooloo land, it still falls to
the ground.
What falls into the category of "questionable" truths? Morality, art,
fashion, etiquette, and more. Good art in Ottawa is not good art in
Batswannalooloo land. They hate The Group of Seven in B.L.. Adultery is
frowned upon in Ottawa. In Batswannalooloo land they ask me to have sex
with their wives all the time. It's why I visit so often. In Ottawa, it
is polite to shake hands when introduced to someone new. In B.L. shaking
hands is punishable by death.
Presumably you understand all of this better than I do, Steve, having
travelled. Certain "truths" become "false" when you travel to a new
culture.
Nikolaus Maack
> I hate to tell you this, nik, but the problems with accurate
>communication in our conversation on this thread are strictly at your end.
I communicate like a poet. No one seems to understand me -- except other
poets, and sometimes not even them. It's a blessing and a curse. So I'm
going to stop talking to you about whatever we were talking about, seeing
as how it's a waste of both our times. Obviously I don't have the
discipline necessary to discuss philosophical matters.
More and more, I discover I communicate in the real world better than
online. I don't know if this applies to everyone, or just me.
> oh yeah, where's my paglia portrait?
See, that's why I assumed you were on this "Nik personifies laziness"
kick.
After Steve went wacko with the shotgun, I didn't want to have anything to
do with anyone who was there because you ALL seemed like a bunch of
fucking nutcases. Which is an unfair thing to say, at least in regards to
you. You were one of the sanest people there, that evening.
This was a sentiment -- "Fuck you wackoes!" -- took a while to form. It
would be safe to call it a state of "ennui" with people in general. A
less polite way to put it would be, I decided to hide from people because
if they're all as crazy as Steve, I don't want to see them.
Also, when I saw the photo you sent me of Paglia, I thought, there is
absolutely nothing I can do with this. How do I say that to this guy?
Why do people keep sending me absolutely ridiculous photographs and ask me
to work from them? Fuck it, I don't want to talk to him anyway.
We moody artist types, dontcha know.
Care to choose someone else for me to portrait-ify, or suggest a better
photograph, or something? If you have an URL for a photo, I can hunt it
down and print it out and work from that. Let us renegotiate our deal, by
the way, assuming you want to make another deal.
Michael T. Richter
news:8km1p6$68i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Good art in Ottawa is not good art in Batswannalooloo land. They
> hate The Group of Seven in B.L..
I'm not in Batswannalooloo land and I hate the Group of Seven.
BlueBug
> I'm not in Batswannalooloo land and I hate the Group of Seven.
Your mind was shipped directly from Batswannalooloo land -- minds
manufactured there are a lot cheaper than most, and your parents where
tight on cash when you were born. If she had purchased you a Canadian
brain you would be just as content with the Group of Seven as the rest of
us.
--
one day. i am goiingtogrow wings | "When I die/ I'll grow wings/
a chemichal reaCtion. | And fly./ Don't grin,"/
hysterical & useless. | said the caterpillar/ crawling by.
-Radiohead | -Alden Nowlan
Nikolaus Maack
> If she had purchased you a Canadian
> brain you would be just as content with the Group of Seven as the rest of
> us.
I have to admit I really don't like the Group of Seven that much either,
except for the one guy who got into abstract work, whose name I always
forget. I have that tiny book of his stuff upstairs, somewhere. Some day
I'll commit his name to memory. I thought this day had already come, but
I guess not.
As for the rest of the Gof7, the colours can be interesting, but nature
has never been a subject matter I'm too keen on. Which is a little odd,
as I love to go for long walks through the Greenbelt.
SCK
> Say I want to let go of a rock, and have it float in the air. Objective
> reality doesn't exist, I say, so when I let go of the rock, it will float.
> I let it go, and it falls to the ground. Damn.
>
Not true. It depends where you are. In fact, in more than 99.99999% of
the places you could possibly be in the entire universe, your rock
*would* float. Ha. I enjoyed saying that so much, because it so clearly
demonstrates the limit of your critical thinking.
Your statement is only correct when you add (again I have to tell you
this) the qualifier. Your qualifier is implied here, but you just aren't
thinking.
If I want a floating rock... I have to go somewhere with no gravity.
> What does this mean? The notion that a bone through the nose makes a
> woman sexier is both TRUE and NOT TRUE. It's false in Ottawa, but it's
> true in Batswannalooloo land.
>
That's correct. How does this support your point? It actually proves
mine: As soon as you get specific enough by adding qualifiers (here you
are specifying location), everything can be made into an absolute truth.
And since every instance of life (me, who I am, where I am, what my
upbringing is, etc.) *IS* specific, then everything I do and say and
think can be shown to be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, all you
have to know are the parameters.
Also, you failed to point out any difference to me between objective and
subjective. I do not see any qualitative difference between your example
of the attractiveness of bone-pierced women in Ottawa and Botswannaloo
than a floating rock on earth or in space. Just because these truths are
harder to *perceive* does not make either of them any less true,
ultimately.
SCK
> would support your next arguments. My point was this: you said that what
> people see in a piece of art tells you nothing about the art, only the
> people. I'm saying that no, you're wrong. Some paintings are just
> absolutely "about" something specific, and people who are completely
> different and don't share any emotional or philosophical similarities
> will all see the same thing.
No painting is "absolutely" about something specific. It's impossible.
What a painting represents comes from years and years of socialization
and culture and the individual psychology of the viewer. I challenge you
to name any real or fictional painting that is absolutely about
something specific. You can't. I will always be able to think of a case
of socialization in the individual viewing it where he will not see it
that way. It will be more difficult, but I could probably even point
precisely to the innate false assumption you made in that case.
Starry Night appeals to a certain type of person because it is reaching
to something in that person's socialization, psychology or emotional
make-up which is meaningful to them. They may all be different on the
surface, in the trivial details you gave such as appearance, babies and
profession, but all of these people are capable of feeling lonely, for
instance, or identifying with escape or the travails of responsibility.
Incidentally, I am only interested in the opinion of the evil doctor.
> There is a photo of a dog attacking another dog. Everyone who sees it
> says, "that is probably about violence". It doesn't matter if they like
> it or not. Some art is obvious.
It may be obvious to you, but is it obvious to a dog?
> What people see in it *can* tell you
> about the art.
If that were true, then all people would be able to describe some art
identically. But even your dog photograph isn't going to be described by
identically by everyone. Is a photograph of dogs fighting going to be
described the same way by you (about violence) as it is going to be
described by a cook in a Chinese restaurant in Shanghai? He's more
likely to describe the photograph on a menu and instead of calling it
violence, calling it broth.
And many cultures do not think in terms of violence, they think in terms
of necessity. In a photo of fighting dogs they may be innured entirely
to the violence as a necessity of life, and to them the photo is about
survival.
> That's a bunch of pompous crap. You don't think it's possible to simply
> like something without there being some kind of placation of insecurity
> involved?
I didn't say that at all. Not all things people like are placations of
insecurity, but some of them are. There are lots of reasons to like
things. I only told you why you probably like Starry Night, it's a
specific case. It was very thoughtful of Van Gogh to paint a clear sky
over Mississauga for you. That is undoubtedly what it looks like without
the pollution.
> This isn't mathematical. It's not a case of "one plus one equals two,
> how come one plus one doesn't equal two again?" Consider this: Imagine a
> long skinny branch.
> This branch is mine, and yours is completely different. On this branch,
> there are a series of notches. Each notch represents a different niche
> (let's call them niche notches) of captured beauty, or feeling, or
> sentiment, or intrinsic emotion. Any piece of art I see or read or hear,
> measures somewhere on that branch....
It pretty much is mathematical, and it's hilarious how you proved it by
thinking up this elaborate notched-branch metaphor for a RULER. Haha.
That was priceless.
Something isn't mathematical and you go to all this anguished trouble to
think up a device for something that is already a device in MATH, a
RULER. I had to say that twice because I can't stop laughing.
> Lucrezia: "I don't know who it's by" (if she entranced you, you would)
>
Yes, I would know who it's by if she entranced me, and I do. I have no
idea why you think I don't, because the artist's name is written on the
piece of paper in the bottom left corner: Felix Labisse. The little card
shows the artist, the number of the painting and the print size. And I
have taken the trouble to track down other Felix Labisse art, you can
probably find his art catalogue somewhere on my bookshelf.
I like "Lucrezia", and the artist, and my actions bear it out. Our
actions always bear out our true priorities.
Incidentally, Felix Labisse is a Belgian actor and surrealist painter.
You can see some of his other work here:
http://www.place-des-arts.com/Forum/Labisse/labisse.htm
You should buy me one.
Michael T. Richter
> If I want a floating rock... I have to go somewhere with no gravity.
<nitpick>
There is nowhere in the universe without gravity. I suspect you mean
"microgravity" or "free fall" instead.
</nitpick>
SCK
> I have to throw myself in the midst of all of this to smack you with a
> rolled up newspaper. Why on earth do you insist that, if someone feels
> passion for a thing, they must "own" it and have it in their presence? I
> see no logical reason to accept this. It sounds like a very idiotic,
> nearly nonsensical thing to say. I challenge you to explain this
> assumption of yours, which I find ludicrous. Admit it -- you made it up.
It's just action bearing out the truth, the same way that you judge
people more by their actions than their statements. It isn't about
ownership. It is identical to the reasoning behind your often correct
nagging of me that if I truly wanted to write, like I claim I do, I
would make time for it.
I am suspicious whenever anyone's assertions are not borne out by an
appropriate action. I like pizza pops so I buy them. I usually don't
find James Hall interesting so I usually don't reply.
If I claimed either of these things: I like pizza pops, I am
uninterested in James Hall; but then my actions weren't appropriate: I
didn't buy pizza pops, I continually respond to James Hall, then I
require a reasonable explanation why my actions are divergent from my
assertions: I like pizza pops but don't buy them because my doctor says
I will die; I find James Hall uninteresting but I respond to him
continually because my messages are usually directed at other people
reading them.
In this case, the appropriate action for liking Starry Night so utterly
completely, with all the huge, wild passionate claims that were ascribed
to that feeling, is to make room for a copy of it on your wall when you
have already demonstrated a propensity for shrine-building on your wall.
Instead, Rattle & Hum is on the wall, not Van Gogh, but a band that
stole all their best songs from The Petshop Boys.
> I've read novels that I've adored, but I don't own copies of them. I've
> seen dozens of paintings I've loved -- works by Miro, Picasso, Dali, etc
> -- and they don't hang on my walls. There's a lot of music I want to own,
> but don't.
Correct, but all that is *you*. I have no expectation that for *you*
this is an appropriate action to demonstrate your assertion because as
far as I know, you have no history of that. In the specific case of my
poor, beleaguered Dre, I know that she adorns every inch of her bedroom
wall with things that are meaningful to her. This makes her bedroom wall
prime real estate, with important things being prioritized
unconsciously: the space on the wall is finite (uh oh, math).
The most likely explanation for Van Gogh's exclusion from that prime
real estate is that he is less important than everything else on there
(which, by the way, contains a photograph of a very young Young Geoffrey
hunched in a strikingly lewd way over a toy wagon).
>
> So explain yourself, sir. Otherwise admit that this is nonsense.
>
It's only nonsense if you think everything everybody says about
themselves is a more accurate representation of their true selves than
what they do. If that is the case, then I hope you don't become a
therapist because you will have to believe all your patients who say
they aren't suicidal even though they keep running the car in a closed
garage.
Nikolaus Maack
> Not true. It depends where you are. In fact, in more than 99.99999% of
> the places you could possibly be in the entire universe, your rock
> *would* float. Ha. I enjoyed saying that so much, because it so clearly
> demonstrates the limit of your critical thinking.
I live with an eleven year old boy. One day, I asked him if he wanted to
go on a bicycle ride with me. He said no. The reason he said no is
because he doesn't know how to ride very well, therefore he hates to go
bicycle riding. He only learned how to ride this summer.
Of course he'd never admit this in a million years. Instead he says that
he doesn't like riding his bike, that it's too hot out, that his bike seat
is uncomfortable, that he'd rather play videogames, etc.
I pushed and prodded and wheedled until he said, "Okay, I'll go biking
with you tomorrow after noon."
I said, "Fine," and left him alone.
The next day at 3 PM, I informed the lad that I was ready to go on our
bike ride.
He said, "But it's 3 o'clock."
"Right," I said. "The afternoon."
"I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding," he said -- he actually talks
like this, "but I meant that we could go for a bike ride immediately after
noon. Like, between the hours of twelve and one."
He delivered this pronouncement with the seriousest of expressions, and
seemed legitimately baffled when I told him this was weaselly crappolla.
Instead of fighting him -- which leads to naught -- I sighed, shook my
head, and left him to an afternoon of videogame playing all by himself in
his room. He was left with the impression that he'd won. Instead, what
he'd done was pushed me even further away from him, making me not want to
talk to him, and weakening the tenuous feeling of trust I have for him.
You see, he does this sort of weaselly lawyer loophole searching on a
regular basis.
When this eleven year old boy acts stupidly, I don't bother arguing with
him anymore. If there's a chore he has to do, I don't say, "Maybe you
should clean your room like your mom asked." I say, "Clean your room,
like your mom told you to." He doesn't listen to the former, and always
listens to the latter.
In fact, when I said to him, "Would you like it better if I just flat out
told you to do things, instead of trying to explain to you why they need
to be done?"
He said yes.
Perhaps our own conversation would work better if I take the same tactic
with you?
Steve, explain to me why you feel the need to tell people they should talk
to strangers. Also, explain why you play "dare" poker and the like. Tell
me what you hope to achieve by doing these things. Tell me why it is, do
you think, that people are reluctant to talk to strangers? Answer this
question as well -- do you suppose it's because they were raised that way,
or because they're cowards, or both? Answer me on the following -- do you
think our society tells people not to talk to strangers, and this has
raised a group of people who are frightened to do so?
I hope that our new found understanding will lead to benefitial
conversations in the future. You must now express the same sentiment as
well.
Nikolaus Maack
> It's just action bearing out the truth, the same way that you judge
> people more by their actions than their statements. It isn't about
> ownership. It is identical to the reasoning behind your often correct
> nagging of me that if I truly wanted to write, like I claim I do, I
> would make time for it.
Actions might bear out truth, but you are limiting the expression of
passion to one particular action -- going out and buying the piece of art,
and hanging it on a wall.
In order to truly determine whether or not someone's actions express their
supposed feelings, one would have to look at ALL of their behavior. Dre
has said that she felt intense passion for Starry Night. She tells us
that she expressed this passion through the action of standing in front of
it for hours on end when she saw it at the gallery. She also expressed
this passion by telling us about her feelings. She expressed this passion
in text. She became irritated when you belittled the painting, not
wimping out, but continuing to insist that she loves the painting.
To me, these particular actions express the passion she claims to have.
There is little or no evidence to suggest that she is lying.
For some reason, she does not have it hanging on her wall at home. What
does this tell us? Nothing. She seems to prefer having pictures of human
faces and bands she likes. Does this negate the passion she claims to
have for Starry Night? No. She's expressing that particular passion
through a different action. Does this mean we can assume she has more
passion for the faces on the wall than for Starry Night? No. There is no
reason to jump to this conclusion.
If her walls were covered with impressionist art, but Starry Night wasn't
there, then maybe a case could be made. The logical connection between
her walls and the painting, at this point, is weak at best.
> In this case, the appropriate action for liking Starry Night so utterly
> completely, with all the huge, wild passionate claims
Why assume that there is a single "appropriate action" to express passion
for an object, no matter how intense the passion? Each person expresses
their passion in their own particular manner. Suggesting there is only
ONE appropriate action makes no sense. It limits the scope of human
experience.
To use your suicide example, you seem to be saying that someone can only
express their desire to kill themselves by sitting in the garage and
starting the car. There are MANY other ways to show signs of suicidal
thought. One is, talking about suicide a lot. Another is the person
giving away all their possessions, giving away their pets, making plans as
though they'll soon be gone. Another is just general depression -- the
person is down, dreary, blah, hates everything, has no energy. Another
might be risk taking -- riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or standing
up on a roller-coaster, or picking fights with people that will beat them
senseless.
Inductive reasoning has to be used to figure people out. We have to play
Sherlock Holmes, look at all the evidence, and try to reach a conclusion.
Despite the ease with which Holmes does it, this isn't an easy trick.
Looking at only small pieces of evidence leads to false conclusions. If I
see you stand up on a roller coaster, I might conclude you're suicidal.
Later, I find out the seat belt on the roller coaster was broken, and you
were thrown to your feet. That's why you stood up. There was nothing
depressed about your behavior at all.
Buy Dre a copy of Starry Night off of Ebay and offer it to her as a gift.
For whatever reason, she doesn't own a copy of it. Who knows? Maybe she
intended to get one, but never got the chance. Maybe she's had more
important things to do. Maybe she never saw it in a poster store and it
simply never occurred to her to look for it online. Maybe she thinks
owning art is snooty and embarrassing and egotistical. Who knows? The
possibilities are infinite.
If you buy her the painting, you'll show her that you care. If you bitch
about her inconsistencies, intellectually bully her, and insist she does
not know what her real passions are, you show her that you're a
domineering lunatic.
It is usually safe to assume that people are telling the truth about their
behavior, unless there is STRONG evidence to the contrary.