"No skill, no art" = "No apple, no orange"
Augustine Carreno
"No skill, no art" is an example of what is known in some circles as
"verbal ecstasy" --or latinese to that effect-- a sub-gendre of poetry whose
pinnacle is the great verbum, "The medium is the message," and whose main
characteristic is its ability to provoke in the overanxious a "pre-thinking"
response.
The reason is this. An iformation channel has two, mutually incompatible,
ends. That means that, in this case, skill --however you choose to define it--
always stays with the generating side or agent, i. e., the artist. At the
other end, only the receiving public can decide what art is. However, other
than hearsay, the public has no real information as to the level of the
artist's "skill" because there isn't any direct wiring between the artist's
mind and the public.
The entire history of the world is littered with examples of creators who
died in total anonymity simply because their skills were never accepted. And
then there is the case of the famous New York graffiti artists, whose skills
few people understand, but whose work has endured.
Throw up your hands --it's great! Why? There's no absolute truth --and that is
the good news.
Charles Eicher
In article <34d3af55...@news.interlog.com>, aca...@interlog.com
(Augustine Carreno) wrote:
> "No skill, no art" is an example of what is known in some circles as
> "verbal ecstasy" --or latinese to that effect-- a sub-gendre of poetry whose
> pinnacle is the great verbum, "The medium is the message," and whose main
> characteristic is its ability to provoke in the overanxious a "pre-thinking"
> response.
> The reason is this. An iformation channel has two, mutually incompatible,
> ends. That means that, in this case, skill --however you choose to define it--
> always stays with the generating side or agent, i. e., the artist. At the
> other end, only the receiving public can decide what art is. However, other
> than hearsay, the public has no real information as to the level of the
> artist's "skill" because there isn't any direct wiring between the artist's
> mind and the public.
ah.. here, you are venturing into one of my personal special interests,
Information Theory. You're getting there, with discussion of the medium and
the message, but you're missing a few important elements.
Art is essentially communication between the creator of the artwork, and
the viewer/listener/etc.. In any communication interaction, there are 4
major parts: the message, the sender, the receiver, and the communications
channel. To use the classical models, a thought can be encoded in audio
(speech) or a book (text) and these channels all have various "bandwidth
capacity" which has relatively little effect on the transmission of the
message, or its intelligibility. Misunderstanding of the message could be
due to problems in the comm channel (inaudible sounds, illegible text) or
bad encoding by the sender (poorly written text) or by misunderstanding by
the recipient. A high-fidelity communications channel will not improve the
quality of the message, or its encoding. Poorly concieved ideas will not
communicate any clearer if it is spoken words recorded on CD-quality audio,
as opposed to a poor quality telephone circuit. Fortunately, communications
channels have "redundancy" which means that a message contains sufficient
extra information to convey the message, even if important bits are lost in
transmission. Human language is particularly good at redundancy. The visual
arts are even better at delivering high-fidelity high-redundancy messages.
To use Mani Deli's concept of skill, I would consider "skill" a measurement
of the bandwidth of the communications channel. If a painting is executed
with "high visual fidelity" that still doesn't necessarily mean it contains
a high amount of information. The visual appearance of objects is merely
one measure of information. Art must necessarily communicate something
beyond mere appearances. Art, at its highest levels, communicates abstract
concepts in a unique way. Mani assumes that the responsibility is on the
sender (artist) to "encode" his message with a faithful realism that slaves
itself to mere visual appearances. He denies the inner life of the mind, a
life of ideas that is not content with the mere outer appearances of
objects, but insists on interpreting them uniquely, in accordance with
one's own concepts of the world. Mani denies those arts that place a burden
on the receiver to educate himself in the language of the communications
channel. If the viewer requires information contained outside the artwork
in order to interpret the work, he denies that the work could be valid.
This is clearly foolish.
> The entire history of the world is littered with examples of creators who
> died in total anonymity simply because their skills were never accepted. And
> then there is the case of the famous New York graffiti artists, whose skills
> few people understand, but whose work has endured.
The history of the world is the history of "social evolution".. It is the
process by which we transmit knowledge to future generations, where we
encode our most abstract ideas in a form accessible to other people, and
this knowledge is built upon continuously, over the ages. It IS the "direct
wiring between the artist's mind and the public" that you mentioned. To
live without the evolution of the world of the mind, we are doomed to be
nothing more than mere apes, dying because we cannot discern between the
visual appearance of the grassy field and the camouflaged Lion.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
mdeli
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:12:51 GMT, aca...@interlog.com (Augustine
Carreno) wrote:
> "No skill, no art" is an example of what is known in some circles as
>"verbal ecstasy" --or latinese to that effect-- a sub-gendre of poetry whose
>pinnacle is the great verbum,
Utterly incomprehensible nonsense.
>"The medium is the message," and whose main
>characteristic is its ability to provoke in the overanxious a "pre-thinking"
>response.
Not even a sentence. And the media is the media, it isn't the message.
if it were all artists might as well leave their paint in the tube.
>The reason is this. An iformation channel has two, mutually incompatible,
>ends. That means that, in this case, skill --however you choose to define it--
>always stays with the generating side or agent, i. e. the artist.
Baloney.
> At the
>other end, only the receiving public can decide what art is. However, other
>than hearsay, the public has no real information as to the level of the
>artist's "skill" because there isn't any direct wiring between the artist's
>mind and the public.
No wire?
>The entire history of the world is littered with examples of creators who
>died in total anonymity simply because their skills were never accepted. And
>then there is the case of the famous New York graffiti artists, whose skills
>few people understand, but whose work has endured.
So what?
>
>Throw up your hands --it's great! Why? There's no absolute truth --and that is
>the good news.
Sounds like art school crap. Pomo Artspeak.for those who prefer to
ponder cryptic nonsense.
MAni DeLi
...no skill no art
mdeli
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:10:56 -0600, cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher)
wrote:
(Information theory lecture snipped)
> The visual appearance of objects is merely
>one measure of information. Art must necessarily communicate something
>beyond mere appearances.
Yes painting is something beyond a mere splat or schmier or large
stripe. Painting must indeed transcend mere paint and become painting,
letters become words and music transcends noise. Stating the obvious
adds nothing in terms of information theory.
> Art, at its highest levels, communicates abstract
>concepts in a unique way.
This statement means nothing.
> Mani assumes that the responsibility is on the
>sender (artist) to "encode" his message with a faithful realism that slaves
>itself to mere visual appearances.
Eicher, not I assumes this. I never mentioned "faithful realism." It
is Eicher who imagines that the only alternative to the abstract crap
he worships is "faithful realism." He can visit my "Hoax" (as he
calls it) web page again and see for himself that I'm not into
faithful realism.
As to "mere appearances," it is obvious that EIcher isn't very
interested in the appearance of a painting. However anything about a
painting is based on its appearance. Whatever Eicher claims a painting
means in relation to the artists sex life, financial success or
failure, if it appears incompetent that is its appearance, mere or
not.
>He denies the inner life of the mind,
And just what is " the inner life of the mind" Eicher? It sounds like
your usual double talk. And tell us how this relates to information
Theory.
You sound like the idiots who claim that the flat schmiers of Abstract
Expressionism have something to do with the forth dimension.
>a
>life of ideas that is not content with the mere outer appearances of
>objects, but insists on interpreting them uniquely, in accordance with
>one's own concepts of the world.
? Pomo babble. Has nothing to do with information theory.
> Mani denies those arts that place a burden
>on the receiver to educate himself in the language of the communications
>channel.
In other words the art Eicher likes educates. Norman Rockwell who
Eicher dislikes doesn't educate. I think this illustrates the usual
Eicher Baloney. I guess EIcher is referring to the Artspeak "language
of modern art" which no one including Eicher understands.
snip
>The history of the world is the history of "social evolution".. It is the
>process by which we transmit knowledge to future generations, where we
>encode our most abstract ideas in a form accessible to other people, and
>this knowledge is built upon continuously, over the ages. It IS the "direct
>wiring between the artist's mind and the public" that you mentioned. To
>live without the evolution of the world of the mind, we are doomed to be
>nothing more than mere apes, dying because we cannot discern between the
>visual appearance of the grassy field and the camouflaged Lion.
(touching art school pep talk) Contains no information whatever.
Eicher's mind is directly "wired to the public." He apparently knows
this on the basis of information theory.
O yes now tell us why Bouguereau and Norman Rockwell aren't wired to
the public and why they can't "educate us?"
Mani DeLI
...no skill no art htpp://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Augustine Carreno
In article <34d3f39...@news.interlog.com>,
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:12:51 GMT, aca...@interlog.com (Augustine
>Carreno) wrote:
>
>> "No skill, no art" is an example of what is known in some circles as
>>"verbal ecstasy" --or latinese to that effect-- a sub-gendre of poetry whose
>>pinnacle is the great verbum,
>
>Utterly incomprehensible nonsense.
>ponder cryptic nonsense.
>MAni DeLi
>...no skill no art
Good skills at dispensing labels indiscriminately. Must have touched a nerve!
Mike Turner
mdeli wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:12:51 GMT, aca...@interlog.com (Augustine
> Carreno) wrote:
>
> > "No skill, no art" is an example of what is known in some circles as
> >"verbal ecstasy" --or latinese to that effect-- a sub-gendre of poetry whose
> >pinnacle is the great verbum,
>
> Utterly incomprehensible nonsense.
>
> >characteristic is its ability to provoke in the overanxious a "pre-thinking"
> >response.
>
> Not even a sentence. And the media is the media, it isn't the message.
> if it were all artists might as well leave their paint in the tube.
>
> >The reason is this. An iformation channel has two, mutually incompatible,
> >ends. That means that, in this case, skill --however you choose to define it--
> >always stays with the generating side or agent, i. e. the artist.
>
> Baloney.
>
> > At the
> >other end, only the receiving public can decide what art is. However, other
> >than hearsay, the public has no real information as to the level of the
> >artist's "skill" because there isn't any direct wiring between the artist's
> >mind and the public.
>
> No wire?
>
> >The entire history of the world is littered with examples of creators who
> >died in total anonymity simply because their skills were never accepted. And
> >then there is the case of the famous New York graffiti artists, whose skills
> >few people understand, but whose work has endured.
>
> So what?
> >
> >Throw up your hands --it's great! Why? There's no absolute truth --and that is
> >the good news.
>
> ponder cryptic nonsense.
>
> MAni DeLi
> ...no skill no art
so what