Page 3 of 3

Re: 2042: "Rolle's Theorem"

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:02 pm UTC
by ucim
sonar1313 wrote:There are countless rules of composition for painters, poets, architects, and other artists, by which we can objectively judge the quality
But are those rules "objectively correct rules for judging art"? Different rules yield different results - the rules that have been found useful are still non-objective.

sonar1313 wrote: Enriching humanity matters. Humanity would certainly be impoverished if, in something I called performance art, I burned the Mona Lisa in front of a shocked and horrified audience.
What if it were the original painter of the Mona Lisa that destroyed it as performance art? (Ignoring the ghostly pre-requisites)

Jose

Re: 2042: "Rolle's Theorem"

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:19 pm UTC
by sonar1313
ucim wrote:
sonar1313 wrote:There are countless rules of composition for painters, poets, architects, and other artists, by which we can objectively judge the quality
But are those rules "objectively correct rules for judging art"? Different rules yield different results - the rules that have been found useful are still non-objective.

sonar1313 wrote: Enriching humanity matters. Humanity would certainly be impoverished if, in something I called performance art, I burned the Mona Lisa in front of a shocked and horrified audience.
What if it were the original painter of the Mona Lisa that destroyed it as performance art? (Ignoring the ghostly pre-requisites)

Jose

Whether anyone likes the rules or not is up to them, I suppose, but there are plenty of rules that exist. If you don't follow the rules of meter, your poems become pretty terrible. If you use classical elements in architecture and don't follow the rules, your building ends up pretty ugly. There are rules of composition for painting and photography. Are they objectively correct? They certainly have stood the test of time, and the art that has stood the test of time generally follows them.

Botticelli was a follower of Savonarola and is known to have destroyed a number of his paintings at his behest, and humanity has regretted it ever since. Whether Botticelli had called that destruction "art" or not is pretty irrelevant - and had he done so, his contemporaries would probably have judged him to be insane. The Mona Lisa would never have gained the fame that it has now, but how famous might the lost Botticellis have been?

Re: 2042: "Rolle's Theorem"

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:14 pm UTC
by Euphonium
sonar1313 wrote:If you don't follow the rules of meter, your poems become pretty terrible. If you use classical elements in architecture and don't follow the rules, your building ends up pretty ugly.


Alternatively, if you're particularly brilliant about how you ignore the rules, your creations become innovative masterpieces.

Re: 2042: "Rolle's Theorem"

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:12 pm UTC
by Sableagle
I honestly don't mind if someone wants to alternate 12- and 10-syllable lines or use ABABCDEEDC rhyming patterns or reverse the rhyme system so the lines start out the same and then get different. If someone just adds lots of dots, spaces and line feeds to their sentence, though, that's not a poem. It's the usenet representation of a speech impediment.

Re: 2042: "Rolle's Theorem"

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:56 pm UTC
by Euphonium
Sableagle wrote:I honestly don't mind if someone wants to alternate 12- and 10-syllable lines or use ABABCDEEDC rhyming patterns or reverse the rhyme system so the lines start out the same and then get different. If someone just adds lots of dots, spaces and line feeds to their sentence, though, that's not a poem. It's the usenet representation of a speech impediment.


No. In a lot of printed poetry, the visual representation on the page is part of it. Maybe they're using the dots to indicate pauses, or they deploy the blank lines in a way that builds suspense in the reader, or perhaps they're using the spaces to create a sensation of lingering over the last word before the next one comes up.

Artists are fucking creative, after all.

Re: 2042: "Rolle's Theorem"

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:08 pm UTC
by Eebster the Great
I think in the tradition of "concrete poetry," that sort of manipulation is pretty much mandatory. Of course, you try to make the line divisions as textually meaningful as possible anyway, but you are constrained by the shape, and that takes priority. In conventional poetry though, style choices like that can be perplexing. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of dashes in Dickinson's poems. That doesn't mean they are meaningless or ruin the poetry—I don't think many people would argue Emily Dickinson lacked a sense of style—but it just means that I don't get it.

There is plenty of bad poetry out there, and some of it surely has poorly placed punctuation, but just because you don't know why a particular choice was made does not automatically make it a bad one.

Re: 2042: "Rolle's Theorem"

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:42 pm UTC
by Sableagle
There is
plenty
....................................................... of
bad ..............

................ poetry
out there,
and
some
.................................. of it
............................................ surely
has poorly ..................................

placed ................
punctuation,
but just
because

................you................ don't
................know
why
a particular choice ................

was made
does not
automatically
make it
a
bad one. ................