What is art? Does it require an artist?

[Jahoclave]

We have been, you just haven't been paying attention.

And, frankly, I find Nietzsche to be wrong. Just because we lack foundations doesn't mean we can't have meaning. He never did a great job of questioning his own assumptions in terms of what one ought to strive towards.


We're not back to Nietzsche, we're pretty far past. And, quite frankly, he's not as important as, say, Hegel.

[infernovia]

And, frankly, I find Nietzsche to be wrong. Just because we lack foundations doesn't mean we can't have meaning. He never did a great job of questioning his own assumptions in terms of what one ought to strive towards.

Are you talking about objective meaning? Because even Wittgenstein proves the complete impossibility of objectivity in his magnum-opus Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. If you are talking about subjective meaning then Nietzsche's position is quite similar to the quote I just posted there, it is pretty ok with subjective meaning.

Unless of course you mean that you can evaluate something without a purpose/goal (I assume that's what you meant by foundation, as I can't think of any other way this could be a response to me). In which case, the question is how?

Wittgenstein, the great logician demonstrating why such a thing as purpose is necessary to give value to anything, even if at the end, there is no objective value:

The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value -- and if there were, it would be of no value.

If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.

What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.

It must lie outside the world.

We have been, you just haven't been paying attention.

The only one I can even try to accept is Noc and yours, but you haven't even tried to put up your own theory. I am getting the book, but still, w/e.

We're not back to Nietzsche, we're pretty far past. And, quite frankly, he's not as important as, say, Hegel.

Nietzsche furthered Hegel's study and managed to have a superior understanding in many more areas than the idealist. In anycase, Nietzsche's understanding of psychology and philosophy was fairly deep and is useful in application here, so I can't see how he could be "less important." Additionally, I don't know what you consider "far past."

[gmalivuk]

Wittgenstein proves the complete impossibility of objectivity

He does no such thing. He might *argue* in that direction, but if he actually proved anything, in the sense that, say, actual logicians prove things, there wouldn't still be disagreement about it among philosophers.

[infernovia]

As far as I know, most continental philosophers have very much given up the search for objective truth. I mean even Rorty, someone I consider weak, realized this:

Nevertheless, I think it is important to notice that one can ask that rhetorical question [‘What has universal validity to do with me?’] without going on to ask, as Nietzsche did, ‘What has the suffering of my fellow humans to do with me?’ For one can be humane without being universalist, without believing either that it is ‘rational’ to be concerned with the sufferings of others or that there is a ‘common humanity’ which binds you to those others. One can want to relieve suffering without having an interesting answer when Socrates asks you why you desire this, and also without believing that this desire is the deepest and most important thing in your life. Foucault, I think, found himself in this position – the position which I have described as the ‘knight of autonomy’. This meant that, whether he wanted to be or not, he was, among other things, a useful citizen of a democratic country – one who did his best to make that country’s institutions fairer and more decent. I wish that he had been more comfortable with that self description than he was.

Anyway, can you give me philosophers who still cannot admit that true objectivity as impossible? I would be interested to see responses to Wittgenstein, I certainly can't think of any otherwise I would be the first to agree with you.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

He might *argue*

In the Tractatus? Doubt it.

[FrancisDrake]

No all it needs is an Elephant and some paint.

[Malconstant]

Oh this is a delight, a little treat. I can't believe the premise of this discussion has been "modernism and postmodernism isn't art". Sorry everyone, I guess art just stopped being created somewhere during the 19th century, probably around when the photograph was invented. And in favor of a definition based on fantasy and escapism. That's just so adorable. I don't even want to interject, can we get a manifesto on this new theory of art?

[gmalivuk]

most continental philosophers

As more of an analytic man myself, I couldn't care less what most of those guys think.

He might *argue*

In the Tractatus? Doubt it.

Good point. I should have just said, "declare".

[infernovia]

Edit: Still waiting on a paper. Would be happy with a summarization if you care to.

If you bothered to read Malconstant, I already said photographs, music, paintings, movies, videogames, comic-books are art. In fact, movies and videogames and photographs are great milestones for art and represent a great progress. In terms of creation and viewing the art, it is actually better than the 19th century due to the ease of production and replication furthered by technological advancement such as computers, printers, internet, TVs, projectors, vinyls, cassettes, CDs, speakers, headphones, cameras, screens allowing me to easily view masterpieces in many different fields and for artists to create beautiful things more easily. This makes it much easier to create such advanced stuff like movies (which has already ousted the role of painting and theater when they were in their prime) and videogames (which will eventually overtake movies, and in some ways already has).

But right now the theory/the purpose/the analysis is sorely lacking because it is only focused in the destruction and elimination of form and rules. And THAT is what the great modern art represents, the urinal (made in response to the Dada movement when they started accepting EVERYTHING as art with the focus that the artist must have done SOMETHING), the machination of Warhol (are the mass-produced objects art? ), the self-referential paint splatter of Pollack (can any pattern be art as long as it has composition/rules?), or even shotguns into a canvas (can ANYTHING be art?). They are the cleanest most easily understandable objects of this nature. Eventually you will even get even meta-art like Baudrillard who despised the art field and already declared it's death joined into one of the most prestigious "art-clubs" of this century, because if even HE can be an artist, what does that say for everyone else?

Unfortunately, like I said, classification is too boring of a subject for me.

[Azrael]

But right now the theory/the purpose/the analysis is sorely lacking because it is only focused in the destruction and elimination of form and rules.

Again you're entirely stuck in the notion that you need form and rules. Because form and rules are what constitute a theory. And you need the theory to analyze ... whether a particular piece is "good" according to that theory.

Can't you see how entirely circular that is?

[Malconstant]

But right now the theory/the purpose/the analysis is sorely lacking because it is only focused in the destruction and elimination of form and rules.

The deconstruction of that line was done away with many years ago. Anyone who tries to make art with the intention of thinking "now this will really push the boundaries of what is art" is an idiot who's been asleep for about a century. The whole of post-modernism was based on getting past this point, but not by ignoring it, rather by accepting the new boundaries and asking "now what?".

And THAT is what the great modern art represents, the urinal (made in response to the Dada movement when they started accepting EVERYTHING as art with the focus that the artist must have done SOMETHING), the machination of Warhol (are the mass-produced objects art? ), the self-referential paint splatter of Pollack (can any pattern be art as long as it has composition/rules?), or even shotguns into a canvas (can ANYTHING be art?).

You've got your head in that urinal. The argument is dead, the line: nonexistent. It's fundamentally accepted that art can be anything. Goddamn anything, this isn't new. Art is in perception, meaning comes from the perceiver. Artists are the framers, in the case of found art (or a sunset), the artist is the perceiver, either that or the universe, the distinction here isn't interesting. Who's to say otherwise?

Unfortunately, like I said, classification is too boring of a subject for me.

The preceding 3 1/2 pages of this thread strongly disagree.

[Zamfir]

infernovia, you sound angry. What kind of changes in the world would make you happier? Is there something artists should do different? Or art critics? Or just the people in this thread?

And would it be enough if some artists or critics were to move more in your preferred way, giving you some choice? Or do you want most or all of them to behave more as you would prefer?

[Azrael]

infernovia, you sound angry. What kind of changes in the world would make you happier? Is there something artists should do different? Or art critics? Or just the people in this thread?

Or do you want most or all of them to behave more as you would prefer?

How about we don't go there? A discussion 'What is art?" most certainly does not need to revolve around what would make him happier.

As for the second part, he made it perfectly clear on page one that he thinks all artists that don't conform to his view of art are wasting their time, and should be doing what he considers art instead. Ostensibly to prevent further waste of time in the discussion and/or critique thereof.

[Jacque]

This thread needs a visit from Hennessy Youngman.

[RoberII]

But right now the theory/the purpose/the analysis is sorely lacking because it is only focused in the destruction and elimination of form and rules

Someone here does not understand postmodernism. At all. Current criticism is all about how various artists are playing with form and rules in various ways. As Malcontestant said: Now what? It's pretty clear that you think that postmodernism means that "anything can be art", and that, in a sort of Syndromic fit, you think this means nothing can. Which is a bit like saying that Calvinball isn't a game because it doesn't have proper rules. Follow this link and you will know the truth of who you really are.

(I am also confused as to why you are on a forum dedicated to badly drawn stick figures.)

On a side note, I do think there is such a thing as bad art, but that this is mostly when people try to play by the rules and fail and/or when they are busting down doors that were busted down ages ago: "THIS is what I have to say about your metre, AHAHAHAHA!!"

P.S.
Poxic, that is some awesome music.
P.P.S.
Jacque, that is awesome.

[infernovia]

Unfortunately, like I said, classification is too boring of a subject for me.

The preceding 3 1/2 pages of this thread strongly disagree.

lol, as gmalivuk already said, what I am interested is what makes art good and what makes art bad (subjectively of course). The classification? It's as boring as non-scientists arguing if Pluto is a planet or not. If the purpose isn't there, who cares? I certainly don't.

You've got your head in that urinal. The argument is dead, the line: nonexistent. It's fundamentally accepted that art can be anything. Goddamn anything, this isn't new.

lol, as I correctly evaluate why each of these things are heralded you are telling me that it isn't new. And like I said, you can't rank anything unless you have a certain model. So sure, call me wrong, but also understand that as soon as you consider something superior, you are evaluating it under a subjective model. Even considering them equally art is still a subjective model.

As for that xkcd comic, there is certainly an element of truth in it. Except what I am telling you is that you should consider something like Die Hard more artistic than a urinal.

And would it be enough if some artists or critics were to move more in your preferred way, giving you some choice? Or do you want most or all of them to behave more as you would prefer?

Essentially, what I am telling people is just because true objective art doesn't exist, doesn't mean that they cannot make a subjective demand for what they want and desire nor that it is useless or even wrong to. I mean, once you realize that objectivity doesn't exist, what else is there? Nietzsche points two ways to go for this. A slacking of all tension, a loss of all purpose. But he rightly recognizes this as another SUBJECTIVE response. The other way is to just do whatever you want anyway as you don't care about objective validity, all you are left is subjective desires.

Its like noticing that you cannot become the great objective viewer, but still deciding that you want to see further than everyone else instead of trying to blind yourself. If people still want to blind themselves after realizing this, whatever. Similarly, Its like noticing Africans cannot appreciate your music and art and then deciding that means that even urinals can be art. If they still like urinals, well, I said my piece.

[Azrael]

And would it be enough if some artists or critics were to move more in your preferred way, giving you some choice? Or do you want most or all of them to behave more as you would prefer?

Essentially, what I am telling people is just because true objective art doesn't exist, doesn't mean that they cannot make a subjective demand for what they want and desire nor that it is useless or even wrong to.

No one disagrees with that point.

But it's also nearly contradictory to your pages of arguments. Previously you've been very adamant that you required a structure and theory to define what art is, and what makes it good. You're the one clamoring for a definition, insisting that a definition is important and necessary, and carrying on about what theory other posters are using. These are objective measures -- even if they don't meet the criteria as 'objective' on a philosophical scale. You, and no one else, have been leading a pages-long charge for a more-objective way to measure what art is.

Now that you've completely changed your tune, feel free to make whatever subjective demand (in the economic sense) you please for more of the art that you like the best. Have fun with that -- it's what all of the rest of us have been doing already. What you can't do (but have been trying for some time now) is to turn your subjective demand for a specific type of art into a definition of what art is. I'm glad to see you finally stop trying.

... you are evaluating it under a subjective model. Even considering them equally art is still a subjective model.

No shit Sherlock, it's what the thread has been trying to tell you for days.

[infernovia]

But it's also nearly contradictory to your pages of arguments. Previously you've been very adamant that you required a structure and theory to define what art is, and what makes it good. These are objective measures -- even if they don't meet the criteria as 'objective' on a philosophical scale. You, and no one else, have been leading a pages-long charge for a more-objective way to measure.

This is interesting coming from you, the person who said this:
"The only art that I like best is actually art." Congrats on trolling the thread.

And what is this, if not a greatly subjective statement? Also, it's not contradictory to anything. What I said from the beginning is that art without purpose, without a clear definition, is meaningless and is a waste of time.

Edit: And I noticed your previous comment there. Why do you need a theory of art (a purpose to art) to call something good or bad, you ask? So the question that hasn't been answered yet by Jaho or anyone here really is, how can you judge if something is good or bad without a purpose? Show me a way and I will agree with you. For now, it seems to me like those who need to argue that Pluto is a planet or not a planet. I am struck by the uselessness by the argument. Who cares unless you are going to use this model elsewhere, that is unless you have a purpose?

Now that you've completely changed your tune, feel free to make whatever subjective demand you please for more of the art that you like the best. Have fun with that -- it's what all of the rest of us have been doing already. What you can't do (but have been trying for some time now) is to turn your subjective demand for a specific type of art into a definition of what art is. So stop trying.

No, what you all have been doing is trying to defend what has been widely held as art with your own interpretation of what art is. "Art is what moves me the most," "art is what is created with the intent of being art, except when it is not," "art is a skillful manipulation of complex system," "art is everything." However, these definitions are lacking and are demonstrably too inclusive, because it refuses to deal with historical events just so that one century in the milleniums it has existed couldn't be wrong. Because why? True objective art doesn't exist?

But since we can't create a subjective demand to define "what art is," (and why only art? Science also exists by subjective demand for constructing a more powerful model that will predict the world, every symbol exists because of our subjective demand) I guess we can all go home happy for wasting our time defending and attacking nothing right?

[Azrael]

But it's also nearly contradictory to your pages of arguments. Previously you've been very adamant that you required a structure and theory to define what art is, and what makes it good. These are objective measures -- even if they don't meet the criteria as 'objective' on a philosophical scale. You, and no one else, have been leading a pages-long charge for a more-objective way to measure.

This is interesting coming from you, the person who said this:

"The only art that I like best is actually art." Congrats on trolling the thread.

There, I fixed that for you. I accused you of defining art as what you like best because you absolutely wouldn't admit to doing so. Instead, you manufactured a definition that suited your tastes and obscured it within objective statements of fact. And yes, that's precisely what you did; go back and re-read your own posts if need be. You provided a definition, and defended it to the tune that if you did not understand the art, it wasn't art -- because your ego wouldn't let you accept any definition that you couldn't understand. Your 'understanding' equating to making you feel like the Renaissance realists made you feel. Your subsequent protestations were to demand what theory everyone else was using to define art.

You, and you alone, have been searching for a more objective way to define and measure what art is.

Seriously, go back and look. It's not a contradiction in my summary, it's a contradiction in your argument from the get go -- and one that's been picked apart in it's entirety throughout this thread. But, to relieve you of that duty, might I point out your own (latest) words:

What I said from the beginning is that art without purpose, without a clear definition, is meaningless and is a waste of time.

There it is, you require a 'clear definition'. So stop pretending that you've been on the subjective team the whole time. If it's intentional, the ruse is obvious. If it's not, the glaring contradiction should be embarrassing.

Now that you've completely changed your tune, feel free to make whatever subjective demand you please for more of the art that you like the best. Have fun with that -- it's what all of the rest of us have been doing already. What you can't do (but have been trying for some time now) is to turn your subjective demand for a specific type of art into a definition of what art is. So stop trying.

No, what you all have been doing is trying to defend what has been widely held as art with your own interpretation of what art is.

Actually, no. I've been rather adamant that I wouldn't give a definition. I've refused, stating that I wouldn't play that game. Remember this?

I don't really care about your taste, I am asking you what criteria you use, what purpose you use to validate that something is art. Or even great art.

Then stop asking me for my reaction. Here's what my definition (were I to decide I had need of delineating one) of art does not require -- for me to like it, or for me to have an emotional reaction.

And now, for the sixth time -- great art? I'm not debating what sorts of art I like.

Reading comprehension FTL.

[infernovia]

lol, fine, I am not going to argue that aspect of the philosophy anymore. But here is what someone needs to answer (it doesn't need to be Azreal obviously):

And I noticed your previous comment there. Why do you need a theory of art (a purpose to art) to call something good or bad, you ask? So the question that hasn't been answered yet by Jaho or anyone here really is, how can you judge if something is good or bad without a purpose? Show me a way and I will agree with you. For now, it seems to me like those who need to argue that Pluto is a planet or not a planet. I am struck by the uselessness by the argument. Who cares unless you are going to use this model elsewhere, that is unless you have a purpose?

[Malconstant]

but also understand that as soon as you consider something superior, you are evaluating it under a subjective model.

You caught me! I was just about to go from straight up post-modernism to evaluating the worth of art under some subjective model. What gave it away?

Even considering them equally art is still a subjective model.

Attack post modernism with all you got. Watch it quake under your mighty deconstructing rhetoric which it had never previously considered. It's the very manifestation of self-conscious, already-deconstructed theory. My claim was that art is fundamentally about the perceiver, try to get more subjective than that.

what I am telling you is that you should consider something like Die Hard more artistic than a urinal.

How about Beethoven's 7th symphony, second movement, as directed by Leonard Bernstein days before his death, was that concert "more artistic" than poop? Ask the flies.

But listen. If you just wanted to hear what people had to say about how they perceive themselves personally in evaluating art/music, you could just ask that. something like "I understand that art is fundamentally subjective, but I'm curious as to what basis you brilliant and worldly people have come to evaluate the worth of art on. This is not the sort of thing that most people think about articulating, so I don't know what to expect, but I'd just like to pick your brains for your thoughts on this. To give you a sense of what I mean, I'll start: "


Edit:
In response to

And I noticed your previous comment there. Why do you need a theory of art (a purpose to art) to call something good or bad, you ask? So the question that hasn't been answered yet by Jaho or anyone here really is, how can you judge if something is good or bad without a purpose? Show me a way and I will agree with you. For now, it seems to me like those who need to argue that Pluto is a planet or not a planet. I am struck by the uselessness by the argument. Who cares unless you are going to use this model elsewhere, that is unless you have a purpose?

the purpose, like everything else, is in the perceiver. And it's okay for art to mean different things and serve different purposes to the same person. Any other argument is a straw man for Nietzschean arguments, which I can only assume is your point.

[snipped]

There are lines. Mind them.

- Az

[gmalivuk]

you should consider something like Die Hard more artistic than a urinal.

On what basis "should" we do anything of the sort? Is it an objective one? If so, you've been contradicting yourself. Is it a subjective one? If so, you'd be more clear if you said "I would like it if you considered something like Die Hard more artistic than a urinal".

Also, what's this "more artistic" nonsense, if not an attempt on your part to sneak in the taxonomy question. If you are really just talking about good and bad art, then say "better art" instead of "more artistic".

But even then, you're *still* contradicting your own statements about subjectivity when you're making universal statements about what opinions everyone else ought to have about art.

[infernovia]

Gmalivuk, I go by this rule: just because a general orders and commands, it doesn't mean it isn't a subjective demand. Besides, I was just mimicking the comic anyway.

[gmalivuk]

Edit: Gmalivuk, I go by this rule: just because a general orders and commands, it doesn't mean it isn't a subjective demand.

Okay, but you're not ordering and commanding anything. You're still pretending that you are somehow more correct about something than other people here, rather than simply being a matter of you having enough authority to make your subjective demands into mandates.

So, once again: on what basis should we find a movie more artistic than an installation that happens to be a urinal?

[Malconstant]

[snip]

Anyway, w/e, I would appreciate it if someone responded to my previous question. As for asking about the definition of art, I already got the answer by anybody who would fight me for it. But since you obviously have the superior understanding, you should probably say it and make my 3 and a 1/2 page appear like the waste they are to everyone, including me.

I'm pretty sure I have said this, like three times now. Art is in the perceiver. That makes four times. Any other argument is a straw man for deconstruction. I could say that a few more times if it'd be helpful.

Or are you looking for an articulation of my own subjective evaluations of art, as I suggested you should have been asking all along? Cause the other side to that question is that virtually nobody has articulated their perception of these ideas to themselves, I certainly haven't. I don't even want to, what's the point? Do i like some art more than other art? yes. yes I do. But I don't have any sort of model that I use to help myself evaluate the worth of art. Such a model seems worthless to me to have. But I don't begrudge you having yours.

[infernovia]

So, once again: on what basis should we find a movie more artistic than an installation that happens to be a urinal?

I am not going to answer this, I have already answered it for three pages. You already know the answer, you already know the model I proposed. I think my model is fairly useful measurement of progress and articulating a deep seated desire within humanity, in the same way that science attempts to satisfy the deep-seated desire to know as much as the universe as it can from our subjective standpoint. It also seems resilient and very encompassing of new technology like cameras, TVs, computers, etc. while also being able to rank between each of the different fields while having very solid explanation as to why.

It seems insane for me to give it up to any of the other alternatives in the thread so far. You may disagree, but like I said, I can't find anything better. And the idea of "art is in the subject's perspective" is to me, a surrender. As someone with an ego of my size, I cannot accept it and will not.

I'm pretty sure I have said this, like three times now. Art is in the perciever. [...]

Or are you looking for an articulation of my own subjective evaluations of art, as I suggested you should have been asking all along? Cause the other side to that question is that virtually nobody has articulated their perception of these ideas to themselves, I certainly haven't. I don't even want to, what's the point? Do i like some art more than other art? yes. yes I do. But I don't have any sort of model that I use to help myself evaluate the worth of art. Such a model seems worthless to me to have. But I don't begrudge you having yours.

Feel smug all you want but all you are saying is that the value/purpose of art cannot be communicated because
a) You do not want to.
b) Everybody has their own perception. Aka, it is a worthless word that is anathema to communication, it cannot be communicated, thus it is a waste of time to discuss. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
c) You obviously have reasons (goals/purpose) to evaluate and rank art. As previously stated, you cannot evaluate and rank without a purpose. And no, you did not reason out of that requirement. You just disagreed with needing a UNIVERSAL purpose validated by everybody which I never asked about. The only difference between you and me is that you just don't want to create a cohesive and encompassing one like I am attempting to, or even articulate the ones you have so far.

[The Great Hippo]

I am not going to answer this, I have already answered it for three pages. You already know the answer, you already know the model I proposed. I think my model is fairly useful measurement of progress and articulating a deep seated desire within humanity, in the same way that science attempts to satisfy the deep-seated desire to know as much as the universe as it can from our subjective standpoint. It also seems resilient and very encompassing of new technology like cameras, TVs, computers, etc. while also being able to rank between each of the different fields while having very solid explanation as to why.

It seems insane for me to give it up to any of the other alternatives in the thread so far. You may disagree, but like I said, I can't find anything better. And the idea of "art is in the subject's perspective" is to me, a surrender. As someone with an ego of my size, I cannot accept it and will not.

No actual alternatives have been proposed. Everyone's been trying to explain to you why the entire attempt you're making is stupid and pointless. You're like the guy who writes a 100 page deconstruction of the Star War series, amending it so that it fits into the Star Trek universe. When you tell us all we need to switch over to your paradigm, our response is "That's stupid". And your response is "Well do you have a better theory to reconcile these two universes?!" and we have to spend three hours trying to get you to understand that we don't care about reconciling these two universes.

Basically, you've created an overly complicated, completely arbitrary, mostly useless solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

You should get a job in marketing. Or consulting.

[gmalivuk]

I have already answered it for three pages.

So then, we "should" view things your way because that's how you subjectively view them? Because that's really what your answer amounts to. You might dress it up in fancier, objective sounding nonsense, but it still just boils down to "I like stuff with [whateverthefuck], therfore stuff like that is more artistic than other stuff."

[infernovia]

I said what I want you to do, I have already given my reasons as to why you should. Whether you follow it or not is, obviously, up to you. If you don't care, you don't care.

When you tell us all we need to switch over to your paradigm, our response is "That's stupid".

More or less, correct. One little difference though, I am telling you that you that you are wasting your time talking and defending "what is art (classification only plz)," or "That's stupid." So meh, guess there isn't much else to be said about this when we both have better things to do than talk to morons.

[The Great Hippo]

More or less, correct. One little difference though, I am telling you that you that you are wasting your time talking and defending "what is art (classification only plz)," or "That's stupid." So meh, guess there isn't much else to be said about this when we both have better things to do than talk to morons.

We're not saying the former, we're just saying the "That's stupid" part. And again, by "That's stupid", we don't mean your paradigm, we mean your request that we all switch over to it. Our own individual paradigms are fine enough, a point that's supported by the fact that we don't feel the need to explain and defend them to you over the internet.

Do you understand now?



EDIT: This would stop being stupid via one very small, very dramatic change in your language. Instead of saying "My paradigm is clearly the best paradigm, please submit a paradigm that works better and I'll adopt it", you'd be better served by saying "My paradigm works very well for me, so here it is--maybe it would work for you, too".

[infernovia]

Our own individual paradigms are fine enough, a point that's supported by the fact that we don't feel the need to explain and defend them to you over the internet.

Yeah, yeah, it's an internet argument, and nobody has any serious discussion over the internet. Great.

This would stop being stupid via one very small, very dramatic change in your language. Instead of saying "My paradigm is clearly the best paradigm, please submit a paradigm that works better and I'll adopt it", you'd be better served by saying "My paradigm works very well for me, so here it is--maybe it would work for you, too".

Then go with the one you prefer. In my view, it would have come down to me attacking the modernist movement at the end anyway, so it's not as huge of a loss. The only difference is, now I have bigger fishes attacking me when otherwise they might have ignored me.

[The Great Hippo]

Yeah, yeah, it's an internet argument, and nobody has any serious discussion over the internet. Great.

No. You're misunderstanding me. Plenty of serious discussion goes on over the internet. But this? This is not a serious discussion. This is you arguing how we should all love My Little Ponies: Friendship is Magical. Rather than a persuasive argument ("My Little Ponies has awesome stuff in it, and I think you'll find it awesome too, here's why!"), you're trying to make an evidence-based argument ("My Little Ponies is qualitatively better than all other shows, and here's why").

It is impossible for this discussion to be serious, because it is impossible for you to prove the superiority of your paradigm. It would be different if you were arguing from a position of utility, maybe ("My definition of art is more useful than your definition of art"); we can measure utility, discuss utility rationally, etc. But 'superiority'? What does that even mean, in terms of art? Better fulfilling a purpose? Who's? Yours? Mine? The artist's? Whichever reviewer is looking at it? In an argument like this, all you can do is sling mud and say "my paradigm of art is better than yours". It's as meaningless as arguing that "My Little Ponies" is a better show than "Adventure Time" (it totally isn't, btw).

Basically, I'm saying that you are a nerd trying to turn us all into fans of your favorite show using some sort of bizarro logic, except instead of your favorite show it's your perspective on art.

[infernovia]

Look, there is no point on prolonging this.If you don't accept it, then you don't accept it. But there is no point to chiding me for trying to make my subjective opinion sound objective or whatever when I have already made my position on the subject as clear as I can. I have given up trying to explain it, and it's obvious that I won't change my mind about it (either because of intelligence or because of stupidity, whichever you prefer), so there is no point to discussing it.

Anyway, all I am interested to see now is those who will try to talk about their understanding of the field.

[Dream]

Anyway, all I am interested to see now is those who will try to talk about their understanding of the field.

Look, I don't like to pull rank, but here goes anyway: I'm a trained art historian. I'm also a practising artist and composer. Next year, I'll have been at this stuff for a decade. All I can say is that your posts in this thread have given me absolutely nothing to engage with or respond to. Nothing you've posted has been insightful, interesting or knowledgable. It's been a mish-mash of half understood theory, wholly misunderstood criticism and personal polemic. While reading, I've been content to leave you to argue with those willing to give some effort to responding to you, or at least who don't want your hubristic self importance to stand unchallenged. But trying o dismiss Hippo and others as being time wasters getting in the way of your discourse with the people who really want to deal with the issues deserves comment.

If my experience is typical, the people who want to discuss this don't want to do it with you. The people who a in fact discussing it with you are saying what I'd have said in a single post, with SB-ban levels of swearing and personal invective, before ignoring the thread forever. So don't go getting all high-horsey and saying you're waiting for the real discussion. It's not coming. And it's your fault.

[infernovia]

But trying o dismiss Hippo and others as being time wasters getting in the way of your discourse with the people who really want to deal with the issues deserves comment.

What Hippo is trying to do is well-intentioned and I can see that he wants me to stop behaving what he sees as stupidly and childishly (etc.). But I am dismissing it, not because he is getting in my way, but to keep the discussion from circling the same thing over and over again. I have already told him to consider me too stupid to understand this kind of thought process, and in someway it is better to be considered stupid about this issue than not.

If my experience is typical, the people who want to discuss this don't want to do it with you. The people who a in fact discussing it with you are saying what I'd have said in a single post, with SB-ban levels of swearing and personal invective, before ignoring the thread forever. So don't go getting all high-horsey and saying you're waiting for the real discussion. It's not coming. And it's your fault.

Yeah, that's about the only thing I would apologize for. That I can't attract the people who can actually comment on the issue or that I did not say my points succinctly, clearly, and focused enough for there to be something to respond to instead of coming off as haphazard. And I am sorry for that, I am.

[Dream]

Yeah, that's about the only thing I would apologize for. That I can't attract the people who can actually comment on the issue

You attracted them. They dismissed you. The people you think aren't talking to you are the ones who actually are, and your self regard prevents you from perceiving that.


So, I'll say this one time: Art. Is. Context. All of it. Everything. No more, no less. No exceptions, no special cases. Get your head around that, and subsequently, people might want to talk over your thoughts. For now, you have a great deal of up-digging to do. I'd say you should get started immediately.

[poxic]

infernovia, would it be useful to watch Dream and I model an SB-style debate on what art is/is not? It might be a useful exercise for me, and a chance for you to see a different sort of discussion than the one that's taken up the last few pages.

[infernovia]

You attracted them. They dismissed you. The people you think aren't talking to you are the ones who actually are, and your self regard prevents you from perceiving that.

What I meant by attract was of course, an attempt to destroy me. Like Randall does to random n00bs whenever he is bored/stressed complete with citations and references. I wouldn't even mind if they littered it with swears every other words and just textwalled the page. As for the discussion, there isn't much else to be said about the subject because the difference comes fundamentally, it is very deeply ingrained in philosophy. And I know I can't overcome it at the moment and especially not in this thread.

Anyway, give me some book to start from and I will see where to go.

infernovia, would it be useful to watch Dream and I model an SB-style debate on what art is/is not? It might be a useful exercise for me, and a chance for you to see a different sort of discussion than the one that's taken up the last few pages.

Would be interesting sure.

[poxic]

What I meant by attract was of course, an attempt to destroy me. Like Randall does to random n00bs whenever he is bored/stressed complete with citations and references.

So you were trolling? Also: Randall doesn't visit the fora anymore, and hasn't for a long time.

Would be interesting sure.

...

So, Mr. Dream, if I may call you Mr. Dream, and please correct me if I may not:

My admittedly undereducated view of What Art Is consists of "I used a skill and/or piece of technology (e.g., bleached dried reeds) to make an object or experience (e.g., basket or movement or sound). If I got creative with it -- added some of myself and/or my ideas into it -- then I can call it Art rather than Craft."

Is that a reasonable definition?

[infernovia]

So you were trolling? Also: Randall doesn't visit the fora anymore, and hasn't for a long time.

No, what I meant was that someone in that mood and knowledgeable doing that to me (preferrably someone with lots of deep insight). Its actually a great response and exactly what I am looking for as it lets me see what basis they formed their opinion on.