If bad jokes can...

[marjoramblues]

Humour is also a social tool. What makes Zambians roll in the aisles might leave a Japanese audience bewildered. And, of course, there is the great variety in what expressions and responses to humour are deemed appropriate in each culture, age group, gender and class.

So, what we each consider a good sense of humour in another person is: They laugh at our jokes... or at least to the same things that make us laugh. Because levity is an important stress- and aggression-reliever, you want to be in a social environment where your humour works. You want to share leisure time amusements with friends and a mate. Of course, this also brings in the cultural references you have in common - perhaps even more importantly what subjects you each consider laughing matter - and thus, how closely aligned your world-view can be.

Someone's use of humour gives you a pretty good measure of their intelligence, their creativity, linguistic facility, mental agility and intellectual scope - all of which will determine how well you communicate.

You really should write that book; you always make complete sense to me.
Perhaps I am biased...hmmm...

So, you see humour as more functional than aesthetic? Equally?
What do you think the term 'non-aesthetic' means...a practical use of humour - or simply not 'funny' as in humourous practices?
Ya see, I'm having difficulty with this...
But more later...

[Skip]

So, you see humour as more functional than aesthetic? Equally?

For me, it's almost on a par with colour and music: can't imagine living in a deadpan environment, and more than I could survive for very long in a grey one without trees and birds. (Ugh! Winter is coming. All that white shit... for months!) For me, aesthetics are essential to the quality of life. I think aesthetics are important to everyone with a big brain: apes in a zoo, if they're given a piece of fabric, will wear it and drape it decoratively over branches and each other; they will examine and rearrange coloured blocks; paint and look at pictures... Even dogs have been observed decorating their living space. And animals play tricks on each other: practical jokes. Maybe all of that has a function beyond simple enjoyment, hut let's not discount the enjoyment.

I do see the enormous importance of humour in an anthropological context. That is, I see what functions it has served in social relations, in the development of our cultures (where I think it's been underrated by scholars), and some more recent functions is serves in the modern world. The king's jester could point up absurdities for which a minister would have been banished, if not beheaded. I get news about US politics from the Daily Show, just as Eastern Europeans under Russian domination used to get their political information from the cartoon magazines. Humour can be subversive and is far less susceptible to propaganda than earnest mainstream reportage. It's a kind of shorthand, too, conveying information in a compressed form and engaging the audience's critical faculties to decrypt (as it were) the message. And, because the people require circuses along with their bread, even the toughest tyrant doesn't dare altogether shut down the music halls: clowns speak when intellectuals have been silenced.

I suppose that's what's meant by non-aesthetic. But it couldn't work if it were not funny - at least to some segment of the population. I don't enjoy the potty-mouth comedians; insults, pratfalls, shouting, sniggering or farting: I don't find that amusing and I don't profit from the content.
But if it helped, for example, release somebody from socially crippling inhibitions, it would be functional. Perhaps a psychiatrist who prefers sophisticated verbal humour and sees no aesthetic merit in slapstick, can still use it as a therapeutic device.
(I'm at a disadvantage here, not having read the article. Maybe I'll wrestle Lazyass to the ground and read it today.)

[Skip]

Okay, I think I've a dim glimmering* of the non-aesthetic. One-upmanship, sexual innuendo, put-down, name-calling. I still haven't read the whole paper, but I see the distinction. These kinds of humour are still a shorthand (or coded) communication within a social unit and serves some important functions, even if it's not pleasing to an audience.

- It helps to establish relative status - that is, who gets to put down whom; who gets stuck with a nickname like "Stinky", and so on - without the guys having to fight and damage one another physically. The winner of the jeering contest is incidentally showing off to any bystanders (eligible females or judging bosses) and the loser lives to try again tomorrow. Humiliation is a form of testing endurance, loyalty and resiliency. A bruised ego doesn't detract from your hunting skill - indeed, might focus extra hard on the legitimate prey, since you can't punch out the leader of your pack.
- It channels sexual anxiety and other fears of inadequacy. It's a way of masking fear, generally, in groups where courage is highly valued and cowardice is despised.
- It promotes male bonding (ick, but necessary, I suppose... Then, too, women do something very similar when they ridicule typical masculine behaviours. They're just not so crude about it. ) often through scorn of another (the butt, the reject; outsiders) person or group, thus reinforcing tribal solidarity. I suppose this is the purpose of hazing rituals that stop short of physical injury.

So, maybe the kinds of humour that don't appeal to me have these non-aesthetic functions in groups to which I don't belong. The outsider isn't supposed to understand.



* Adopted from the close encounter with Gustav. We recycle.

[Impenitent]

one understands that deadpan humor isn't effective in China...

-Imp

[Skip]

It's bound to be ineffective with the heavy makeup.

[marjoramblues]

Again, thanks for all thoughts.

I'm gonna have to backtrack here and try to figure out what an 'Aesthetic Experience' (AE) is according to the author, because I have a feeling I disagree with him.

He quotes Elliott Eisner and Margaret Macintyre Latta to support his view that aesthetic experiences are not instrumental ie not motivated by goals extrinsic to the activity itself.

Eisner first mentions AE as 'a process emerging out of the act itself'; don't quite get this, if something emerges from an act, isn't it a product rather than a process?

Then comparing it with other activities, 'the experience that constitutes art does not begin when the inquiry is over'; excuse me, but what 'inquiry' ?

The quote ends with: ' [AE] - is not something at the end of a journey, it is part of the journey itself'.

I interpret this as an AE is part of a process - but it is not clear to me whether it only involves the viewer, or includes the producer.

Next, Latta in agreement (apparently) notes that the significance of the AE isn't evaluated by the product itself, but by the process of making art.
Ah, she is a painter; so it is all about her personal process of interpretetive acts and 'engaging in dialogues with nature and [her] canvas'.

So, this artistic process is aesthetic as compared to being a 'work in progress' which would be instrumental, driven by external motives - such as money or fame.

Can the two intrinsic/aesthetic and extrinsic/instrumental really be separated out like this?

I agree that both art and humour are aesthetic in the sense of enjoyment; however, it is also the case that both have functional or instrumental roles, as already discussed.

Gordon confuses me further- not difficult, I admit - when he talks of 'subscribing to an 'honorific view' of art which ascribes 'positive artistic value of all the items it defines, so that if an item is defined as artwork by an honorific definition, then it must also be good artwork by that definition'.

uwot?

[marjoramblues]

Skip, AS et al

Sometimes, I think that the discussions here are far more enjoyable and productive than anything written in any journal.

Really.

But both give me headaches; and I gotta go, seriously

[marjoramblues]

AS, I wanted to get back to you about the youtube performances...

I enjoyed both in different ways and had distinct and fuzzy ideas about saying summat clever about originality and uniqueness.

I looked up the origins of the moondance:
http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-p ... 05107.html

had lots more in mind, but...couldn't express it at the time. Too many thoughts not enough words.

My brain and the screen combine to make it hurty rather than hearty.

[Skip]

Academics can be quite difficult! Unnecessarily so, imo; attempting to 'elevate' their subject matter, they often only succeed in obscuring it. Communication shouldn't be that complicated - complex, yes: it always serves more than one function.

Humans, with all that surplus convolution in their brains, put extra freight on everything. Can't just chuck any old spear at a buffalo - it's got to have burned-in patterns on the shaft and coloured feathers hanging off the head, to show that Squatting Cloud is a big deal ... as if the dying buffalo could be impressed! But also, just because Squatting Cloud gets a simple aesthetic pleasure out of carrying a decorated spear - as well as the ego-boost of having a nicer spear than Shedding Aspen, who's got his sights on that hot Little Beaver.

I'd ignore most academic palaver about Art. Far too many elaborate definitions! (Too many of which are some version of: art is what artists make and an artist is whoever makes art ---- well, that's illuminating!) We like to enhance our environment; we like to show off our skills; we like to share our feelings; we like to represent experience in a different format - that is, translate back and forth from visceral to visual to auditory sensation; we like to leave permanent monuments, both individual and societal, because we're still unreconciled to mortality.
I hear they're putting up some humungous statue http://www.businessinsider.com/500-mill ... rld-2011-7 in India... like they had no more urgent use for the funds... I'm telling you, we're a seriously disturbed species. .... but funny!

[artisticsolution]

Thank you for posting that M! Loved it! When I was watching Bill Baily, I had to laugh a little. I was reminded of my favorite (all time?) comedian, Bill Cosby. I found this clip of him tap dancing that always cracked me up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDkuucSWVWw

Everything is right in the world when I watch the Cosby Show

I was thinking the other day about this thread you created. It seems to me that...things which give pleasure or comfort...are sometimes considered "bad/immoral/not as cool/classy/intelligent for that matter"... status wise speaking. than other non-fun activities, like angst ala Nietzsche style or should I say things which are more somber.

Examples:

Drama seems more "cool" than comedy.

Dads are generally "cooler" than Moms.

Philosophies which are more "dark" than "light" seem more hip/cool somehow....I mean aesthetically speaking.

I am of course talking about your link to philosophers reactions and writings about comedy. I don't get what makes comedy so bad? I don't understand what axiom they base their opinions on....did I miss the memo or something?

Have you noticed the same? Do you get headaches here in the forum because you are getting too much pleasure? LOL

Also...on an unrelated note...have you ever noticed how some people...the nicer you treat them the meaner they are to you...but if you treat them like shit they bend over backward for you?

Or does all this fall under psychology rather than philosophy?

[artisticsolution]

I hear they're putting up some humungous statue http://www.businessinsider.com/500-mill ... rld-2011-7 in India... like they had no more urgent use for the funds... I'm telling you, we're a seriously disturbed species. .... but funny!

Right?! I think if the Louvre was burning and people only had time to save either the art or a person trapped inside...I think they would opt for the art. That is how screwed up our priorities are, I think.

[Skip]

There is some crazy old philosophy question - repeated by Ayn Rand in all seriousness, so you know how valid it is: Would you rather save a work of art or bandage an injured dog's paw? Of course, she think anyone who chooses the dog is a sentimental idiot... And that idiot would be me. Every time. Without reservation. Life always trumps stuff.

Besides, if we don't let the artwork burn once in a while, we'd have no room for new art or new artists.

[marjoramblues]

There is some crazy old philosophy question - repeated by Ayn Rand in all seriousness, so you know how valid it is: Would you rather save a work of art or bandage an injured dog's paw? Of course, she think anyone who chooses the dog is a sentimental idiot... And that idiot would be me. Every time. Without reservation. Life always trumps stuff.

Besides, if we don't let the artwork burn once in a while, we'd have no room for new art or new artists.

Life is more important than stuff, I agree.
And yet, some are prepared to die to preserve cultural artefacts, seen as representing a valued way of life now under threat from regressives.

I've just read an article 'Are we losing the war for the soul of Islam? - Standpoint, Nov 13.
Makes for an interesting read; until you get to the 'answer' to the problem.
What a joke - 'to have a picture of the Queen' and say a prayer for the royal family

...The beginning of an answer is simple: make sure Islam is something from which there is nothing to fear. Tell Muslim leaders not just to "condemn" acts of violence but to stop them. Tell them that the era of ifs and buts about the extremists must end. Tell them to put the concerns of the state foremost in the minds of young Muslims, to have a picture of the Queen and say a prayer for the royal family in mosques as it is said in synagogues every Saturday. Tell them to teach their young that if they feel an urge to get involved in a struggle, they can join up for one the best armies in the world — the British army. In particular, tell them to create swiftly and purposefully a type of British or Western Islam which not only is not in the hands of fanatics, but cannot be reclaimed by them. Lock the fanatical scholarship out as strongly as historically it has been able to be locked in....

Centre-right.

[marjoramblues]

AS:

Do you get headaches here in the forum because you are getting too much pleasure? LOL

Oh yes, there is that too

Loved the tap-dancing 'challange'; when is a chair not a chair?

[artisticsolution]

There is some crazy old philosophy question - repeated by Ayn Rand in all seriousness, so you know how valid it is: Would you rather save a work of art or bandage an injured dog's paw? Of course, she think anyone who chooses the dog is a sentimental idiot... And that idiot would be me. Every time. Without reservation. Life always trumps stuff.

Besides, if we don't let the artwork burn once in a while, we'd have no room for new art or new artists.

I think she would have an argument if she made the case that saving and selling the artwork to help the needy is reason alone to save the artwork rather bandaging the injured dog's paw...but she ruined her humanity "get out of jail free card" with the "sentimental idiot" hogwash clarification of what she meant.

Then I wonder what she would say to saving a work of art in exchange for a live being SHE loved...that is if she was capable of love at all. I don't know much about her so I don't know if she able to love living things. Not being sentimental and all....

AND....if she chose to save HER loved one vs. a work of art...then she has betrayed her own philosophy and is as worthless as the paper it is written on.