Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Dubious, wait, before I address the rest of your post, what in the world does this phrase refer to: "The greater the distances that pool individual subjectivities"? That sounds like gobbledy-gook to me.

Time as distance; space as distance. Does that make it less gobbledygook? The rest should be easy.

Um, what?? What makes no sense to me is the idea of distances "pooling individual subjectivities"--what the heck is that saying?

Walker wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The proferred reasoning replete with example indicates otherwise.

There isn't objective quality just because you or any number of other people believe there is. I can pick apart your earlier comment more, but you didn't reply very directly to what I'd just said, so I'm not sure it would be worth the time.

Irrelevant. That was not the reasoning presented.

You didn't actually present any reasoning. You just made a bunch of ridiculous, errant claims.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:any painting by Van Gogh.

Unless you don't happen to particularly like Van Gogh's paintings, in which case it's not really all that great.

Terrapin Station wrote:You didn't actually present any reasoning. You just made a bunch of ridiculous, errant claims.

If sound reasoning without any " ridiculous, errant claims" is what you're looking for then perhaps Walker isn't your best bet.

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:any painting by Van Gogh.

Unless you don't happen to particularly like Van Gogh's paintings, in which case it's not really all that great.

But I DO like his work, obvuously.
I was expressing an opinion.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I was expressing an opinion.

So was I.

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I was expressing an opinion.

So was I.

No you said; "Unless you don't happen to..." Well I do not happen to. So say what you mean. What you mean is that you don't like Van Gogh.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Bad art that includes no craft is just mental fucking - worse just masturbation and involves the artist in no deep engagement with the materials.
There is little love in much modern art, except self-love of the artist.
I'm talking about dirt under the fingernails craftiness, as being the love an artist can lavish on their work.

I might need some examples before commenting further, Hobbs.

Bad art is The Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp. Which have not involved him in ANY craft whatever. This is pure self-love.

Great art is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or the Parthenon Marbles, any painting by Van Gogh.

Ha! Yes, it's absurd but, dare I say it, it achieves what all good art do - it elicits a response (t the gimmickry). My psychopath side is actually a tad envious at the chutzpah displayed by artists who can present complete nonsense as art. It appears to me that, with "art" like Duchamp's signed urinal, the artistry is not in the object but in the game of presenting it as art, the con job.

I prefer idiot postmodernism to bland professionalism. At least there's a point of interest, even if negative. My beef is more with music, or at least synthetic audio product that is marketed as music.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: No you said; "Unless you don't happen to..."

Yes, you're right. What I should have said was "unless one doesn't happen to..."

So say what you mean

Actually, it wasn't me that said it. It was the three quarters of a bottle of wine that I recently drank that was talking. I am, however, prepared to take responsibility for it.

What you mean is that you don't like Van Gogh.

That's not strictly true. I don't dislike him, I mean, it's not like he cut my ear off.

Greta wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote: I might need some examples before commenting further, Hobbs.

Bad art is The Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp. Which have not involved him in ANY craft whatever. This is pure self-love.

Great art is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or the Parthenon Marbles, any painting by Van Gogh.

Ha! Yes, it's absurd but, dare I say it, it achieves what all good art do - it elicits a response (t the gimmickry). My psychopath side is actually a tad envious at the chutzpah displayed by artists who can present complete nonsense as art. It appears to me that, with "art" like Duchamp's signed urinal, the artistry is not in the object but in the game of presenting it as art, the con job.

I prefer idiot postmodernism to bland professionalism. At least there's a point of interest, even if negative. My beef is more with music, or at least synthetic audio product that is marketed as music.

There is artistry is SOME music of the sort you mean. It can be easy to mistake the cold heartless beats and rhythms of electronica, but there might be a little bit of art even if the pain of learning how to play instruments is utterly lacking. There are notable stars of electronica; Tomita, and Kraftwerk for example.

Duchamp did not offer the world a work of art. His only craft was to sign it R. Mutt. Ans he claims never to have expected the reaction he got. He relied totally in his position and name in the art world for Fountain to be notable. My view of art is that the object would be able to stand on its own feet. Were you or I to have offered the Fountain we would have been laughed at. So no - does not even qualify as art in my book. THis is simply taking the piss - there is no chutzpah here. It epitomises everything that is wrong wither art.

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: No you said; "Unless you don't happen to..."

Yes, you're right. What I should have said was "unless one doesn't happen to..."

So say what you mean

Actually, it wasn't me that said it. It was the three quarters of a bottle of wine that I recently drank that was talking. I am, however, prepared to take responsibility for it.

What you mean is that you don't like Van Gogh.

That's not strictly true. I don't dislike him, I mean, it's not like he cut my ear off.

There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections. Is THAT art?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections. Is THAT art?

Yes, they broadcasted the story on radio 4, although I didn't hear it all. I think the incident had more to do with insanity than art.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections.

Just like a man to give a totally inappropriate gift!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is artistry is SOME music of the sort you mean. It can be easy to mistake the cold heartless beats and rhythms of electronica, but there might be a little bit of art even if the pain of learning how to play instruments is utterly lacking. There are notable stars of electronica; Tomita, and Kraftwerk for example.

Duchamp did not offer the world a work of art. His only craft was to sign it R. Mutt. Ans he claims never to have expected the reaction he got. He relied totally in his position and name in the art world for Fountain to be notable. My view of art is that the object would be able to stand on its own feet. Were you or I to have offered the Fountain we would have been laughed at. So no - does not even qualify as art in my book. THis is simply taking the piss - there is no chutzpah here. It epitomises everything that is wrong wither art.

To clarify, I don't decry electronica at all - I've made plenty myself. I'm referring to the Top 40 today. Commercial pop has always been a great source of tripe, but the over-compressed, entirely formulaic heartless stuff they are peddling now is especially artless, although its ugliness is validly reflective of base aspects of modern culture.

Yes indeed, Duchamp was taking the piss. I think that reliance on name that you spoke about is fairly typical and seen in all areas of life. Hypotheses from exemplars and nobodies may be identical but the former will meet rapturous acclaim while latter will meet resistance. In all areas there are those who are lionised while highly comparable artists/functionaries are ignored. In taste tests the opinions of self-proclaimed experts have consistently been found to be influenced by the credibility of the brand name.

The knowledge of an artists' reputation directly and significantly changes the experience of the art consumer. Celebrity seems to add a certain sparkle to proceedings; a viewer or listener will focus on what makes the art or performance different on special. With no name artists, the consumer pays far more attention to generic qualities because the artists' specific individualist qualities are not yet familiar, and thus less obvious.

In a sense, the corruption is not in the artist but in superficial consumption, lacking sufficient depth of observation to perceive the art as it. Since most of the exposed and readily available art lack extra layers of meaning, consumer have gotten out of the habit of looking for it. The shallow side of modernity, obsessed with social standing, treats art as an abstracted social conduit where taste relates to status.

It's a long way from the transcendent art, music and dance powwows of supposedly "primitive" people. I sometimes wonder if our artistic regression is a temporary trend or if art and music will disappear as we become ever more machinelike.

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections.

Just like a man to give a totally inappropriate gift!

I believe he gave it to a prostitute who didn't return his affection. So what would be an appropriate gift to a prostitute. (Be careful how you answer, or even if you answer).