|
On August 29 2008 11:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 07:01 travis wrote:
Why is it that so very few people are interested in knowing what they are. Shouldn't this be the most important question you can answer before you die?
Why is it that so many people follow a religion they don't even understand, even when it states that for that lack of understanding they will spend eternity in hell. Are they unable to bring theirself to think of anything outside their attachments and desires for 10 fucking minutes to find out how retarded their beliefs are? Eh Why are you so certain about your own subjective views.
I do not understand what you mean by this question.
|
how is this even a blog.
/spam.
|
On August 29 2008 12:40 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 11:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 29 2008 07:01 travis wrote:
Why is it that so very few people are interested in knowing what they are. Shouldn't this be the most important question you can answer before you die?
Why is it that so many people follow a religion they don't even understand, even when it states that for that lack of understanding they will spend eternity in hell. Are they unable to bring theirself to think of anything outside their attachments and desires for 10 fucking minutes to find out how retarded their beliefs are? Eh Why are you so certain about your own subjective views. I do not understand what you mean by this question.
like, saying other peoples religious beliefs are undeniably retarded is very certain of your own subjective view
|
and travis can you elaborate i dont know what you mean
|
On August 29 2008 12:47 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 12:40 travis wrote:On August 29 2008 11:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 29 2008 07:01 travis wrote:
Why is it that so very few people are interested in knowing what they are. Shouldn't this be the most important question you can answer before you die?
Why is it that so many people follow a religion they don't even understand, even when it states that for that lack of understanding they will spend eternity in hell. Are they unable to bring theirself to think of anything outside their attachments and desires for 10 fucking minutes to find out how retarded their beliefs are? Eh Why are you so certain about your own subjective views. I do not understand what you mean by this question. like, saying other peoples religious beliefs are undeniably retarded is very certain of your own subjective view
What is the alternative? Am I to take no stand, simply because my view is a subjective one?
Am I to assume my existence is so vastly different from another's that the logic and reasoning I use only applies to me?
This very same logic which I use to best people in games based on logic and reasoning? Which I use to solve problems that affect not only me but these others previously mentioned?
|
I mean, come on, be practical. If I question the religion of another, and that person is unable to answer me, and choose to ignore the question as a result;
does this prove nothing?
|
On August 29 2008 12:47 zulu_nation8 wrote:
and travis can you elaborate i dont know what you mean
which part
|
No I'm merely talking about your tone, i meant nothing deeper.
|
could you do me a favor and quote which post you are replying to?
|
|
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On August 29 2008 12:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:36 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 04:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. I disagree. I don't see art as something that trancsends time and place to the level that it becomes close to supernatural, as I interpret your understanding of it (though I may have misunderstood your view of art itself). I see art as something thought- and feeling provoking, a thing that almost forces a reaction from the viewer. It can sometimes be so moving for the individual that they value it above basically everything else. But I still think it's something physical, made by man for man, which provokes a physical response which can be understood by humans. As for value, my argument is that you can establish some sort of physical value, the appreciation of mankind and the general value given by man, both now and then. This however is only material. But the sort of inner value, the higher sense of value, I don't think exists, not for art and not for anything. Art's value isn't physical though. Nobody (that actually tries and understand appreciate art, basically I am discluding thoughs that buy art for purely superficial purposes and would buy a lump of poop if someone told them it was amazing) buys art for the space it fills but rather what it represents and evokes. That worth, that value is not physical and cannot be grasped as its experience is unique and independent to each person. This of course is getting into the debate as to whether or not you believe people can experience an emotion exactly the same way. I argue they cannot. In fact each time someone feels sadness or happiness that feeling is unique to previous or future feelings as well. That is how I reason that art's "value" and worth transcends time.. the fact that emotions do the same and art is an emotional provateur means they are one in the same, relatively speaking. Your point on inner value is interesting. While I agree, quantifying it is impossible I think to argue it doesn't exist is a folly. People (as I have said) have died for art, sacrificed much more than material worth to obtain certain pieces of art. To say they did it in every case without inner value is incorrect I would argue. In reality only like, 0.0000000000001% of all art has enough genius in it that people will call it timeless or whatever. So you really can't use those specific works to represent all art. Also not all art aim to evoke an emotional response, and that certainly should not be the primary reason in determining a certain piece's genius. There's lots of other "physical" stuff like composition, color, technical precision that determines art's value.
Yes but some art is revered for its lack of physical stuff like composition, color, technical precision etc.. and yet it can be just as famous. Hence my argument that it is not in the physical that we weigh art. Additionally, people "calling art timeless" and my use of "timeless" are seperate and unique. You'd do well to try and evaluate the differences as oppose to assuming I speak on behalf of people you and I are making up and assuming exist.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On August 29 2008 11:30 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 04:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. Incontrol you completely disregarded what I said. I agree people misinterpret art. However it's pointless to not interpret just because the values we interpret art by change. It's like saying we should not have a government because ours will be obselete and replaced by a better one eventually. Human beings need to live; just like art, especially after modernity, needs self-reflection to survive and progress.
No it's not like saying that at all. Governments have policies, laws and they govern people. They have direct change forced on life through physical implementation or other venues of control. Art is an entirely different specter. Art's timeless properties make it ignorant for us to speak on it's behalf as if its entirety is laid out before us. When in fact we cannot ever presume to understand art in its entirety. In fact I would go so far as to say each time we experience the same art we experience it in a new and unique way each time. Never are we in the same place and time.. our life evolves as does our emotions. The magnitude of our happiness, sadness or other differs from each experience as we differ physically and mentally each time.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
This was already posted in here, in its entirety.. fucking good skit though 
|
On August 29 2008 14:44 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 11:30 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 04:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. Incontrol you completely disregarded what I said. I agree people misinterpret art. However it's pointless to not interpret just because the values we interpret art by change. It's like saying we should not have a government because ours will be obselete and replaced by a better one eventually. Human beings need to live; just like art, especially after modernity, needs self-reflection to survive and progress. No it's not like saying that at all. Governments have policies, laws and they govern people. They have direct change forced on life through physical implementation or other venues of control. Art is an entirely different specter.
Likewise my comparison stands in that the critiquing of art has a direct influence on the "life" of art or art history.
On August 29 2008 14:44 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Art's timeless properties make it ignorant for us to speak on it's behalf as if its entirety is laid out before us. When in fact we cannot ever presume to understand art in its entirety. In fact I would go so far as to say each time we experience the same art we experience it in a new and unique way each time.
No one pretends the values we interpret art by are permanent therefore no art critic assumes his interpretations are permanent. Who do you have a problem against exactly?
|
On August 29 2008 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 12:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 29 2008 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:36 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 04:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. I disagree. I don't see art as something that trancsends time and place to the level that it becomes close to supernatural, as I interpret your understanding of it (though I may have misunderstood your view of art itself). I see art as something thought- and feeling provoking, a thing that almost forces a reaction from the viewer. It can sometimes be so moving for the individual that they value it above basically everything else. But I still think it's something physical, made by man for man, which provokes a physical response which can be understood by humans. As for value, my argument is that you can establish some sort of physical value, the appreciation of mankind and the general value given by man, both now and then. This however is only material. But the sort of inner value, the higher sense of value, I don't think exists, not for art and not for anything. Art's value isn't physical though. Nobody (that actually tries and understand appreciate art, basically I am discluding thoughs that buy art for purely superficial purposes and would buy a lump of poop if someone told them it was amazing) buys art for the space it fills but rather what it represents and evokes. That worth, that value is not physical and cannot be grasped as its experience is unique and independent to each person. This of course is getting into the debate as to whether or not you believe people can experience an emotion exactly the same way. I argue they cannot. In fact each time someone feels sadness or happiness that feeling is unique to previous or future feelings as well. That is how I reason that art's "value" and worth transcends time.. the fact that emotions do the same and art is an emotional provateur means they are one in the same, relatively speaking. Your point on inner value is interesting. While I agree, quantifying it is impossible I think to argue it doesn't exist is a folly. People (as I have said) have died for art, sacrificed much more than material worth to obtain certain pieces of art. To say they did it in every case without inner value is incorrect I would argue. In reality only like, 0.0000000000001% of all art has enough genius in it that people will call it timeless or whatever. So you really can't use those specific works to represent all art. Also not all art aim to evoke an emotional response, and that certainly should not be the primary reason in determining a certain piece's genius. There's lots of other "physical" stuff like composition, color, technical precision that determines art's value. Yes but some art is revered for its lack of physical stuff like composition, color, technical precision etc.. and yet it can be just as famous. Hence my argument that it is not in the physical that we weigh art. Additionally, people "calling art timeless" and my use of "timeless" are seperate and unique. You'd do well to try and evaluate the differences as oppose to assuming I speak on behalf of people you and I are making up and assuming exist.
No art is revered for its LACK of technical precision mr.incontrol. Like people worship jackson pollack because his technique is revolutionary but it certainly doesnt lack technicality. And the reasons you call art timeless are the reasons everyone else uses.
|
zulu?
If you are mistaking me for rude, or arrogant, or whatever else - it is not my intention.
I do not intend any tone in my posts, so please do your best to take them literally.
|
On August 29 2008 15:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 12:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 29 2008 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:36 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 04:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. I disagree. I don't see art as something that trancsends time and place to the level that it becomes close to supernatural, as I interpret your understanding of it (though I may have misunderstood your view of art itself). I see art as something thought- and feeling provoking, a thing that almost forces a reaction from the viewer. It can sometimes be so moving for the individual that they value it above basically everything else. But I still think it's something physical, made by man for man, which provokes a physical response which can be understood by humans. As for value, my argument is that you can establish some sort of physical value, the appreciation of mankind and the general value given by man, both now and then. This however is only material. But the sort of inner value, the higher sense of value, I don't think exists, not for art and not for anything. Art's value isn't physical though. Nobody (that actually tries and understand appreciate art, basically I am discluding thoughs that buy art for purely superficial purposes and would buy a lump of poop if someone told them it was amazing) buys art for the space it fills but rather what it represents and evokes. That worth, that value is not physical and cannot be grasped as its experience is unique and independent to each person. This of course is getting into the debate as to whether or not you believe people can experience an emotion exactly the same way. I argue they cannot. In fact each time someone feels sadness or happiness that feeling is unique to previous or future feelings as well. That is how I reason that art's "value" and worth transcends time.. the fact that emotions do the same and art is an emotional provateur means they are one in the same, relatively speaking. Your point on inner value is interesting. While I agree, quantifying it is impossible I think to argue it doesn't exist is a folly. People (as I have said) have died for art, sacrificed much more than material worth to obtain certain pieces of art. To say they did it in every case without inner value is incorrect I would argue. In reality only like, 0.0000000000001% of all art has enough genius in it that people will call it timeless or whatever. So you really can't use those specific works to represent all art. Also not all art aim to evoke an emotional response, and that certainly should not be the primary reason in determining a certain piece's genius. There's lots of other "physical" stuff like composition, color, technical precision that determines art's value. Yes but some art is revered for its lack of physical stuff like composition, color, technical precision etc.. and yet it can be just as famous. Hence my argument that it is not in the physical that we weigh art. Additionally, people "calling art timeless" and my use of "timeless" are seperate and unique. You'd do well to try and evaluate the differences as oppose to assuming I speak on behalf of people you and I are making up and assuming exist. No art is revered for its LACK of technical precision mr.incontrol. Like people worship jackson pollack because his technique is revolutionary but it certainly doesnt lack technicality. And the reasons you call art timeless are the reasons everyone else uses.
That is an opinion, which many would disagree with.
|
No by tone I don't mean I perceive your posts as rude, I know they are rants. I just mean be more precise when you're talking about stuff so I can have something to respond to, I was talking about this.
On August 29 2008 07:01 travis wrote:
Why is it that so very few people are interested in knowing what they are. Shouldn't this be the most important question you can answer before you die?
Why is it that so many people follow a religion they don't even understand, even when it states that for that lack of understanding they will spend eternity in hell. Are they unable to bring theirself to think of anything outside their attachments and desires for 10 fucking minutes to find out how retarded their beliefs are?
|
On August 29 2008 15:05 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2008 15:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 29 2008 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 12:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 29 2008 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:36 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote:On August 29 2008 04:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. I disagree. I don't see art as something that trancsends time and place to the level that it becomes close to supernatural, as I interpret your understanding of it (though I may have misunderstood your view of art itself). I see art as something thought- and feeling provoking, a thing that almost forces a reaction from the viewer. It can sometimes be so moving for the individual that they value it above basically everything else. But I still think it's something physical, made by man for man, which provokes a physical response which can be understood by humans. As for value, my argument is that you can establish some sort of physical value, the appreciation of mankind and the general value given by man, both now and then. This however is only material. But the sort of inner value, the higher sense of value, I don't think exists, not for art and not for anything. Art's value isn't physical though. Nobody (that actually tries and understand appreciate art, basically I am discluding thoughs that buy art for purely superficial purposes and would buy a lump of poop if someone told them it was amazing) buys art for the space it fills but rather what it represents and evokes. That worth, that value is not physical and cannot be grasped as its experience is unique and independent to each person. This of course is getting into the debate as to whether or not you believe people can experience an emotion exactly the same way. I argue they cannot. In fact each time someone feels sadness or happiness that feeling is unique to previous or future feelings as well. That is how I reason that art's "value" and worth transcends time.. the fact that emotions do the same and art is an emotional provateur means they are one in the same, relatively speaking. Your point on inner value is interesting. While I agree, quantifying it is impossible I think to argue it doesn't exist is a folly. People (as I have said) have died for art, sacrificed much more than material worth to obtain certain pieces of art. To say they did it in every case without inner value is incorrect I would argue. In reality only like, 0.0000000000001% of all art has enough genius in it that people will call it timeless or whatever. So you really can't use those specific works to represent all art. Also not all art aim to evoke an emotional response, and that certainly should not be the primary reason in determining a certain piece's genius. There's lots of other "physical" stuff like composition, color, technical precision that determines art's value. Yes but some art is revered for its lack of physical stuff like composition, color, technical precision etc.. and yet it can be just as famous. Hence my argument that it is not in the physical that we weigh art. Additionally, people "calling art timeless" and my use of "timeless" are seperate and unique. You'd do well to try and evaluate the differences as oppose to assuming I speak on behalf of people you and I are making up and assuming exist. No art is revered for its LACK of technical precision mr.incontrol. Like people worship jackson pollack because his technique is revolutionary but it certainly doesnt lack technicality. And the reasons you call art timeless are the reasons everyone else uses. That is an opinion, which many would disagree with.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue jackson pollack wasn't technically brilliant.
|
No art is revered for its LACK of technical precision mr.incontrol.
this was the opinion I speak of
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
