Argument Blog

On August 29 2008 02:15 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes you will argue anything here.

On August 29 2008 02:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Ok bly!

Anything can be art! Art is undefined and cannot be constrained by the subjective definition of a few. Additionally: All art is equal. Since art is timeless and it's inherent value is based on the emotional/thought provoking experience deeming one piece or work of art more valuable than another is ignorant since current art perhaps deemed inferior could have a greater impact down the road with more people or a mass of more important people.

On August 29 2008 02:23 Boblion wrote:
What do you think of Sc2 ?

Who is your favourite guy on TL ?

Who is the worst poster here ?

On August 29 2008 02:42 littlechava wrote:

do you want him to argue his answers to those questions or something? :p

On August 29 2008 03:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
well I cannot argue by myself Even I haven't aspired to that level.

On August 29 2008 02:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Ok bly!

Anything can be art! Art is undefined and cannot be constrained by the subjective definition of a few. Additionally: All art is equal. Since art is timeless and it's inherent value is based on the emotional/thought provoking experience deeming one piece or work of art more valuable than another is ignorant since current art perhaps deemed inferior could have a greater impact down the road with more people or a mass of more important people.

On August 29 2008 02:19 Kletus wrote:
Good sir, it appears your leg is in the way of my pee stream.

On August 29 2008 03:07 zulu_nation8 wrote:


I do believe there is something inherently equal in all art; that of which mirrors what is inherently equal in all human beings since art is the expression of human beings. However we must define and interpret art constantly in respect to ourselves and the place and time we live in in order to understand art in any sort of context. By interpreting art, a certain worth or value is forcibly assigned to it which very often changes when the things we measure art upon change themselves. However if we don't critique art there would be no dialectics or progress at all. So in the end, it's necessary to assign certain art more value than others for the sake of art itself.

On August 29 2008 03:29 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


But you contend that we may be so vain as to speak to the value of art as if it's progress is dependent on our subjective and relatively ignorant critiques? You yourself acknowledge that art is timeless and it's value transcends a mere mortal.. how then can a mere mortal assign any kind of value to a work of art? We cannot. Even a thousand year old painting is young in it's potential.. perhaps it ends up surviving for a million years how can anyone along the way assume to know its value? And what is much more disturbing on that vain, how can someone presume to speak on behalf of art's progression at all? As if we are somehow above art and can carve it a progressive path?

I contend there have been 0 "progress" in art. Art is beyond human control.

On August 29 2008 03:29 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I contend there have been 0 "progress" in art. Art is beyond human control.

On August 29 2008 04:33 Makhno wrote:


How can art be beyond human control when arguably the "greatest" art (by the definition of fame and appretiation) has been painted, written, sculpted or in other ways devised by man?

I agree to the statement that, subjectively, everything is art, but I want to make a point about the most well-known works of art being man-made, rather than the feeling often conveyed by f.e. the beauty of nature or science. These two are separate and must be viewed as two separate entities. One of them eternal and beyond our reach, the beauty of the perceivable world, and the other made by us, an attempt to capture all that is thought provoking around us and within us.

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.

On August 29 2008 03:21 Falcynn wrote:
Yes yes, well I'm sure you'd find if you just kindly angle your pee stream a fraction to the left, that it would find it's way to the ground quite uninterrupted.

On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 05:13 Kletus wrote:


And I'm quite sure that you'd move your leg but a fraction to the left, you would find that it would cease to be peed upon.

On August 29 2008 05:13 Kletus wrote:


And I'm quite sure that you'd move your leg but a fraction to the left, you would find that it would cease to be peed upon.

On August 29 2008 05:36 Makhno wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 07:03 BanZu wrote:

Now if you two are done bickering I would like open an invitation for all to an afternoon of tea and crumpets and perhaps followed by a friendly game of croquet.

On August 29 2008 07:01 Falcynn wrote:
Yes yes yes yes yes, BUT my leg was here first.

On August 29 2008 07:36 travis wrote:
nothing transcends time

On August 29 2008 07:45 Falcynn wrote:


Damn it, I thought we were going to finish this first T.T

On August 29 2008 07:58 travis wrote:
Isn't everything we talk about from a human being's perspective?

In what way can something transcend time?

On August 29 2008 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 06:56 travis wrote:
why do all neuroscientists conveniently ignore the fact that there is no logical reason as to why anyone should experience anything.

actually, pretty much all empiricists (like everyone in the west and most in the east) have this same flaw. even new-age philosophers(and most from the past) seem to have this flaw, those who claim they are pursuing truth. and when you bring it up they ignore that you even made a point, they say that science will explain it, in the future. that they are getting closer to explaining how experience happens via matter. meanwhile they ignore the question of why it would ever happen in the first place. why is 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 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 11:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:


Because doing philosophy, or anything from experience traps you into a hole that no one can get out of. So after Heidegger came in and said we should start from our everyday actions instead of the mind itself, philosophy got a lot easier and everyone is happy.

If you start from the mind and your own private experiences you can never look me in the face with logical reasoning

and tell me you are directly interacting with the world and that you are not a transcendental subject yourself.

On August 29 2008 11:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:


Eh

Why are you so certain about your own subjective views.

On August 29 2008 12:40 travis wrote:


I do not understand what you mean by this question.

On August 29 2008 12:47 zulu_nation8 wrote:


like, saying other peoples religious beliefs are undeniably retarded is very certain of your own subjective view

On August 29 2008 12:47 zulu_nation8 wrote:
and travis can you elaborate i dont know what you mean

On August 29 2008 12:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 11:30 zulu_nation8 wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 14:44 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


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.

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.

On August 29 2008 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


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.

On August 29 2008 15:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:


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.

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:


That is an opinion, which many would disagree with.

No art is revered for its LACK of technical precision mr.incontrol.

On August 29 2008 15:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
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 15:13 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I can't think of a single piece of artwork that is revered for its lack of technical precision, that's like saying something is praised for being bad, it doesn't make sense.

On August 29 2008 15:25 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Picasso is like the most technically gifted artist ever... I never said art has to be technical or precise but good art is almost always technically brilliant.

On August 29 2008 15:36 travis wrote:


you should probably replace "good" with "famous".

but anyways,

I am saying that "technical" is entirely opinion. I have to assume that we are speaking only of visual art, so from this context I will argue that the majority of abstract art should not be considered technical.

If you do consider all famous abstract art to be technical I would like you to give me any example of any art, period, which you do not consider to be technical in nature.

No art is revered for its LACK of technical precision mr.incontrol.

Of course abstract art [...] is technical. Its composition, color, form all require very good fundamentals.

On August 29 2008 16:20 travis wrote:
That is the point I am trying to make. Technique is an opinion. There is no "wrong" art, and there is no "wrong" technique.

So when you replied to incontrol by saying



what point were you trying to make?


Obviously incontrol meant something differently than what you seem to think he did, I would assume he meant the opposite of abstract.

On August 29 2008 16:20 travis wrote:

also I have to argue that



is a completely untrue statement. I would argue that anyone is capable of great art, education or no.

On August 29 2008 16:27 zulu_nation8 wrote:


what are you trying to say, that this piece does not have good technique?

On August 29 2008 16:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
It's ok travis. Zulu thinks all great art exemplifies "technical prowess." He is wrong but I have a feeling he won't budge on the matter. It's a shame too cause he seems fairly educated yet he cannot grasp the notion that while art is fucking HUGE as a definition he cannot recall a single piece of art work that relatively speaking didn't take technical excellence. Cause off the top of my head I can think of a million examples.. and that is before I hit google.

On August 29 2008 16:34 travis wrote:


no, I am saying that incontrol was never saying that any piece is revered for a lack of display of skill. that would be incredibly silly.

I am saying that I think he was saying that pieces are sometimes revered for a lack of display of method

On August 29 2008 16:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
PS I hate how zulu continuously says "people say" in regard to art. Are you kidding me? That is the most cop-out response someone can make. Here! Let me align myself with the almighty generic "someone once said so now it becomes 'people.'"

Start arguing for yourself and stop relying on blanket statements of seudo authority.

On August 29 2008 16:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Otherwise please give me some examples of great works of art which do not demonstrate brilliant technique because off the top of my head I honestly can't think of any.

On August 29 2008 16:43 travis wrote:
zulu let it be known that I hold no negative thoughts towards you

(not to say that incontrol does.. but I have given off the wrong impression before and want no animosity between us)

On August 29 2008 16:43 zulu_nation8 wrote:


And my response to that would be what you think is lack of method lots of times actually has tremendous precision. Give me examples.