Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,134 - 2,145 of 6,170
Posts 2,134 - 2,145 of 6,170
You're right, I fell smack in the middle of this, and I thought it was a quote from The Hitchhikers Guide, lol
I love Babelfish translations. 
Right, Kunst means "art", können is a form of "can" (or with a capital K it means ability/skill) and wollen is "to want". Wunst isn't a real word. It just serves the alliteration.
Wool, lol. ^^
Right, Kunst means "art", können is a form of "can" (or with a capital K it means ability/skill) and wollen is "to want". Wunst isn't a real word. It just serves the alliteration.
Wool, lol. ^^
Irina: I agree with what you are saying, and would not that the kind of porn you are refering to is 'craft' not 'art'. 'Craft' in the same vein of definition as tooling out a cookie cutter ikea lamp design by the dozen without thought, whereas erotica is more akin to the hand designed wrought iron lighting fixture that took ages to complete.
Also: yes- it seems that the universe is selfreflective and detailed enough to the point that one can study caligraphy to attain enlightenment, or cryptography to prove chaos theory. Personally i find that both glorious and boggling.
Also: yes- it seems that the universe is selfreflective and detailed enough to the point that one can study caligraphy to attain enlightenment, or cryptography to prove chaos theory. Personally i find that both glorious and boggling.
feyz: if an artist is defined by having produced with great skill, then is a learning violinist not an artist? is the expression "bad art" then a misnomer more corectly labeled as something other than art?
Also: I believe all people produce art but only a percentage do so habitualy; meaning: all people make art but not all people are artists.
Also: I believe all people produce art but only a percentage do so habitualy; meaning: all people make art but not all people are artists.
I just wrote that art is always connected to a great amount skill somehow IMO (not: art is necessarily something produced with great skill). A learning violinist is gaining more and more skill, slowly mastering what he does. It would be wrong to shelve this necessary process, of course. In fact that's what is most important to me in this discussion.
All people produce art... hmm, that's really something to think about. But it would be even harder to draw a line then between art and not art. And I really like to draw lines.
All people produce art... hmm, that's really something to think about. But it would be even harder to draw a line then between art and not art. And I really like to draw lines.
Eugene Meltzner:
OK, but suppose I write something in Visual Basic (or Java), how do I get Windows to treat it as a screen saver?
OK, but suppose I write something in Visual Basic (or Java), how do I get Windows to treat it as a screen saver?
Um, in VB you do something special when you are compiling the program. I can't remember offhand; I haven't done in a while.
Butterfly dream:
It occurred to me after my first reply to your message 2124 (Sorry, I am a little slow sometimes), that your example was in fact an excellent example for what I was trying to say. In your life drawing class, the fact that the model was gorgeous in a sexual way didn't prevent people from appreciating her hands. In the same way, I hope that erotic art doesn't prevent people from seeing other aspects of people.
It occurred to me after my first reply to your message 2124 (Sorry, I am a little slow sometimes), that your example was in fact an excellent example for what I was trying to say. In your life drawing class, the fact that the model was gorgeous in a sexual way didn't prevent people from appreciating her hands. In the same way, I hope that erotic art doesn't prevent people from seeing other aspects of people.
revscrj:
Your example of professional wrestling is very good, very thought-provoking. Thank you! I guess I would have to say that if it is carefully choreographed (as I presume it is), and if the aficionados of the art have non-trivial standards, then it is an art.
One should distinguish, though, between three questions:
1. Is it art? (BAD art is still art; the fact that you despise something doesn't prove that it's not art.)
2. Is this particular thing (or performance, etc.) GOOD art?
3. Does this KIND of art (e.g., erotic art, professional wrestling) have the potential to produce masterworks?
As long as professional wrestling is just a sequence of bashings and other forms of competitive torture, I don't see how it can produce great art. But I can imagine ways that it could evolve in that direction.
By the way, is there an intended significance for "revscrj"? Does it mean "reverse screw joint," for example?
Your example of professional wrestling is very good, very thought-provoking. Thank you! I guess I would have to say that if it is carefully choreographed (as I presume it is), and if the aficionados of the art have non-trivial standards, then it is an art.
One should distinguish, though, between three questions:
1. Is it art? (BAD art is still art; the fact that you despise something doesn't prove that it's not art.)
2. Is this particular thing (or performance, etc.) GOOD art?
3. Does this KIND of art (e.g., erotic art, professional wrestling) have the potential to produce masterworks?
As long as professional wrestling is just a sequence of bashings and other forms of competitive torture, I don't see how it can produce great art. But I can imagine ways that it could evolve in that direction.
By the way, is there an intended significance for "revscrj"? Does it mean "reverse screw joint," for example?
re Boner, message 2130:
Well, not too long in the past, "Art" did mean something like craft or skill. So a good piece of engineering or carpentry would indeed have been 'Art.' What we are talking about (at least, what I am talking about) might more precisely be described as "Fine Art," although I find that terminology to be a little obnoxious, since it has a positive judgment built into it, via the word, "Fine."
Fine art, it seems to me, is primarily created for esthetic appreciation. An *esthetic quality* of an object, it seems to me (adapting part of an idea of Kant's), is something like this: a quality which appears in the mere *contemplation* of the object. For example, if an object is visually beautiful to you, then all you have to do is look at it, in order to experience that beauty. In particular, Beauty is the property of being *very pleasant* to contemplate.
Now, a car or a chair is an object of utility beyond just being contemplated, but one *can* contemplate them. If you know enough engineering, you can get a lot of pleasure out of contemplating a particular nice piece of work in that genre. So you are having an esthetic experience, an experience of Beauty.
But does that make it art? I don't think so. I am not denigrating engineering, or the experience of appreciation in engineering; as I suggested in my previous message, the question of whether something is art or not is not a value judgment.
It seems to me that what makes something a *work of art* is not, actually, its esthetic qualities, but the fact that it was deliberately created by a person, with the intent that its *primary purpose* was to be an object of contemplation (by certain people under certain conditions), for the sake of the resulting esthetic experience. A sunset is beautiful, but (Well, I could be wrong about this, I suppose!) it was not created for that purpose. If you convince me that it was, I will change my mind and say that it *is* a work of art!
Well, not too long in the past, "Art" did mean something like craft or skill. So a good piece of engineering or carpentry would indeed have been 'Art.' What we are talking about (at least, what I am talking about) might more precisely be described as "Fine Art," although I find that terminology to be a little obnoxious, since it has a positive judgment built into it, via the word, "Fine."
Fine art, it seems to me, is primarily created for esthetic appreciation. An *esthetic quality* of an object, it seems to me (adapting part of an idea of Kant's), is something like this: a quality which appears in the mere *contemplation* of the object. For example, if an object is visually beautiful to you, then all you have to do is look at it, in order to experience that beauty. In particular, Beauty is the property of being *very pleasant* to contemplate.
Now, a car or a chair is an object of utility beyond just being contemplated, but one *can* contemplate them. If you know enough engineering, you can get a lot of pleasure out of contemplating a particular nice piece of work in that genre. So you are having an esthetic experience, an experience of Beauty.
But does that make it art? I don't think so. I am not denigrating engineering, or the experience of appreciation in engineering; as I suggested in my previous message, the question of whether something is art or not is not a value judgment.
It seems to me that what makes something a *work of art* is not, actually, its esthetic qualities, but the fact that it was deliberately created by a person, with the intent that its *primary purpose* was to be an object of contemplation (by certain people under certain conditions), for the sake of the resulting esthetic experience. A sunset is beautiful, but (Well, I could be wrong about this, I suppose!) it was not created for that purpose. If you convince me that it was, I will change my mind and say that it *is* a work of art!
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar