From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/25/2004 2:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a purely
subjective arena.

It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive it would
random in nature.

That's ridiculous. We're all acculturated to the idea of relative beauty
even if our standards may vary. There are some things that almost nobody
would say are art, and there are a lot of things that almost everybody
would say are art. That is not "random".


Maybe I am not understanding you here but it sounds as if you are agreeing with
me here.


You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
has, maybe.

I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes art
work is built on objective common truths.

Wrong.

We disagree



They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure.

You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.

Art does not bring us pleasure?


I think the human response to tone is
very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.
There
are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound but
never
proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities in
brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to **** on a
DaVinci
as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have strong
reactions to certain images well before they are capable of communication
of
abstract thought.

I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
concept of art.

I don't see why yo think this. When I say there are objective standards I am
not saying there is no subjectivitiy too. But if there were no biological
mechanisms at work, if there were no objective standards what would keep art
from being nothing but random in nature? Do you think it is a happy accident
that up beat music played in a major scale has a common uplifting affect on
people while music played in minor scales tend to create a sense of melencholy?
This works with most people not knowing the difference between a major and
minor scale.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/25/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well as
the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example, to
judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate
its
use of color as one component. But the artist might be using horrible
colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't
pull
out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to consider
the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since art's
effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual, is
there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?


Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding what I
am
saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely
objective to
every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that
there
are
objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say
DaVinci
was
a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they are
both
excellent artists by objective standards in art.

Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a purely
subjective arena.

It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive it
would
random in nature. It isn't. There are reasons why most people like the
taste of
chocolate more than dirt.

Because their taste buds are wired a certain way.

More accurately our taste buds/brains are wired a certain way.



There are reasons why most men are attracted to
certain looks in women and visa versa.

Because they are trained by their culture to like certain types. What is
considered beautiful today was not in Reubens day.

Not exactly. A number of studies have found certain substantial commonalities
in sexual aesthetics spanning all cultures studied.



These things have causes that are quite
mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
\
They are cultural.

Really? The aesthetics of sexual attraction is purely cultural? I never knew
the birds and the bees were cultured. Besides, where does cultural aesthetics
come from? Is it random?



You put a DaVinci or
a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to **** on
either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they can
talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to
respond
to certain aesthetics.

Mostly we are trained by our culture.

*Mostly*??? Maybe maybe not. At any rate the point is some of it is biological.



Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the
standards
have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and error and
creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and
objective
standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of artists who
are
exploring these conventions and standards and building on what previous
artists
have built.


List 3.

3 what? Standards of excellence in any given art?

We have to pick a genre of art and then lay out the artist's objectives.




To take it to the extreme just
to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively
better
musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make
noise.
It ain't art.

Yes it is.

OK lets go to the begining. What is art?

1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
creation of beautiful objects €” usually used in plural b : objects of fine
art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill


Beauty:

1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives
pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit

My banging on musical instruments fails to meet those defenitions for the vast
majority of people because of objective cuase and effect mechanisms.





You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted standards
and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a maven
has, maybe.


I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes
art
work is built on objective common truths.

Then why do different cultures produce different art.

1. The art of different cultures is not *totally* different in nature. In fact
there are remarkable commonalities in the arts of vastly different cultures.
The question to me is why is there so much in common with the arts of such
vastly different cultures? Why do the conventions of the arts of such vastly
different cultures have so much in common?
2. The existance of objective standards in art does not preclude variations of
those objective standards.



They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.

Our scale is 7 notes, in India they a 60 note scale as I recal.

And they both make mathematical sense. They both have a distict mathematical
structure. Is it coincidence that virtually every form of music from every
culture has such scales?



We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to tone
is
very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.

Then why isn't Persian or Arabic style music a big hit here?
It ain't just
the language barrier.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Persianand Arabic music is enjoyed
by many western people and visa versa. I am a big fan myself.



There
are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound but
never
proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities in
brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to **** on a
DaVinci
as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have strong
reactions to certain images well before they are capable of communication
of
abstract thought.


Your dancing.

No

List 3 objective standards for art.

Which genre? What are the artists objectives?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/25/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well
as
the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example,
to
judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate
its
use of color as one component. But the artist might be using
horrible
colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't
pull
out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to
consider
the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since
art's
effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual,
is
there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?


Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding
what I
am
saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely
objective to
every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that
there
are
objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say
DaVinci
was
a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they
are
both
excellent artists by objective standards in art.

Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a
purely
subjective arena.

It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive it
would
random in nature. It isn't. There are reasons why most people like the
taste of
chocolate more than dirt.

Because their taste buds are wired a certain way.

More accurately our taste buds/brains are wired a certain way.



There are reasons why most men are attracted to
certain looks in women and visa versa.

Because they are trained by their culture to like certain types. What is
considered beautiful today was not in Reubens day.

Not exactly. A number of studies have found certain substantial
commonalities
in sexual aesthetics spanning all cultures studied.

Humans are a specific kind of entity, they have a specific nature and are
designed a specific way. It is not surprising they react to similar
stimuli. That being said, there are probably more types of sexual
expression than are are types or classes of art.

These things have causes that are quite
mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
\
They are cultural.

Really? The aesthetics of sexual attraction is purely cultural?

In large part yes.

I never knew
the birds and the bees were cultured. Besides, where does cultural
aesthetics
come from? Is it random?

What are the objective standards of art? You're still ducking the question.

You put a DaVinci or
a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to ****
on
either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they
can
talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to
respond
to certain aesthetics.

Mostly we are trained by our culture.

*Mostly*??? Maybe maybe not. At any rate the point is some of it is
biological.

Some part, sure. What has this to do with objective standards in art?

Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the
standards
have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and error
and
creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and
objective
standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of artists
who
are
exploring these conventions and standards and building on what previous
artists
have built.


List 3.

3 what? Standards of excellence in any given art?

You claim there are objective standards for art, yet you have not listed any
that I've seen.

We have to pick a genre of art and then lay out the artist's objectives.

You claimed there were objective standards in art, name 3.



To take it to the extreme just
to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an
objectively
better
musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to
make
noise.
It ain't art.

Yes it is.

OK lets go to the begining. What is art?

I already gave you the only objective dfinition I know of. If you have
another or better one, please say so.

Art is a subjective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgements.

1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
creation of beautiful objects - usually used in plural b : objects of fine
art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill


Beauty:

1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives
pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit

My banging on musical instruments fails to meet those defenitions for the
vast
majority of people because of objective cuase and effect mechanisms.





You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted
standards
and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a
maven
has, maybe.


I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes
art
work is built on objective common truths.

Then why do different cultures produce different art.

1. The art of different cultures is not *totally* different in nature. In
fact
there are remarkable commonalities in the arts of vastly different
cultures.
The question to me is why is there so much in common with the arts of such
vastly different cultures? Why do the conventions of the arts of such
vastly
different cultures have so much in common?

Because they are all done by human beings.

2. The existance of objective standards in art does not preclude
variations of
those objective standards.



They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.

Our scale is 7 notes, in India they have a 60 note scale as I recall.

And they both make mathematical sense. They both have a distinct
mathematical
structure. Is it coincidence that virtually every form of music from every
culture has such scales?

No, since the music is made by human beings who share a common biology.

We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to
tone
is
very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.

Then why isn't Persian or Arabic style music a big hit here?
It ain't just
the language barrier.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Persian and Arabic music is
enjoyed
by many western people and visa versa. I am a big fan myself.

The music made by Arabic people or Chinese people or Indian people are
vastly different in their use of tones, their use of scales, etc. They have
little in common with say Western European music.

So while we share a common biology we have vastly differntideas on what
musical art sounds like.

There
are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound
but
never
proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities
in
brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to **** on a
DaVinci
as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have
strong
reactions to certain images well before they are capable of
communication
of
abstract thought.


Your dancing.

No

List 3 objective standards for art.

Which genre? What are the artists objectives?

You said there were objective standards for art, I took that to mean
universally, IOW applicable to any art form.

The Artist wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably
set up
objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
piece
of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of
reproducing a
landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions
are
held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.

In that circumstnace expression plays a lesser role - it's as much a
discipline as it is an art form.


Agreed. Of course, *some* musicians are simply more skilled in reproducing
the
notes written by a composer than others. That's the sort of thing I had in
mind.

True enough.. I'm absolutely ****ing useless at playing guitar from a
*technical* POV, but I've always seen that as an advantage ;-)


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t








You can always call it a "jazz ad lib solo" (that's what I used to do when I
played in a Basie-style Big Band and screwed up solos).



Bruce J. Richman

The Artist wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

You can always call it a "jazz ad lib solo" (that's what I used to do when
I
played in a Basie-style Big Band and screwed up solos).

If you look like you have serious intent when you'r playing jazz,
pretty much anything will pass. Random chords, anything.. ;-) I tend
to play with a lot of bends, so bend bum-notes back into tune without
raising too many eyebrows..


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







Since I played tenor saxophone and clarinet, if anybody noticed anything
negative, I could always blame it on the reeds (or the liquid refreshment taken
between sets).



Bruce J. Richman

Mr. Middius said:

S888Wheel said:

They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure.

You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.

Art does not bring us pleasure?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm surprised you have to ask that.


I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
concept of art.

I don't see why yo think this. When I say there are objective standards I
am
not saying there is no subjectivitiy too. But if there were no biological
mechanisms at work, if there were no objective standards what would keep
art
from being nothing but random in nature? Do you think it is a happy
accident
that up beat music played in a major scale has a common uplifting affect on
people while music played in minor scales tend to create a sense of
melencholy?
This works with most people not knowing the difference between a major and
minor scale.

The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?

Good point. Art's not meant to give pleasure as much as elicit an emotional
response from others. It's a passage of a particular idea from the mind of one
person to another.

I've also had arguments with people at the other end of the spectrum, those who
feel that everything is art. I think that's lazy thinking. There has to be a
design and a reaction.

Boon

Mr. Middius said:


Marc Phillips said:

The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?

Good point. Art's not meant to give pleasure as much as elicit an
emotional
response from others. It's a passage of a particular idea from the mind of
one
person to another.

That's a nice summary.


I've also had arguments with people at the other end of the spectrum, those
who
feel that everything is art. I think that's lazy thinking. There has to
be a
design and a reaction.

I agree. In fact, if you look at the human race from a certain point of
view, are not our vicissitudes of temperament a form of art? Imagine the
mind of a creator who could design and deliver the Krooborg.....

I think of Arny's god, that big invisible guy up in the sky who knows and sees
all, and I'm not surprised at the result.

Boon

The Artist a écrit :

I thought *you* were an artist.. apparently not.

Have you read his pseudonym ? It has an heavy artistic charge... LOL !

Marc Phillips a écrit :

I agree. In fact, if you look at the human race from a certain point of
view, are not our vicissitudes of temperament a form of art? Imagine the
mind of a creator who could design and deliver the Krooborg.....


I think of Arny's god, that big invisible guy up in the sky who knows and sees
all, and I'm not surprised at the result.

Sound to me that you and George are more interested in Krooborg's life
than in artistic expression.
What a pair of morons.

From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/26/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure.

You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.

Art does not bring us pleasure?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm surprised you have to ask that.

Besides when we don't like art. When does it not, in the end, bring us
pleasure? This is not about art having to convey happy thoughts. Not at all. An
excellent production of Hamlet is for me, quite pleasurable. It obviously is
not a happy play. OTOH a crappy production can be most unpleasant. Here is an
example of objectively inferior art. Ever sit through any Shakespeare play in
which it is clear the actors don't even understand the meaning of the text?




I think you're operating under a very limited definition of the entire
concept of art.

I don't see why yo think this. When I say there are objective standards I
am
not saying there is no subjectivitiy too. But if there were no biological
mechanisms at work, if there were no objective standards what would keep
art
from being nothing but random in nature? Do you think it is a happy
accident
that up beat music played in a major scale has a common uplifting affect on
people while music played in minor scales tend to create a sense of
melencholy?
This works with most people not knowing the difference between a major and
minor scale.

The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?

Not at all. But I will say that art that works for it's intended purpose brings
the audience pleasure. that doesn't mean that all art conveys happy messages.
Pleasure also comes from the experience of any number of emotions through art.
I am saying that when one considers the artists intentions and looks at the
work there are some objective standards by which we can meaure the success of
the artist. Some of it is entirely subjective as well.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/26/2004 11:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I can't believe you are seriously trotting out trite dictionary
definitions of "Art". I thought *you* were an artist.. apparently not.

What on earth is an attempt to clarify what is being discussed have to do with
what I am and am not?


"S888Wheel" emitted :

OK lets go to the begining. What is art?

1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
creation of beautiful objects €” usually used in plural b : objects of fine
art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill


Beauty:

1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives
pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/26/2004 1:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/25/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well
as
the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example,
to
judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate
its
use of color as one component. But the artist might be using
horrible
colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't
pull
out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to
consider
the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since
art's
effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual,
is
there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?


Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding
what I
am
saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely
objective to
every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that
there
are
objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say
DaVinci
was
a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they
are
both
excellent artists by objective standards in art.

Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a
purely
subjective arena.

It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive it
would
random in nature. It isn't. There are reasons why most people like the
taste of
chocolate more than dirt.

Because their taste buds are wired a certain way.

More accurately our taste buds/brains are wired a certain way.



There are reasons why most men are attracted to
certain looks in women and visa versa.

Because they are trained by their culture to like certain types. What is
considered beautiful today was not in Reubens day.

Not exactly. A number of studies have found certain substantial
commonalities
in sexual aesthetics spanning all cultures studied.

Humans are a specific kind of entity, they have a specific nature and are
designed a specific way. It is not surprising they react to similar
stimuli.

Does this mean you are begining to get my point?


That being said, there are probably more types of sexual
expression than are are types or classes of art.

I'm not sure what this means or what the point may be.



These things have causes that are quite
mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
\
They are cultural.

Really? The aesthetics of sexual attraction is purely cultural?

In large part yes.

Did you understand the question? I said "purely.' How can that be in "large
part"??? It is a yes or no question. I thought you were most comfortable with
black and white situations.



I never knew
the birds and the bees were cultured. Besides, where does cultural
aesthetics
come from? Is it random?

What are the objective standards of art? You're still ducking the question.

You are ducking my questions.



You put a DaVinci or
a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to ****
on
either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before they
can
talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree to
respond
to certain aesthetics.

Mostly we are trained by our culture.

*Mostly*??? Maybe maybe not. At any rate the point is some of it is
biological.

Some part, sure. What has this to do with objective standards in art?

If some aesthetic values are biological in nature they are not entirely
subjective. There is a biological cause and effect involved.



Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the
standards
have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and error
and
creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and
objective
standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of artists
who
are
exploring these conventions and standards and building on what previous
artists
have built.


List 3.

3 what? Standards of excellence in any given art?

You claim there are objective standards for art, yet you have not listed any
that I've seen.

We have to pick a genre of art and then lay out the artist's objectives.

You claimed there were objective standards in art, name 3.



To take it to the extreme just
to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an
objectively
better
musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to
make
noise.
It ain't art.

Yes it is.

OK lets go to the begining. What is art?

I already gave you the only objective dfinition I know of. If you have
another or better one, please say so.

Art is a subjective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgements.

I don't really know what to say to this one. I guess we can rule out any
discussion of abstract art.



1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the
creation of beautiful objects - usually used in plural b : objects of fine
art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill


Beauty:

1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives
pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit

My banging on musical instruments fails to meet those defenitions for the
vast
majority of people because of objective cuase and effect mechanisms.





You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective". What
you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric; perhaps
something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted
standards
and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a
maven
has, maybe.


I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what makes
art
work is built on objective common truths.

Then why do different cultures produce different art.

1. The art of different cultures is not *totally* different in nature. In
fact
there are remarkable commonalities in the arts of vastly different
cultures.
The question to me is why is there so much in common with the arts of such
vastly different cultures? Why do the conventions of the arts of such
vastly
different cultures have so much in common?

Because they are all done by human beings.

2. The existance of objective standards in art does not preclude
variations of
those objective standards.



They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work the
way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.

Our scale is 7 notes, in India they have a 60 note scale as I recall.

And they both make mathematical sense. They both have a distinct
mathematical
structure. Is it coincidence that virtually every form of music from every
culture has such scales?

No, since the music is made by human beings who share a common biology.

We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to
tone
is
very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective preference.

Then why isn't Persian or Arabic style music a big hit here?
It ain't just
the language barrier.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Persian and Arabic music is
enjoyed
by many western people and visa versa. I am a big fan myself.

The music made by Arabic people or Chinese people or Indian people are
vastly different in their use of tones, their use of scales, etc. They have
little in common with say Western European music.

So while we share a common biology we have vastly differntideas on what
musical art sounds like.

There
are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound
but
never
proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to irregularities
in
brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to **** on a
DaVinci
as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have
strong
reactions to certain images well before they are capable of
communication
of
abstract thought.


Your dancing.

No

List 3 objective standards for art.

Which genre? What are the artists objectives?

You said there were objective standards for art, I took that to mean
universally, IOW applicable to any art form.










I guess the real question at this point is why the hell am I trying to discuss
art with Mike?

From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Date: 6/25/2004 2:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
*performance* of art, not the art itself.

There is no art to discuss without the performance or execution of art.

Of course, one could probably set up
objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
piece
of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing
a
landscape or model by an artist).

Well, it does look like you get my point. There is skill involved and the
skills can be assessed objectively.

For example, when various competitions are
held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
assume the judges apply a set of standards to it. I'm not sure whether the
same type of procedure occurs with paintins.

It can.

At any rate, I would basically
consider the creation of a work of music or a painting or other art form to
be
subjective, since it involves the creative process.

It is both. Some aspects of art involve choices that are purely subjective.

However, the performance
might well be judged via various objective criteria.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/25/2004 2:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably set
up
objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
piece
of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of reproducing
a
landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions
are
held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.

In that circumstnace expression plays a lesser role - it's as much a
discipline as it is an art form.


WTF??

From: The Artist
Date: 6/26/2004 2:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably
set up
objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
piece
of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of
reproducing a
landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions
are
held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.

In that circumstnace expression plays a lesser role - it's as much a
discipline as it is an art form.


Agreed. Of course, *some* musicians are simply more skilled in reproducing
the
notes written by a composer than others. That's the sort of thing I had in
mind.

True enough.. I'm absolutely ****ing useless at playing guitar from a
*technical* POV, but I've always seen that as an advantage ;-)


That might explain your objections to the notion of objective standards. ****
happens. If an artist lacks control of his or her medium than he or she is
hoping for good **** via good luck.

George M. Middius wrote:

Defining "the artist's intention" is not always a simple thing. In my
experience, the more provocative a work is, the more multifarious and
elusive "the artist's intention" is. In fact, artists don't necessarily
have "intentions" other than to convey what they feel. Rare is the
artwork that is specifically intended to manipulate the feelings of
viewers.

And would you believe that there are many schools of thought
within critical theory where authorial intent is utterly
insignificant? This is a hard thing for many people to wrap
their minds around.

GZ

Subject: About art...
From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/28/2004 10:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

You're referring to a reaction of enjoyment or pleasure, not to art.

Art does not bring us pleasure?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm surprised you have to ask that.

Besides when we don't like art. When does it not, in the end, bring us
pleasure?

Uh... When it does not bring us pleasure?

That's like asking when is it not raining. It's not raining when it's
not raining.

Today, in LA we have an example of a dain without rain. Maybe you could cite an
example of art that you like that does not, in the end, bring you some sort of
pleasure.



This is not about art having to convey happy thoughts. Not at all. An
excellent production of Hamlet is for me, quite pleasurable. It obviously
is
not a happy play. OTOH a crappy production can be most unpleasant. Here is
an
example of objectively inferior art. Ever sit through any Shakespeare play
in
which it is clear the actors don't even understand the meaning of the text?

You're getting all muddled up here. In fact you seem to be making my
point -- that art is not always about bringing pleasure --

No, I think we are not agreeing on what is pleasurable. I find gut wrenching
drama in theater or film quite pleasurable if it works for me. OTOH I don't
like real life drama. It is unpleasant in every way.

and then
doubling back to say that no matter how you one feels in reaction to a
work of art, one feels pleasure.

I don't think that is the case. I have seen pointless drama and tragedy in film
and theater. That is just unpleasant. But it is also art that i don't like. If
there is a point, if it makes my think then there is value for me and, in the
end, I find pleasure in this value.





The nature of art is not necessarily to convey pleasure. Just because
most of the art people "enjoy" does convey pleasure does not mean that
such is the sole purpose of art. Are you saying that pleasurable art is
objectively "better" than neutral or discordant art?

Not at all. But I will say that art that works for it's intended purpose
brings
the audience pleasure.

That's insupportable. Some art is simply not intended to evoke pleasure,
and it does not do so.

I agree. But when it works the pleasure comes from the experience it gives us.
Pleasure isn't just happy thoughts or feelings. It is also the satisfaction we
get from artists allowing us to explore many other emotions and ideas.

Unless your definition of pleasure is "anything
that makes you feel something other than what you were feeling before
you experienced the artwork".

I was using it in it's braodest sense.

Main Entry: [1]plea·sure
Pronunciation: 'ple-zh&r, 'plA-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English plesure, alteration of plesir, from Middle French
plaisir, from plaisir to please
Date: 14th century
1 : DESIRE, INCLINATION wait upon his pleasure €”Shakespeare
2 : a state of gratification
3 a : sensual gratification b : frivolous amusement
4 : a source of delight or joy


Graitification can come from more than just happy thoughts. Now, if you have an
example of art that you like that does not bring you any gratification that
certainly would kill my position. But then tit would beg the question, why
would you like such art?




that doesn't mean that all art conveys happy messages.
Pleasure also comes from the experience of any number of emotions through
art.

That's bizarre. But if that's how you experience the world, so be it.

I am saying that when one considers the artists intentions and looks at the
work there are some objective standards by which we can meaure the success
of
the artist.

Defining "the artist's intention" is not always a simple thing.

I never said it was simple.

In my
experience, the more provocative a work is, the more multifarious and
elusive "the artist's intention" is. In fact, artists don't necessarily
have "intentions" other than to convey what they feel.

That is an intention.

Rare is the
artwork that is specifically intended to manipulate the feelings of
viewers.

I never cited any specifics on artists' intentions. Only that one can to some
degree gauge the success of an artist by measuring the work against the intent.
Sometimes the intent has to be deducted (not entirely impossible) sometimes all
we have to do is ask the artist.


Some of it is entirely subjective as well.

You've got some pretty strong hangups on this issue.


Maybe I do. Doesn't mean art is entirely subjective though.

From: Glenn Zelniker
Date: 6/28/2004 12:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

George M. Middius wrote:

Defining "the artist's intention" is not always a simple thing. In my
experience, the more provocative a work is, the more multifarious and
elusive "the artist's intention" is. In fact, artists don't necessarily
have "intentions" other than to convey what they feel. Rare is the
artwork that is specifically intended to manipulate the feelings of
viewers.

And would you believe that there are many schools of thought
within critical theory where authorial intent is utterly
insignificant? This is a hard thing for many people to wrap
their minds around.

GZ







There is nothing to stop an audience from disregarding the artist's intentions
and liking or disliking the work for personal reasons. But in the long run, if
the artist is failing to convey his or her intentions in the work that artist's
body of work will not hold up. You can only get lucky so often.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

Not at all. But I will say that art that works for it's intended purpose
brings
the audience pleasure.

Some art is just interesting or thought provoking.

That does not please you?



Are you going to reply to any of the posts I made to you BTW?

I have replied to some. If you feel some are still in need of a reply just cite
them and I'll reply to them.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

In article ,
Glenn Zelniker wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:

Defining "the artist's intention" is not always a simple thing. In my
experience, the more provocative a work is, the more multifarious and
elusive "the artist's intention" is. In fact, artists don't necessarily
have "intentions" other than to convey what they feel. Rare is the
artwork that is specifically intended to manipulate the feelings of
viewers.

And would you believe that there are many schools of thought
within critical theory where authorial intent is utterly
insignificant? This is a hard thing for many people to wrap
their minds around.

Conversely, if intent is the only criterion, content is insignificant.

Stephen

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 1:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

True enough.. I'm absolutely ****ing useless at playing guitar from a
*technical* POV, but I've always seen that as an advantage ;-)


That might explain your objections to the notion of objective standards.

A predictable response -

Yes, somethings are so obvious that they become quite predictable.

I expected you to come back with something
like that. I absolutely rebuke any suggestion that there is a
technical standard in guitar playing which I or anybody else must
adhere to in order to express oneself artistically.

You are rebuking an assertion that was never made.

Name any such
technical standard, and I will cite examples which defy it.

That's nice. When I claim that any objective standard in art is universal and
absolute you will be able to argue against such an assertion by citing
examples.



****
happens. If an artist lacks control of his or her medium than he or she is
hoping for good **** via good luck.

Thanks for the inference, but this artist does not lack control.

I wasn't talking about you specifically. But if you have "control" as a
guitarist then you cannot possibly be devoid of "technical ability."

I use
intuition and skills established through empirical experience.

Gosh even you are using the word "skills" here. Can't see the inherent
contradiction in your own claims?

"I use intuition and *skills*"

"I'm absolutely ****ing useless at playing guitar from a *technical* POV"

I think those claims as you stated them are self-contrditory.

Luck?
No!

Fine then it is skill. But that certainly wasn't the implication of your claim
about being useless at playing guitar from a "technical" POV.

Chance and probability OTOH are concepts of great interest to me
and many, many artists. Take Brian Eno's "Discreet Music" for example;
a recording made *without human intervention* once initiated [Brian
was talking on the phone, IIRC.]

What do you mean without human intervention? He just turned on a tape recorder
any old place and let it run and then released what he recorded? No choices
were made other than to roll tape?

A recording which defies your
"objective standards in art", yet defined a new genre in music - a
genre with influences in contemporary music across the board.

May be it does maybe it doesn't. Lets say it does defy any objective standards.
Does that make it so for all of art?



Incidently I found this definition of "Abstraction" in the Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary : "Freedom from representational qualities
in art; an abstract work of art."

That's nice. Any reason you bring it up?

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
*performance* of art, not the art itself. Of course, one could probably
set up
objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
piece
of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of
reproducing a
landscape or model by an artist). For example, when various competitions
are
held for piano soloists by various classical music organizations, one can
assume the judges apply a set of standards to it.

In that circumstnace expression plays a lesser role - it's as much a
discipline as it is an art form.

WTF??

Is this so hard to understand?

Yes. that is why I wrote WTF?

Any standard.. any principle which must
be conformed to places a limitation on the number of permutations of
expression. By conforming to parameters, one is engaging in a
discipline.. controlled and orderly behaviour via training.

It doesn't neccessarily limit expression. In many cases it will enhance it.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 2:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

Well, it does look like you get my point. There is skill involved and the
skills can be assessed objectively.

I would certainly think so. Agreed. There are sound reasons why Eric
Clapton,
John Williams and Andre Segovia are considered guitar virtuosos, for
example.

Bruce, I dislike pretty much everything Clapton has ever done. He
doesn't play really fast, and it's dead boring. I don't find him
talented by any objective standard.

Interesting claim coming from someone who denies any such standards exist.

Sure he can play a few notes.. so
can many 10 year olds. Is it art? No it's wank... aka "crap art".
Right or wrong?

Weren't you just claiming it is *purely* subjective. OTOH his technical skills
can be easly and objectively evaluated. I think you underestimate those skills.



Some more competent musicians who are* utterly snoozeworthy..

Joe Satriani
Carlos Santana
Eddie Van Halen
Steve Vai
Yngwie Malmsteen
Mark Knopfler
Slash
Gary Moore

...all virtuosos, of course ;-)

*IMO.


Now that would be a fairly subjective call.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 1:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

From my perspective, the examples you are giving have to do with the
*performance* of art, not the art itself.

There is no art to discuss without the performance or execution of art.

Duh.. ;-)

There is performance, there is conceptualization (and all the baggage
that goes with that)...

Of course, one could probably set up
objective standards for the level of expertise exhibited in *performing a
piece
of music" (or presumably, but less concretely or definitively of
reproducing a
landscape or model by an artist).

Well, it does look like you get my point. There is skill involved and the
skills can be assessed objectively.

No.. art is ALWAYS subjective.


The mantra of many an unskilled artist. It's great excuse for not working at
it.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

There is nothing to stop an audience from disregarding the artist's
intentions
and liking or disliking the work for personal reasons. But in the long run,
if
the artist is failing to convey his or her intentions in the work that
artist's
body of work will not hold up. You can only get lucky so often.

Is this not the McDonalds argument?

No. I see no conection whatsoever.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 2:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

Maybe you could cite an
example of art that you like that does not, in the end, bring you some sort
of
pleasure.

Is that another silly notion you are expounding on now? ;-)

On a superficial level.. how about Edvard Munch's "The Scream" or the
works of Francis Bacon? Very popular.. more disturbing than pleasant.


You bitch about me defining words for you then you go and misconstue my meaning
based on a misunderstanding of a word.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 2:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

Some art is just interesting or thought provoking.

That does not please you?

Am I allowed a choice.. or do I have to conform to objective
standards? :-)

Nice dodge.



Here's a different POV on this: Witnessing the aftermath of a car
crash can be "thought provoking". I think many people lie about this :
I probably would look. Not to be disrespectful.. not going out of my
way to do so.. but it is interesting.


It isn't art. We were talking about art weren't we? Thought provoking art is
gratifying to those who like thought provoking art. It isn't to those who don't
like it. For those who don't like thought provoking art much of it probably is
very much like looking at a car wreck.


Likewise, some arts can hardly
be described as pleasurable, yet some people find them engaging.

You still aren't getting the broader meaning of pleasure.



Here's Marc Quinn's "Self". A cast of his own head made in his blood.
http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com..._feature-1.jpg

Weird huh? Pretty disgusting if you ask me ;-)

Are you going to reply to any of the posts I made to you BTW?

I have replied to some.

I hadn't seen that when I asked the quesiton.. sorry.

No prob. Things are busy. I will be off line in less than an hour and won't be
back on line till no earlier than July 3rd. Going to Atlanta on work.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/26/2004 1:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/25/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as
well
as
the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For
example,
to
judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to
rate
its
use of color as one component. But the artist might be using
horrible
colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you
couldn't
pull
out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to
consider
the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since
art's
effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the
individual,
is
there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?


Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding
what I
am
saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely
objective to
every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying
that
there
are
objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively
say
DaVinci
was
a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they
are
both
excellent artists by objective standards in art.

Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "objective standard" in a
purely
subjective arena.

It is not purely subjective though. If it were *purely* subjetcive
it
would
random in nature. It isn't. There are reasons why most people like
the
taste of
chocolate more than dirt.

Because their taste buds are wired a certain way.

More accurately our taste buds/brains are wired a certain way.



There are reasons why most men are attracted to
certain looks in women and visa versa.

Because they are trained by their culture to like certain types. What
is
considered beautiful today was not in Reubens day.

Not exactly. A number of studies have found certain substantial
commonalities
in sexual aesthetics spanning all cultures studied.

Humans are a specific kind of entity, they have a specific nature and are
designed a specific way. It is not surprising they react to similar
stimuli.

Does this mean you are begining to get my point?


You haven't made a point only an assertion.

That being said, there are probably more types of sexual
expression than are are types or classes of art.

I'm not sure what this means or what the point may be.

You were talking about sexual attraction ,if not explicitly.

These things have causes that are quite
mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature.
\
They are cultural.

Really? The aesthetics of sexual attraction is purely cultural?

In large part yes.

Did you understand the question? I said "purely.' How can that be in
"large
part"??? It is a yes or no question. I thought you were most comfortable
with
black and white situations.

Culture plays a large part, biology takes care of the rest.


I never knew
the birds and the bees were cultured. Besides, where does cultural
aesthetics
come from? Is it random?



What are the objective standards of art? You're still ducking the
question.

You are ducking my questions.
I asked first, you 've been dodging ever since.


You put a DaVinci or
a child's finger painting infront of a dog he is just as likely to
****
on
either one. Even infants react to certain images and music before
they
can
talk or understand verbal communication. We are wired to some degree
to
respond
to certain aesthetics.

Mostly we are trained by our culture.

*Mostly*??? Maybe maybe not. At any rate the point is some of it is
biological.

Some part, sure. What has this to do with objective standards in art?

If some aesthetic values are biological in nature they are not entirely
subjective. There is a biological cause and effect involved.

I don't think any "asthetic" values are biological or any other "values" for
that matter.
If humans respond to certain colors in a certain way it's because of how
they are wired, it's not an artistic standard.


Maybe some day the mechanics or chemestry or what have
you will be well defined and understood by science. as of now the
standards
have been explored and developed by artists. There is trial and
error
and
creative intellegence at work. but ultimately the conventions and
objective
standards are the result of peoples' reactions to the works of
artists
who
are
exploring these conventions and standards and building on what
previous
artists
have built.


List 3.

3 what? Standards of excellence in any given art?

You claim there are objective standards for art, yet you have not listed
any
that I've seen.

We have to pick a genre of art and then lay out the artist's
objectives.

You claimed there were objective standards in art, name 3.



To take it to the extreme just
to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an
objectively
better
musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments
to
make
noise.
It ain't art.

Yes it is.

OK lets go to the begining. What is art?

I already gave you the only objective dfinition I know of. If you have
another or better one, please say so.

Art is a subjective recreation of reality, according to the artist's
value
judgements.

I don't really know what to say to this one. I guess we can rule out any
discussion of abstract art.

The definition still holds.

1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with
the
creation of beautiful objects - usually used in plural b : objects of
fine
art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill


Beauty:

1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that
gives
pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit

My banging on musical instruments fails to meet those defenitions for
the
vast
majority of people because of objective cuase and effect mechanisms.





You've been using the wrong word --- you don't mean "objective".
What
you mean escapes the limits of a single encompassing rubric;
perhaps
something along the lines of "according to the widely accepted
standards
and principles of people who are knowledgeable about art". What a
maven
has, maybe.


I understand what you are saying here but I do think much of what
makes
art
work is built on objective common truths.

Then why do different cultures produce different art.

1. The art of different cultures is not *totally* different in nature.
In
fact
there are remarkable commonalities in the arts of vastly different
cultures.
The question to me is why is there so much in common with the arts of
such
vastly different cultures? Why do the conventions of the arts of such
vastly
different cultures have so much in common?

Because they are all done by human beings.

2. The existance of objective standards in art does not preclude
variations of
those objective standards.

Then they aren't really standards so much as they are guidelines.


They are objective because they are
mechanical. I don't believe that musical scales just happen to work
the
way
they do mathematically by accident or coincidence.

Our scale is 7 notes, in India they have a 60 note scale as I recall.

And they both make mathematical sense. They both have a distinct
mathematical
structure. Is it coincidence that virtually every form of music from
every
culture has such scales?

No, since the music is made by human beings who share a common biology.

We are to some degree
reacting biologically to a structure. I think the human response to
tone
is
very much a biological cause as much as it is a subjective
preference.

Then why isn't Persian or Arabic style music a big hit here?
It ain't just
the language barrier.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Persian and Arabic music
is
enjoyed
by many western people and visa versa. I am a big fan myself.

The music made by Arabic people or Chinese people or Indian people are
vastly different in their use of tones, their use of scales, etc. They
have
little in common with say Western European music.

So while we share a common biology we have vastly differntideas on what
musical art sounds like.

There
are people whose brains are not wired for music. they hear the sound
but
never
proccess it into music. This phenomenon can be traced to
irregularities
in
brain fuction. I think these same underlying mechanisms exist in all
aesthetics. There is a reason why a dog is just as likely to **** on
a
DaVinci
as he is a finger painting and there is a reason why infants have
strong
reactions to certain images well before they are capable of
communication
of
abstract thought.


Your dancing.

No

List 3 objective standards for art.

Which genre? What are the artists objectives?

You said there were objective standards for art, I took that to mean
universally, IOW applicable to any art form.










I guess the real question at this point is why the hell am I trying to
discuss
art with Mike?

The real point is you made a statement that you've been backing away from
now for days.
You claimed there are objective standards for art and you have yet to list
any.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
hlink.net

The real point is you made a statement that you've been backing away
from now for days.

You claimed there are objective standards for art and you have yet to
list any.

Remember, this is the same S888wheel who claimed that this was the gospel
truth:

"Steve Hoffman could tell you himself that the layers were mastered exactly
the same way."

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:33:26 +0100, The Devil wrote:

On 28 Jun 2004 22:27:47 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

You still aren't getting the broader meaning of pleasure.

Just how *broad* are you willing to go? Your asshole seems
exceptionally tight.

But is it art?

Note that there's a song on the new Glenn Tilbrook album called Uranus
and Neptune that's quite the crafty art. Pucker up!

Oh yeah, the Canon 10D is the ****. You're welcome to call this
evening if you want to hear me gush all over the place (dirty minds,
don't touch *that* one please...)

The Artist a ecrit:

Sure, but I will only be able to argue for 20 minutes.. after which I
will be travelling to Atlantis.

Have a nice trips but doesn't forget to taken your hankeys by you ;-)

Today I start to work my eructation skill... Blurrrrrp !

Yes.

It's lonely in the top, will you?

;-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

JBorg wrote:

The Devil wrote:

S888Wheel) wrote:


WTF??



I think you need more eleven-dimension drawings in order to put this
across to mere mortals.





S8 was just frustrated

That's true.

The Devil said:

If god had a problem putting eleven dimensions in three, I don't see
how a mere mortal could manage it. Even if they made a very arty
holographic drawing.

The Devil is in the details.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 4:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

Well, it does look like you get my point. There is skill involved and the
skills can be assessed objectively.

I would certainly think so. Agreed. There are sound reasons why Eric
Clapton,
John Williams and Andre Segovia are considered guitar virtuosos, for
example.

Bruce, I dislike pretty much everything Clapton has ever done. He
doesn't play really fast, and it's dead boring. I don't find him
talented by any objective standard.

Interesting claim coming from someone who denies any such standards exist.

I didn't say standards don't exist in any sphere at all.. they are
usually employed by artisans of a craft.

Trying to seperate the two now? That is a typical layman's mistake. What's up
with calling yourself an artist if you are going to make such a basic mistake?



Sure he can play a few notes.. so
can many 10 year olds. Is it art? No it's wank... aka "crap art".
Right or wrong?

Weren't you just claiming it is *purely* subjective. OTOH his technical
skills
can be easly and objectively evaluated. I think you underestimate those
skills.

Craft.. again. The topic is ART.

Inseperable. Any real artist would know this.



Some more competent musicians who are* utterly snoozeworthy..

Joe Satriani
Carlos Santana
Eddie Van Halen
Steve Vai
Yngwie Malmsteen
Mark Knopfler
Slash
Gary Moore

...all virtuosos, of course ;-)

*IMO.


Now that would be a fairly subjective call.

They all feature in the Top 100 Guitarists of All Time! :-)

Also some what subjective.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/28/2004 3:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

No.. art is ALWAYS subjective.

The mantra of many an unskilled artist.

..as deemed by the self-appointed Final Arbiter of all Things ;-)

Ridiculous. You still don't get what I am saying. Oh well, not my problem.



It's great excuse for not working at it.

Tell that to Robert Rauschenberg.

Why?

From: "JBorg"
Date: 6/30/2004 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



The Devil wrote:
On 30 Jun 2004 13:33:10 -07
00, (JBorg) wrote:




S8 was just frustrated with regard to limitation of expression when
art is place within certain boundaries. Eleven dimension drawings
is something really new to me. Does it exist?

Er.


Could it be like a three dimensional space with all points extending
on to another of same dimension to put it across mere mortals.

How does one speculate further on the "word" Er, unless it refers to
a trauma center or some such.








Funny how some people get it on the first try. Good job.

From: The Artist
Date: 7/4/2004 12:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

I didn't say standards don't exist in any sphere at all.. they are
usually employed by artisans of a craft.

Trying to seperate the two now? That is a typical layman's mistake. What's
up
with calling yourself an artist if you are going to make such a basic
mistake?

No such mistake has been. The illiteracy you exhibit is a manifestion
of your failure to accept defeat.

No such mistake has been....what? I thought only Arny would attack someone's
literacy with the use of an incomplete sentence. You also share is and Saddam's
quirkie notion of victory.



Craft.. again. The topic is ART.

Inseperable. Any real artist would know this.

I wish I had been forced to learn to play an instrument by my parents.

I'd like to see or hear any of your art that you think has no craft. Or maybe I
wouldn't come to think of it.

From: The Artist
Date: 7/4/2004 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

No.. art is ALWAYS subjective.

The mantra of many an unskilled artist.

..as deemed by the self-appointed Final Arbiter of all Things ;-)

Ridiculous. You still don't get what I am saying. Oh well, not my problem.

No, I understood what you wrote. You didn't understand my response -
the problem is at your end.

No problem at my end. I'm still making a good living despite your opinions.



It's great excuse for not working at it.

Tell that to Robert Rauschenberg.

Why?

I don't explain riddles that are this easy to solve :-)


Suit yourself. Heck Lionel likes to speak for Dali. Bull**** is bull****.

S888Loser wrote:

No such mistake has been....what? I thought only Arny would attack someone's
literacy with the use of an incomplete sentence. You also share is and Saddam's
quirkie notion of victory.

With this reference to RAO's satanic Trinity :
- Arny
- Saddam
- Lionel (in a furter post)
S888Loser, unfair as usual, is suggesting that you are disgraced...

Next step ?
....He will insult your family. ;-)

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:32:03 +0100, The Devil wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:27:20 +0100, The Artist
wrote:

What about hip-driven milk churning?

Only if it's organic.

Totally. Like the shampoo.

Rennet and repeat.