In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

Lionel said:

snip

What about Art? I've not seen a post by him in a long time.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Sander deWaal a écrit :

Lionel said:

snip

What about Art? I've not seen a post by him in a long time.

I'm afraid that he has been subject to denunciation and purge according
to RAO's contributors who participated to politic discussion (I have
been banished from my ISP but also ScottW, Sandman...)

Note this is "funny". I have written incredibly violent insults and
other dirty garbage on this forum without any problems... I guess that
one of our guardian angel cannot stand politic :-)

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?

http://www.museumofbadart.org/

MINe 109 a écrit :

In article ,
Lionel wrote:


What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?


http://www.museumofbadart.org/

Gooooood ! :-)

This one is S888wheel :
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collec...aiture-11.html

And I dedicace this one for George :
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/unseen-6.html

MINe 109 a écrit :

In article ,
Lionel wrote:


What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?


http://www.museumofbadart.org/

Yes, yes I also know what you would say about this one :
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/unseen-4.html

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

MINe 109 a écrit :

In article ,
Lionel wrote:


What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?


http://www.museumofbadart.org/

Yes, yes I also know what you would say about this one :
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/unseen-4.html

Just another day at work...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgments.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of taste. It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.





What are they?

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.





What are they?









They are far too many to list. Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?

Michael McKelvy a écrit :

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
.. .

In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly

wrong

but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid

great

Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of taste.

It's

ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.




What are they?

These was my original question.
If you are interested you can join him on RAHE. But be careful, you
should know that in the end you would be a ridiculous idiot...
With S888Wheel the scenario is written in advance. :-(

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial
number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not
be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as
follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's
value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of
taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.





What are they?









They are far too many to list.

How about 3?

Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?

You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.

Michael McKelvy a écrit :
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
.. .

In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial

number

S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly

wrong

but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not

be

as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That

doesn't

mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid

great

Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as

follows:

Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's

value

judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of

taste.

It's

ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.




What are they?









They are far too many to list.


How about 3?

Do you really not know of any objective

standards in any genre of art?


You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.

IMHO the question concerning S888Wheel so-called "objective standards"
is : why to learn something that you will *need* to forget ?

In article ,
Lionel writes:
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It's very likely your invalid address is the cause of the post
rejection. I found out after asking the moderators what happened to
my posts they don't accept posts without valid addresses.

Also several posts saying much the same thing have been posted, so I
doubt it's a problem with waht you said.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 1:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial
number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not
be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as
follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's
value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of
taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.





What are they?









They are far too many to list.

How about 3?

How about more?



Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?

You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.


You can also answer the question.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/24/2004 2:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

They are far too many to list. Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?

For craft, perhaps.. but there are no objective standards of any
significance for *pure* art.

Pure art? What would that be? Here is a hint art and craft are inseperable.

None. Your pronouncement below is
offensive.

I guess to some.


In it you attack core components of major works of modern
art, such as composed by Steve Reich (eg. "It's Gonna Rain") or John
Cage.


Balony. No art is attacked by my assertion other than crap art.


Furthermore, this suggestion that objective standards of art can
be found in 'any number of text books' is quite repellent in it's
orthodoxy.

Sorry you find the truth repelling. Your burden.



"That's easy. Music that is randomly off key is objectively inferior.
Music that does not conform to any scale is what? Not music. How about
rhythm. Music that is played with musicians accidentally out of sync
with each other is objectively inferior. There are so many objective
standards in music and other arts. Again, they are not as cut and dry
as the rules in engineering but they do exist. You will find any
number of text books on them."


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

McKelvy said:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial
number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not
be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as
follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's
value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of
taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.





What are they?









They are far too many to list.

How about 3?

Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?

You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.

Well, for a work of art to be considered cubist, there has to be cubes in it.

Boon

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 1:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial
number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is
clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may
not
be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art.
Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which
has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's
frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards
and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as
follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's
value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or
not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of
taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.





What are they?









They are far too many to list.

How about 3?

How about more?



Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?

You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.


You can also answer the question.

I'll answer after you do. Stop evading.

The Artist a écrit :

"George M. Middius" emitted :


No art is attacked by my assertion other than crap art.

One mans "crap art" is another mans "seminal work".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nart30.xml

One has to admire the breadth of your interests.

Oh you are very lucky, for the same kind of answer George wrote me :

"From the point of view of the Immortal, or the Creator, or Underlying
Reason For All Things, are you not a joke, Slut? "

I guess that George want to let us believe that he could have something
intelligent to write on the subject. ;-)

Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

Well, for a work of art to be considered cubist, there has to be cubes in
it.

That's a category, not a standard.


You wouldn't say that one of the standards of cubism is that it should contain
cubes?

Boon

The Devil said:

Here's a nightmare to ponder: Eleven-dimension bagpipes.

If you'd use competent amplifiers, they'd be reduced to 3.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:32:13 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:23:25 +0100, The Artist
wrote:

Art for arts sake alone, would be the simplistic answer.

Here is a hint art and craft are inseperable.

I have to draw the line at this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

I've got a can opener that I'll sell them for $10,000 US. I thought
about Andy Warhol once while using it.

In article z,
The Devil wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:23:25 +0100, The Artist
wrote:

Art for arts sake alone, would be the simplistic answer.

Here is a hint art and craft are inseperable.

I have to draw the line at this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nart30.xml&sSh
eet=/news/2002/06/30/ixnewstop.html

That reminds of my old neighborhood, where teens would spontaneously
install Christo-like paper hangings on trees and front porches, usually
just before All Saints Day.

This one's more to my taste. Too bad they didn't use Quads:

http://www.tate.org.uk/liverpool/exh.../janetcardiff/

Stephen

"Lionel" wrote in message

In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may
not be as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art.
Objective standards in art exist independent of taste."

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.

What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?

For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

Lionel, your points are well taken.

Take art, add objective standards, and you just might have a craft.

To understand S888wheel's position, it might help were he to make his
*profession* known.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/25/2004 7:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Lionel" wrote in message

In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may
not be as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art.
Objective standards in art exist independent of taste."

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.

What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?

For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

Lionel, your points are well taken.

Take art, add objective standards, and you just might have a craft.

To understand S888wheel's position, it might help were he to make his
*profession* known.










You still can't figure it out?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 5:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 1:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
.net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator
serial
number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before
the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is
clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They
may
not
be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art.
Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer
which
has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's
frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all
standards
and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as
follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the
artist's
value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether
or
not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of
taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.





What are they?









They are far too many to list.

How about 3?

How about more?


How about just 3?


Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?

You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.


You can also answer the question.

I'll answer after you do. Stop evading.








I'm not evading.

Yes, you are.

It would help me to answer your question if you really truly
don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art.

It's not neccessary for you to know that answer in order to answer my
question.

So do you or don't
you?

I understand that there are certain conventions that have been agreed upon,
but none of them are cast in stone. In music for example, styles get mixed
and melded into new forms all the time. The same is true for other art
forms, otherwise there would be far less in terms of "new" styles.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/25/2004 7:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Lionel" wrote in message

In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial
number S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before
the S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They
may not be as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist.
That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad
art. Objective standards in art exist independent of taste."

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.

What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?

For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

Lionel, your points are well taken.

Take art, add objective standards, and you just might have a craft.

To understand S888wheel's position, it might help were he to make his
*profession* known.

You still can't figure it out?

I only know what I read in the newspapers... ;-)

Arny Krueger a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message


In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may
not be as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art.
Objective standards in art exist independent of taste."


"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.


What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?


For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."


Lionel, your points are well taken.

Take art, add objective standards, and you just might have a craft.

To understand S888wheel's position, it might help were he to make his
*profession* known.

S888Wheel profession ?
I guess he is a kind of "wind salesman" who make money from nothing.
It's not really difficult to understnad since he puts so many barriers
from him and the common human being.
This guys is trying to explain us that art answers to "objective
standards" and he try to make us understand using subjective words like
"bad art"... LOL
It's like if you want to explains the "theory of the cordes" using 1st
degree equation only ! )

S888wheel is a living *joke* !

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Well, for a work of art to be considered cubist, there has to be cubes in it.

I think that you better shut up on this one. ;-)

From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/25/2004 8:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

I'm not evading. It would help me to answer your question if you really
truly
don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art. So do you or
don't
you?

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. 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.

From: The Artist
Date: 6/25/2004 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

I'm not evading. It would help me to answer your question if you really
truly
don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art. So do you or
don't
you?

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.

Please outline the objective standards you are referring to.

That would take quite some time and space. I'll look for some good books for
you to check out for a more in depth look at some of the objective standards in
art. I have already cited some examples in music. you don't really need a list
and description of every standard I know of do you?



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.

That's one opinion.



Opinions often turn out to be representative of fact.


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

Scott Wheeler wrote:


From: George M. Middius
Date: 6/25/2004 8:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said:

I'm not evading. It would help me to answer your question if you really
truly
don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art. So do you or
don't
you?

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. 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.






















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. I'm not sure whether the
same type of procedure occurs with paintins. 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. However, the performance
might well be judged via various objective criteria.





Bruce J. Richman

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. There are reasons why most men are attracted to
certain looks in women and visa versa. These things have causes that are quite
mechanical or at least biologically mechanical in nature. 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. 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.



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.

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. 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. 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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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. List 3 objective standards for art.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:22:59 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



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.

Actually, there are some pretty objective standards, but they are only
ancillary to judging "greatness" and they certainly aren't an
exclusive thing (i.e. they don't preclude the fact that most of
judging art is subjective). I'm referring to putting certain art in
stylistic categories. You can certainly do this to a great degree.
Even though there is art that crosses styles, there are a certain
number of "objective" categories that art can fall under (and much of
it can be defined as what a particular piece of art *isn't*).

Just a quick example. Seurat's Les Poseuses is Post-Impressionistic.
It can be defined even further as Pointilistic. So, objectively, it
would be hard to quarrel with either classification. It is *not*
Pre-Raphaelite, Cubist, Primitive, Folk, Renaissance, Bauhaus, Pop, or
NeoClassic, and it's hard to objectively quarrel with that either. If
someone wanted to be cantakerous, they could cause cause a ruckus and
call it Modern, I suppose, even though it really is just the lead-in
to Modern and virtually nobody calls it that.

The problem comes when you try to decide whether it's a greater work
of art than, say, Gauguin's Portrait of a Woman, with Still Life.
That's when subjectivity comes into play.

But ultimately, art is about 95% subjective and 5% objective. At least
that's my subjectively objective opinion.

On 25 Jun 2004 21:09:00 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

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. I'm not sure whether the
same type of procedure occurs with paintins. 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. However, the performance
might well be judged via various objective criteria.

And even *these* "objective criteia" can shift with time, mood,
cultural bias, etc. Some art which was judged a certain way in a
certain place and time gets reevaluated in a different place and time.

On 25 Jun 2004 15:26:24 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

It could be argued that any
activity requires a certain amount of proficiency, or "craft". But
here is a hint: that's not the type of craft I'm talking about.
[cf., woodworking vs conceptualism.]

I don't really care what "craft" you are talking about I am talking about the
sort of craft that is indespensable in the creation of any given work of art.

How about art created by paintbrush-wielding elephants? It gets top
dollar you know.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :

"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."

Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
Inquisitor :

"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."

It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.

It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE



The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's value
judgments.


The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.



The definition I gave you is the only objective thing one can say about art.

What constitutes good or bad art varies from culture to culture and from
person to person..

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.


I'm not sure whether the
same type of procedure occurs with paintins. 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. However, the
performance
might well be judged via various objective criteria.



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









Bruce J. Richman