And this thread is supposed ENCOURAGE people to get involved with
Bonsai?

I'm not an artist or collector....I just like to prune stuff...

== ----- Original Message -----
== From: "Andy Rutledge"
== To:
== Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:16 AM
== Subject: [IBC] Maybe we should ask a different question.
==
==
== Justin,
==
== Your dissertation was, I'm afraid, a complete denial of human
== understanding,
== human nature and clearly illustrates the dangers of relativism and
== drunken
== subjectivism. Your thesis regarding objectivity (and your
erroneous
== conclusions) describe your apparent misunderstanding of human
nature
== and
== the
== workings of the mind. Yours was not so much a contribution to the
art
== debate as it was an attempt to argue that no one knows what he/she
is
== talking about, so we should all just shut up.
==
== Let me take issue with the many falsehoods you presented:
==
== ---------------
== "Classically trained" is completely superfluous, arbitrary, and
and
== therefore meaningless.
== ---------------
==
== Absolutely wrong. If you understand the basic common process,
== syllabus
== and
== elements of classical training (in any number of arts), you can
== clearly
== see
== what is meant by "classically trained" and know that it is neither
== superfluous nor meaningless. That you don't understand this is
== lamentable,
== but is not evidence of non-existence.
== ---------------
==
==
== The idea of "classical art," i contend, is a falsehood. This is
== based
== solely on the relative and subjective nature of art, and it's
== interpretation. Objective determinations, such as "this is art"
and
== "this
== is not" cannot then truly exsist. Personally, i believe that
there
== is no
== such thing as a true objectivity, but you can personally email
me
== for a
== debate on that, i'd love to entertain mentally stimulating
== conversation.
== ----------------
==
== Your ridiculous argument that there is no such thing as
objectivity
== leaves
== us without any means to classify or define anything. Definitions
and
== classifications are important tools for us, our perception and our
== functioning intellect. We humans *have* to define and classify,
lest
== every
== new thing we encounter is a complete surprise and then occupies
its
== own,
== unique place in our perception, exclusive of any other things that
are
== similar in nature. This is not how humans function and it is
== ridiculous
== to
== suggest that it is or should be.
== -----------------
==
== snip
== i
== feel the real question people should be asking, is never asked
"What
== do
== i
== think, and does what other people say matter to me enough to
forsake
== my
== own independent thought, and its value or worth?"
== -----------------
==
== Opinion does not exist in a vacuum. What you describe as "the"
way to
== classify things is utter anarchy and denies the fact that we
calssify
== things
== based on pertinent information. If I think that the sky is pink,
== because
== in
== my mind blue is the same as pink, I have opted out of common human
== perception and societal structures. Mine would be a worthless
idea
== and
== have
== no contribution to our world.
==
== Like everying else, art is classified by its widely agreed upon
== features.
== Like everything else, there is room for individual interpretation,
but
== there
== are core concepts and features that make art "art." Your sad
attempt
== to
== suggest that everything is an arbitrary, worthless determination
is
== naive
== and denies this simple fact.
==
== Art is communication and all art pulls to some degree from the
pool of
== features and elements that we have determined (and that thousands
of
== years
== of human history supports) to be characteristic of art. That you
== don't
== understand this is, again, lamentable, but simply not evidence to
the
== contrary.
== ----------------
==
== People read things and
== believe them. they think that because a man has a phd in say,
art
== history,
== his opinion matters more. does it? because one man says that
== something
== is
== a classic, is it? or maybe more people are needed? 10? 100?
1,000?
== The
== Nazi's (used only as an example, i hope we can steer clear of
debate
== about
== WWII) all got together. many millions saying the same thing?
were
== they
== right? My opinion is that they were not. I therefore ask, who is
to
== say
== who's opinion is right or wrong?
== ----------------
==
== Here you have used a contemptable ploy to support what you cannot
== support
== any other way, I guess. This is inflamatory and irrelevant.
== ----------------
==
== Well, the interpretation of what is and is not art is still left
== specifically unaddressed, so i will now, based upon things i
have
== mentioned, attempt to address it. The short answer is "no one is
== right,
== no
== one is wrong." Spineless?
== ----------------
==
== Absolutley. Not just spineless, but erroneous and specious.
== ----------------
==
== this is where i feel the debate goes astray. people are having
== difficulty
== drawing a distinction between low and high art, and whether or
not
== these
== distinctions therefore attatch work. this is another area where
== people
== step on toes.
== ----------------
==
== Your again ridiculous, arbitrary classifications (not listed above
for
== the
== sake of brevity) ignore what we humans have already arrived at by
way
== of
== classifying art. The aim is not the determining factor. Rather
the
== quality - the degree to which the work communicates within the
already
== established artistic language norms and its resultant success with
== viewers
== (how it communicates directly to each or groups of
viewers/listeners).
== Again, you have completely disregarded how humans appreciate art
and
== how
== art
== is meaningful to humans.
==
== You have constructed a thesis based on your own lack of
understanding
== and
== have used it as an (empty) illustration of how things should be or
how
== you
== believe they are. In this process you have denied what has come
== before
== you
== and ignored what is clearly evident to most intelligent people.
==
== Your attempt to deny the value of societal structures, concrete
and
== conceptualized ideals, logical arbitrary classification and the
depth
== of
== history upon which we have built these valuable elements of our
lives
== is
== both naive and dangerous. There are further implications and
dangers
== inherent in your thesis that are not appropriate for this forum,
but
== there
== nonetheless.
==
== Keep an open mind.
==
== Justin Diaz
== -------------------
==
== Justin, you have opened your mind so wide that your brain has
fallen
== out.
== A
== lesson to us all. Further, I note that you preface every opinion
of
== yours
== by saying "i feel that..." I should think you should do much more
== "thinking" and much less "feeling" in your personal examinations
of
== what
== "is" in human society.
==
== In the end, we are left with the very real and very valuable,
widely
== acknowledged characteristics of art and intelligent people can
== understand
== that inventing our own, individual, "languages" for art is in no
way
== valuable as it would then have no social or widespread value. I
am
== thankful
== that we don't live in the anarchist and non-cohesive world you
have
== suggested here.
==
== Kind regards,
== Andy Rutledge
== zone 8, Texas
==
==
==
************************************************** **********************
== ****
== ****
== ++++Sponsored, in part, by Lisa Kanis++++
==
==
************************************************** **********************
== ****
== ****
== -- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/
-
== -
== +++++ Questions? Help? e-mail

== +++++
==
==
************************************************** **********************
== ********
== ++++Sponsored, in part, by Lisa Kanis++++
==
************************************************** **********************
== ********
== -- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/
--
==
== +++++ Questions? Help? e-mail
== +++++

************************************************** ******************************
++++Sponsored, in part, by Lisa Kanis++++
************************************************** ******************************
-- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ --
+++++ Questions? Help? e-mail +++++