Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[IBC] Maybe I should ask a different question.
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 +++++ |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|