I agree with Oscar Wilde's judgment. It might seem very avant garde to paint beauty offensive, but it's a dishonest evaluation. The beholder cannot be forced by the tenets of reason to consider the possibilty that what he sees is or might be hideous. Something about beauty might intrude on our senses, but it's not a hostile coup. It's a travesty to make it so, which is why we don't consider all art "beautiful". "Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit." -- Edward R. Murrow
What, pray tell, does this mean? Lucy: Rosa: Andy: ? I can understand Andy editing his own palaver.....but why are all the other posts just as deleted? Anyway... Rosa: Oh there is plenty of fun to mating, but that aside: Then Goethe must have never been to Madagascar nor for that matter the whole Polynesian chain, filled with boring yet beautiful animals (exotic tortoises and pygmy hippos- I worked in a zoo) Then he must have never peered through a microscope at the complex beauty of diatoms and paramecium. If fun and beauty go hand and hand then Carrot Top is gorgeous. The stuffy upper class rarely enjoys what they pass off as 'joyful'. Ever seen a socialite in a museum? She's bored to tears until some one shows up to socialize about art, its only then that she comes alive and moves to comment on this magnificent Wounded Amazon of the classical period that provokes us into a contemplation of the immortality, don't you know. And by the way, did you hear that Olga is pregnant? Those faces are solemn because they reflect the boredom inside. "The uppper classes have learned to ape" says Fussell in his opening chapters of Class, " as in a devotion to horses- owning them, breeding them, riding them, racing them, chasing small animals on them while sitting on them…..they have in imperviousness to ideas and a total lack of interest in them. This inattention to ideas is why Mathew Arnold calls them Barbarians, and he imputes their serenity specifically to their ‘never having had any ideas or passion to trouble them’ " And when is the last time we ever saw an aristocrat smiling on his horse? Never- because when one is too busy mimicking what he feels others of his class find joyful, his energy is used up in being a monkey. Vert: Then you're a magician and a salesman, not an artist. You belong up on a stage with the rest of the stooges drooling for attention. Or you belong in cubicle, stuffed with paperwork and a nagging need to find custmoers. Selling them Escalades and real estate and vegetables- all commodities easily appreciated and reproduced by simpletons. Take this up with Jenyar. Its not about judging their aesthetic value as unworthy- my sibling has all the freedom in the world to judge her physically insulting eyesore of a boyfriend as beautiful-her fate, her business. But what if her boyfriend, going solely on the lullabies my stupid sib sings to him about being handsome, became proudly insolent based solely on that? Its about the artist assuming ignorance in the spectator and he usually does so after gaining acclaim - I have all the right in the world to ridicule his ill-skill and presumptive chicanery. Don't I? Yes. So? What does you showing me pretty pictures have to do with my example of you looking on cats as parasites long ago?
So, magic isn't an art? Magicians would tell you that it's THE Art. But, who would believe a magician? This was the reason I made it only one reason for making art. How many artists crave the delight of the audience? Are none of them artists then? Maybe I will. The odd thing is that he is probably more attractive to other women simply because he has a girlfriend. A strange artifact of female psychology. But, off-topic, I suppose. But, maybe not. How important is envy to the judgement of art? If someone who seems to be so obviously an "art connoiseur" thinks a work of art is so wonderful then it must be good right? This goes once more back to the fool who doesn't know what he likes and must depend on advisors to fill in his missing opinion. Yes. You do. In fact, you have more than the right. If you believe in your opinion seriously enough, you are practically obliged to ridicule him. Because if I transferred the metaphor to art well enough then you might at last understand. You might even come to... *gasp*... agree. At the least, maybe you would stop getting so much mileage out of the tale. But, to try to stay on topic... if I were able to transfer this "experience" to "art" then it would allow me to transfer my inner feelings about this thing in a way that might transcend words. Feed more viscerally into your emotions. To disturb you into not seeing me as an asshole because of this long-ago occurence. To perhaps make you realize that you might very well have done the same thing in my situation. That parasites is just a word and only the closest word to fit the more vague feeling that I have about those cats. If I succeeded in this, I would no longer be an "advisor on parasitic cat removal" to you. Because at the moment, while you have an "opinion" on the matter, you have no personal experience. But, through art, I might be able to translate "experience" to "art" and back to "experience" and in this way I would no longer have to "advise" you. You could now advise yourself. You do advise yourself now, of course, but you don't see the experience as I saw it. You've only heard me "advising" you on how the situation was.
Invert Nexus: Oohhh. Miffed? Then this is how you should have written your explanation out in the first place. Rather than this hash brown cooked up in a fucking microwave: For all I know you could have been drawing a picture of you. What you are trying to say: Given the skill, you'd be able to force my hand and yank my mind into a direction alien to it by disturbing it. You could, given the skill, with a pencil and a canvas show me the Dalmatian in the spots and having seen him, finally see what you see. You would have succeeded in my seeing cats as parasites as well. Good fucking point. But not entirely female- everyone regards a female with more respect if she is married, engaged, or enamored of someone. One who is not is seen as weird and in possession of cooties. Ha. Hmm. Envy is a good term for it- the prole who plays the connoisseur when around another one is mostly envious of class distinction. The work of art plays a minor role in this social transaction. EDIT: Art you pay 5 bucks a pop to go see, surely. Art smeared accross common denominators, surely.
No. Why do you always think that I am so quick to take offense? Maybe so. To be honest, I think I said it well enough to begin with. What I originally meant. I wasn't until you gave me shit about it that I had to tighten it up and reinterpret it. I would be in it somewhere. With a cat gripped in my claws. Squeezing. Thank you for clarifying. Yes. That is what I was trying to say. And evidently I did say it because you understood it. The second time around anyway. Some people like weird. And cooties is mythical. Are there "advisors on women" saying weird is bad? The people who listen to "advisors on women" are just as bad as those who listen to "advisors on art". Just had a thought as to the value of art advisors. Consider a wealthy man who doesn't really have the time or motive to care about art. He just wants his house decorated with art. And art that will have a decent resale value. In this instance, an advisor would be very handy. Tell the rich man what to buy. How he should "invest" his money. Same could be said for advisors on women. Or advisors on any other subject. The difference is that the rich man is interested in others' opinions because he plans on someday selling it back to others and maybe making a nice profit. At the least not taking a loss. Trophy wives are another matter. They have no real resale value. They are just tossed aside. Although they do have some added value after being cast-off because of alimony and child-support. Even a prole might invest in art. And if investment is the desired course of action then one shouldn't depend on one's own tastes. How valuable is velvet Elvis? How much do you pay to go into a museum? How much does it break down to per artwork? Anyway, remember, magic is the art of deception at its core. I sure as hell wouldn't let a magician advise me on anything.
*ahem* Now where was I? Invert Nexus: Ah. So its 'always' now- the wonders of discomfort, ladies and gentlemen. He’s taken the smallest 'sometime' or 'never' and blown them up into a clever 'always'. And so a madman goes like this :booga booga yababba yabba: and thinks that what he said was said well enough to begin with. And yes, I'm 'giving you shit about it'. You're not the only one who's been squeezing. Then he's made art a mechanism- with Van Gogh on the fireplace, a Rembrandt near the john, and a Clouet dangling from his library filled with books he will never read- he's become like the ugly chick who gets implants for benefits. Why did you bring him up anyway? As valuable as invert nexus. Hmm. All the v's in there would make for sweet prose. How valuable is velvet Elvis? Is Elvis viley valuable? So valiant it flexes And who values? Invert nexus.
Squeezing. I think. Perhaps 'sometimes' would be the proper term. (By the way, funny how you you use 'ladies and gentleman'. Brings to mind a carnival barker. "Step right up and see the SciForums Madman! He booga's! He yababba's. You can even cut a tin can with him!" And what a lovely piece of shit it is. I think I'll spray it with starch and put in on an end table. Set up an accent light to bring out the highlights and tell everyone that I've got a genuine Gendanken. Is the OJ ready? For the reasons stated. Because for him the advisor becomes important. He needs advice on which artwork will appreciate in value. For these types art is a specific thing. It's money. Valuable indeed, then. I've never been the subject of prose before. I'm flattered. I think my value has just increased. I just wish I could make something (good) to reciprocate. Along came Vert with an Elvis in his hand. Valuable Vert vociferously valuing velvet Elvis. The velvet was black. Black as a viper's heart. Elvis was bright. Bright as vixen's butt. Valuing, I valued. And valuing, I was valued.
Pray, it was Andy who started this fray: His post already came with the "[deleted]". I suppose it was his way of making an artistic statment in direct ambiguity and ambiguous directness. To me, all animals are beautiful. But there seems to be a difference between the beauty of a cat and the beauty of a caterpillar -- identification? Closeness to human experience? (I don't know what Carrot Top is ...) But people do find Disneyland great, don't they? Henry James would say: "You wouldn't be bored if you had something to do; but you are too idle. You think too much of your pleasure. You're too fastidious, and too indolent, and too rich." It is for these reasons that I hate the upper class: they could do so much with their time and money, yet they waste it all on *appearances*. So true. And note how quick they are to kill their horse and get a new one -- unless it seems particularly classy to pay big money for medical treatment. That takes some guts. We soon get the impression -- at least I got it -- that the author is much like a God, and if I don't like him or find his work faulty, then this is my *fault* of being unable to appreciate art. All the critics and socialites would haste to tell one that. But please, I detest literary modernism. I find nothing "uplifitng" in bearing one's wounds and selling it as "the ultimate truth about the world". Blegh. On the other hand, there is a seemingly endless insecurity about the author: I once spoke with a musician who was wary of yet unknown music -- because he was afraid that the composer or the player may actually be making fun of the listener, while the listener wouldn't know that he is being made fun of! (By, say, playing a piece in a ridiculous manner -- a frequent fear with classical music: it is hard to tell which interpretation is "good", it takes a lot of knowledge to be able to judge for yourself, and until you are able to do that, you ought to be afraid that you might like a goofy version of a piece, and deem it "good and true". Heaven forbid that you should like Richter playing Bach.) Anyway, both the idea that the author is almighty and the idea that the recipient may be made fun of render art as something one aspires to with ressentiment, inconfidence and an imposed self-loathing for not being perfect oneself -- but still aspires, as we are told [but what is more, naturally driven!] to appreciate art. Depending on an "art connoiseur" is necessary up to a certain point -- this is the phase of insitutionalized taste. To have a taste of one's own: that's a scary thing, as it comes with the threat of isolation. "You like Beethoven's Eighth Symphony best?! This is strange. This symphony is really nothing special", and then they wish to cover one in shitty words trying to convey as much theoretical music knoweldge as possible -- since, no, by some ooh-ahhh standards, Die kleine Achte doesn't pass for a great piece. In short: Say you fancy the wrong piece, and you're out. I wanted to ask this in the other thread where it was brought up: Which pointillistic Dalmatian? I went through the whole Seurat catalogue and some other on pointillism, and there was no Dalmatian ... You maybe would *see* parasites, but I doubt you'd be *convinced*. If you really love someone or something, nothing and noone can convince you of the ugliness of the loved. Exactly. Someone please explain this term to me: "cooties". My dictionary says "American slang, 'white lice'" -- hm? As far as I know, there are such advisors. -- "So the walls in your bedroom are in green pastel tones, and the floor is dark red. You want something bright and yellow -- a Rothko!"
I can't wait to hear Gendanken's description of Carrot Top. This should be good. Disneyland is ok. I've seen better amusement parks. I bet Disney World would kick ass except for the fact that you're stuck in their city and can't get away from them to pay normal prices for things. I can imagine what food costs there... You know, EuroDisney is over there (or have they demolished it by now?) and it's a big wide open. You probably wouldn't even have to stand in any lines... Kinda like guessing the secret pass-code to enter the clubhouse. I posted it but no one saw it apparently. Here it is again. <img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3144"> And another. I'm not sure what this one is. <img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3146"> I don't know about that. Remember "given the skill". Maybe the art of brainwashing might need to be involved... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok. So cooties are real. But they can be cured. And you don't need "cooties protection." Cooties is what grade school kids tease each other with. "Ewwww. She's got cooties." "It's ok. I got cp. Cooties Protection." Yes. I never meant to imply they were mythical.
Hilarious- you're acquainted with the Americaca of Beyonce but not with the Americaca of 'cooties'. Cooties is a childish stigma- it refers to something infectious or bad in the owner of 'cooties'. A leper or a schizophrenic, for example, would be said to have cooties. So other people avoid them. (Drop the dictionary- Americaca is my word, 'caca' being the Spanish for 'shit') We can think of it as mammalophillia- we identify with a species the closer to our class (mammals) it is: reptiles and insects, being of a different phylum altogether do not evoke the mammalian instinct of warmth (or some such- I’m no taxonomist so by 'phylum' I may be wrong). And the closer to our subclass (placental mammals being one of them), the more anthropomorphic our feelings become- which is why higher mammals- dolphins, dogs, cats, monkeys, and apes are endearing to us as they reflect our psychology. The playful puppy, purring kitty, laughing monkey, and tricky ape. Its just the bloody macaw that makes no sense. Or the raven (my favorite creature in the world. Note to self: Must start thread on ravens) The ugliest, reddest gash on the motherfucking planet. Next to Joanna of course. He's a comedian : http://www.carrottop.com/newcarrot/index.html Therefore: "We find a playing cat, a horse running around just for fun, dolphins doing supersaltos etc. -- beautiful. Fun and beauty seem to go hand in hand, very often"- Rosa ..sounds flimsy. Ha. I've never met a millionaire, actually. What are they like? Aside- Henry James is torture to read. Nothing like the clear, vibrant wit of his brother William James, and he's not even a novelist. Vert posted it once, bottom of page: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39295&page=8&pp=20 And he calls himself a musician??!! Why the fuck should he care if a piece is played by the Boston Pops solely to parody Strauss? If he is so wary of what others are thinking of his swaying his head back and forth to the rhythm then he's made art a fucking cocktail party. So I blurt out that there is a clitoris jutting out from one of Dali's landscapes and make a comment on his sexual fetishes. What the fuck do I care if the host find that offensive, or for that matter find me crude to not realize the painting is a fake? And can't resist: Muhahahahahahahahahahaha........I've been laughing past my quota these past few days. Not good.
Meh. I was hoping for more. But, I suppose this will suffice. By the way, Carrot Top is now a muscle-bound freak. Have you noticed? He was the number one college act for awhile. I bet he got his ass kicked by drunken frat boys a few times too many and now he can kick their ass. Any ideas on that second pic? I've looked at it quite a bit and I can't tell what the hell it is. If anyone sees it, is it a thing? Some concrete object? I... can't... see it. I'm glad you commented on this one. My earlier copralite example went unremarked... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just call me Quicksdraw.
Invenerial disease: Ohhh. Strike one. And will remain so. I've sat here and looked a cool 5 minutes. I see a group of 4 people on the lower right hand corner coming out from a cave into a clearing- like a forest in Borneo. No- a canyon. The Grand Canyon. And the guy in the front is slightly bent taking a picture of it with a camera.
Oh, I saw that one! But since pointillism was mentioned, straight to the library I went, and all those books I did beseek. Hah! I squinted my eyes sore. Can't tell. Thank you for the explanation. I was never implying that you meant to imply they were mythical. Thank you too for the explanation. I know that. We have that word too: the verb is "kakati", the noun is "kakec", but here this is a sort of a euphemism. Anyway, the word goes back to the Greek kakos 'bad; ugly; uncomfortable', as in cacophonia, cacodemon, cacographia, cacology, to oh so deliriously come back to the topic of art. Oh yes. The warm and lovey dovey mammals. How about eagles? Tap. Rap. Thank you for not withholding crucial cultural information from me. I am European!! We think differently! [!#$%&/??!@""%&#] But think of it that way: when fun and beauty come together in a felicitious phenomenon, we can often call that art. I've only seen some rich people. Those at classical concerts are mostly aloof or aloofly nice. Eavesdropping: they talk shit, only that it is rich people shit. No, he's not. But then again, I'm an oldfashioned European. Hah! Yes, I know this one. ... I just named that musician (a schooled musician) as an example how some people shun art, for fear of not understanding it -- and therefore resorting to "artforms" that are more understandable. Two trains crash. What is the age of the first driver? No, you saw that?
Rosa: Gasp. A library. Meaning that square building with the roof and the shelves inside filled with millions of tiny squares that have paper bound between them called 'books'- the same building forgotten by these gomerils who go browsing for quotes and copy paste them in their gibberish? Someone here actually goes to the library? Like, hurray. I happen to be one. Hommo homoni aviatus. A joke? Give up. *I'm surprised no one bawled over "Americaca", I'm chuckling loudly even now while typing it. Americaca, Americaca, Americaca!. Ha.
Now there's something: it depends who it's by. It looks like a Lascaux. But before you look it up, think about what words will do to it. This is what critics do: they verbalize. You might or might not like art verbalized, but that's a different kind of appreciation altogether. How far is the connoisseur allowed to stand back? Yes, there is dalmation, but only if you know what a dalmation looks like. Sniffing. From behind. Trick question? No, pointillism. Artist are sometimes artists for making art, other times for seeing art, yet other times for presenting it. They're playing with your minds people, and you like it! I love being an artist - it gives such an impotent feeling of power, like an inside joke.
Uh. But why should this be called "pointillism"? Those two pictures are in BW technique, abstractions, and that's why they are hard to recognize. Those fo you who have, like, too much time on your hands and some picture programs: take some famous pictures, turn them into BW -- and then we'll see how many will be recognizable.
