perfect record
- Thread starter h. von bingen
- Start date
(And I'm really not staying involved in this. You can't discuss it pithily. You have to do like a year's worth of reading to even begin to know the various issues. It's exactly the kind of off-topic banter that I hate on boards like this, since it's a topic that requires expertise to even make any sense.)
Last edited:
i think what u are pointing to
are the unresolvables. yes, but it's a whoreboard. at least last time i checked. what i would really like is more whore discourse, but i guess these girls are working too hard to make a buck to discuss aesthetics. (or they sleep during the day.)
btw: u looked great at ana's show last night, the pleather is so slimming.
mooted,
hvb
are the unresolvables. yes, but it's a whoreboard. at least last time i checked. what i would really like is more whore discourse, but i guess these girls are working too hard to make a buck to discuss aesthetics. (or they sleep during the day.)
btw: u looked great at ana's show last night, the pleather is so slimming.
mooted,
hvb
Last edited:
JL - OF COURSE it's the attention to aesthetic apart from the function that is part of setting it apart as art. The original funtion of cooking is substinance, not enjoyment. We paint houses* and we paint canvasses.
(* - of course house painters can be artists... or at least the Medicci's thought so)
I'm being deliberately terse and vague for the exact reason that the music theory, literary theory, and art theory that I know, I know to be lacking. I know enough to know I can't speak with any kind of detail and precision. However, I still believe there is legitmacy in my original claim that anything can be art (I have seen too much artistry in manifold fields to relegate art to museums, performance halls, and libraries).
(I kick myself for referencing rebirth artists instead of my men, Rivera, Orozco, and Siqueiros. I will listen to Augustine Lara only tonite to repent)
And a Velvet Elvis in a trailor is not necessarily art, but you'd be a fool to argue that it can not be art.
(* - of course house painters can be artists... or at least the Medicci's thought so)
I'm being deliberately terse and vague for the exact reason that the music theory, literary theory, and art theory that I know, I know to be lacking. I know enough to know I can't speak with any kind of detail and precision. However, I still believe there is legitmacy in my original claim that anything can be art (I have seen too much artistry in manifold fields to relegate art to museums, performance halls, and libraries).
(I kick myself for referencing rebirth artists instead of my men, Rivera, Orozco, and Siqueiros. I will listen to Augustine Lara only tonite to repent)
And a Velvet Elvis in a trailor is not necessarily art, but you'd be a fool to argue that it can not be art.
Originally posted by justlooking
I don't even mean it huffilly. But read some of the political threads, or some other OT thread about some topic you happen to be well-versed in, and see whether you think it's worth participating in. It's just silly. And I'm trying to say that with the best will in the world.
I don't even mean it huffilly. But read some of the political threads, or some other OT thread about some topic you happen to be well-versed in, and see whether you think it's worth participating in. It's just silly. And I'm trying to say that with the best will in the world.
I'm saying you explore the topic by the particulars, not the generalizations. Sure, it's silly. It's just a word. Now come on JL, put aside your desire to be completely accurate and give us your list.
Originally posted by justme
JL -
And a Velvet Elvis in a trailor is not necessarily art, but you'd be a fool to argue that it can not be art.
JL -
And a Velvet Elvis in a trailor is not necessarily art, but you'd be a fool to argue that it can not be art.
You can't argue this topic.
Just give me your "point" list of Art, not Art.
And please, don't worry about being right on the topic.
Art: JL parsing a poorly understood topic
Not Art: Anybody mouthing a credo they heard someone else state
Art: carving a 30 foot high penis out of ice in their front yard
Not Art: Pouring hot lead into a mold and stamping images
re: dom/sub, s&m, generally fucked up . . .
relationship. my wpa art history is rusty. i think i will bone up. i love that nexus of craft & art, which actually is not so far off point of the machine stamp\handmade discussion.
we need a new wpa,
hvb
mitchiemix:
boink me. frankie vallee: don't think twice it's alright.
koo koo for coco puffs,
hvb
relationship. my wpa art history is rusty. i think i will bone up. i love that nexus of craft & art, which actually is not so far off point of the machine stamp\handmade discussion.
we need a new wpa,
hvb
mitchiemix:
boink me. frankie vallee: don't think twice it's alright.
koo koo for coco puffs,
hvb
Last edited:
Some of the greatest artists have worked in lithographs and etchings.
The problem with trying to make some sort of precise definition, and by that I mean a definition that deosn't involve a ton of other nebulous concepts, of art, is that I'm fairly certain you could construct a valid counterexample to this definition.
But that doesn't mean that there is no set concept that is represented by the word, 'art'. It just means that we can't articulate that concept.
Any discussion can become a dicussion of linguistics and semantics, but that gets really boring, really quick.
Some art theorists think they can articulate it, and I'd agree that they can do it better, but I think of art theorists that think they know what art is about the same way that I think of physicists that think they are talkinag about the truth.
The problem with trying to make some sort of precise definition, and by that I mean a definition that deosn't involve a ton of other nebulous concepts, of art, is that I'm fairly certain you could construct a valid counterexample to this definition.
But that doesn't mean that there is no set concept that is represented by the word, 'art'. It just means that we can't articulate that concept.
Any discussion can become a dicussion of linguistics and semantics, but that gets really boring, really quick.
Some art theorists think they can articulate it, and I'd agree that they can do it better, but I think of art theorists that think they know what art is about the same way that I think of physicists that think they are talkinag about the truth.
It's impossible to define art, I think, because there's always going to be an example of something that falls under such a definition that isn't art. I think it was the Supreme Court, when addressing pornography, that said, "We'll know it when we see it." I could have the wrong source of the quote, but I think for most folks the same applies to art. This has been said before in this thread in more or less words. Also, it's hard to tell between something that is not art and something that's just bad art. Anyway:
Built to Spill - "Perfect From Now On"
BB King - "Live in Cook County Jail"
I listened to the first one on the way home from work yesterday, and the second one on the way to work today. I couldn't find a bad song on either.
Built to Spill - "Perfect From Now On"
BB King - "Live in Cook County Jail"
I listened to the first one on the way home from work yesterday, and the second one on the way to work today. I couldn't find a bad song on either.
I'm sick of debating 'art'
Let's debate 'perfect'
I'm not sure if 'couldn't find a bad song' justifies 'perfect'.
I'm not even sure if 'every song is fantastic' justifies 'perfect'.
(Built to Spill is great, but I prefered the Spinanes... otoh, I think I like Rebecca Gate's solo stuff better than either)
Let's debate 'perfect'
I'm not sure if 'couldn't find a bad song' justifies 'perfect'.
I'm not even sure if 'every song is fantastic' justifies 'perfect'.
(Built to Spill is great, but I prefered the Spinanes... otoh, I think I like Rebecca Gate's solo stuff better than either)