"The Arena" vs. "Anderton's Great Escape"

[Hlao-roo 389]

I thought the Salem witch trials were collectively a tremendous display of artistry. Absolutely bewitching. A killer piece of work, you might say.

Oh, and don't get me started on the marvelous assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Oh, the way the bullet penetrated the skull. Absolutely exquisite.

[Jeshopk 8]

I thought the Salem witch trials were collectively a tremendous display of artistry. Absolutely bewitching. A killer piece of work, you might say.

Oh, and don't get me started on the marvelous assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Oh, the way bullet penetrated the skull. Absolutely exquisite.

Where's the craft in that? Art needs craft, but not a consensus, you cottonheadedninnymuggins.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that I may be the only one here who attended a college where the main art gallery contained a video of a man hammering a nail through his penis.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I thought the Salem witch trials were collectively a tremendous display of artistry. Absolutely bewitching. A killer piece of work, you might say.

Oh, and don't get me started on the marvelous assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Oh, the way bullet penetrated the skull. Absolutely exquisite.

Where's the craft in that? Art needs craft, but not a consensus, you cottonheadedninnymuggins.

Oh, nonsense, don't be so narrow-minded. Art, my dear fellow, is whatever provides one a sense of aesthetic pleasure -- be it Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, a Jerry Bruckheimer film, genocide, crucifixion, or soiled underwear.

Yes, it's true, we're all artists, my brothers, just like John Williams or Michelangelo. Our art might not be as highly regarded as theirs, but it's art anyway. Say, let's talk about our art for a while. How is your art doing these days?

My art is fine, just fine. Keep it stimulated daily, and it's perfectly content. And yours?

a college where the main art gallery contained a video of a man hammering a nail through his penis.

John Williams, eat your heart out.

[Josh500 1,615]

If it were just rules and logic and mathematics, a computer could have scored Star Wars... but needless to say, that's not possible.

But Star Wars was inspired.

Also, I still think what (among others) Hofstadter described is the most likely assumption so far: From what we know about the functions of the brain, a sufficiently complex computer would be able to accomplish the same thing. The two critical points are that 1) current computers aren't complex enough and 2) current computers are based on an imperative pattern, i.e. they're constructed to follow orders. A "brain computer" might have to be constructed not to follow orders, an in fact not to do anything as designed, but to evolve itself. Leading to something that might be able to do what a "regular" brain does, only without a "master" to take credit for it.

I tell you, if a computer could write music (which I don't believe, and not in the next 100 years), then a computer would be able to write the screenplay, write novels, paint pictures from "its" imagination, tell funny stories, etc....

No, art is something very specific to humans. Non-artists or not creative people often don't understand the process--they often ask, "How do they get their ideas?" But then, very often artists themselves don't understand the process. So it's a big mystery, in a way.

Oh yeah, you say "Star Wars" was inspired. But whether a certain piece is inspired or not is a matter of opinion. Fact is, it's a new composition, and that's what matters. If I don't like a JW piece, I don't say that was JW on autopilot or it's uninspired, I just say, "This piece is not for me, or I don't like it." And I think that's a difference.

[publicist 4,643]

That's actually what I am still saying. If we don't all hold our individual definitions of art, then we are ignoring our own reactions and minds. Of course some of us honestly form reactions based on other people's opinions, so if that is you, carry on.

No, what you are really saying is that you assume that we all have the same general understanding of what the word 'art' means and it's implications, definition-wise and historically, from which you deduce that we all form our own definition what art is for us, individually. And i say that is nonsense, because if there are absolutely no standards to apply, we don't need the term, period.

Why not just leave the ART out of this and just say 'i like it'? Or should we invent a new word? Like 'iArt'?

And for the 'AOTC'-hungry: it's more smart than art. The action music, anyway.

[Jeshopk 8]

That's actually what I am still saying. If we don't all hold our individual definitions of art, then we are ignoring our own reactions and minds. Of course some of us honestly form reactions based on other people's opinions, so if that is you, carry on.

No, what you are really saying is that you assume that we all have the same general understanding of what the word 'art' means and it's implications, definition-wise and historically, from which you deduce that we all form our own definition what art is for us, individually. And i say that is nonsense, because if there are absolutely no standards to apply, we don't need the term, period.

Why not just leave the ART out of this and just say 'i like it'? Or should we invent a new word? Like 'iArt'?

And for the 'AOTC'-hungry: it's more smart than art. The action music, anyway.

Sorry, Art is like Good Politics, True Religion, Bad Taste, something that people have strong opinions about but has a million answers. Something that varies from person to person. You can't conquer the world, friend. The only wisdom here is to admit what is Art to you is not always going to be generally accepted as such.

And there is no standard of beauty, but we still use the word to communicate what we think of something. Having no standard does not make a word useless.

We don't have to invent a new word - maybe Art really just means something different than you think it does in the first place.

[Hlao-roo 389]

~ The End ~

[publicist 4,643]

Sorry, Art is like Good Politics, True Religion, Bad Taste, something that people have strong opinions about but has a million answers. Something that varies from person to person. You can't conquer the world, friend. The only wisdom here is to admit what is Art to you is not always going to be generally accepted as such.

No, the wisdom would be to accept that not everything i like automatically is a work of art.

[Jeshopk 8]

Sorry, Art is like Good Politics, True Religion, Bad Taste, something that people have strong opinions about but has a million answers. Something that varies from person to person. You can't conquer the world, friend. The only wisdom here is to admit what is Art to you is not always going to be generally accepted as such.

No, the wisdom would be to accept that not everything i like automatically is a work of art.

As long as you are going by your own standards, that makes sense. But if you are going by what is established as "high art" then that standard seems impractically high.

I found a good outline from a book on the subject:

From:

http://www.cofc.edu/hettinger/Aesthetics_F..._1_Part_One.htm

"Pop movie no less artistic interest than art film by serious artist

- Superman/Casablanca (Humphrey Bogart)

- John Coltraine's jazz performance just as profound as Vladimir Horowitz playing a Chopin piece?

- Beetles as good as Beethoven? "

"Specific version of Cultural Relativism about art

-Art is an elitist concept--Herbert Gans

-Claim that our concept of art is elitist

-Social critics like Gans claim that concept of arts harmfully distinguishes between

-What elite and educated and powerful enjoy

-Which they call art and say is more valuable than

-What the lower class enjoys

-Thus, concept of art is merely conventional

-Art is a group of artifacts identified by an elite of a society as a way of articulating their superiority"

[A24 4,364]

Yes, it's true, we're all artists, my brothers, just like John Williams or Michelangelo. Our art might not be as highly regarded as theirs, but it's art anyway. Say, let's talk about our art for a while. How is your art doing these days?

My art is fine, just fine. Keep it stimulated daily, and it's perfectly content. And yours?

Well, I'm doing pretty fine. Here's an example of my latest work:

"If Jeshopk likes it, it can't be art."

What do you think? It still needs some polishing but the idea is pretty good, no?

Alex

[Jeshopk 8]

Yes, it's true, we're all artists, my brothers, just like John Williams or Michelangelo. Our art might not be as highly regarded as theirs, but it's art anyway. Say, let's talk about our art for a while. How is your art doing these days?

My art is fine, just fine. Keep it stimulated daily, and it's perfectly content. And yours?

Well, I'm doing pretty fine. Here's an example of my latest work:

"If Jeshopk likes it, it can't be art."

What do you think? It still needs some polishing but the idea is pretty good, no?

Alex

Very intellectually stimulating. You excel at the art of dickery.

[publicist 4,643]

"Pop movie no less artistic interest than art film by serious artist

- Superman/Casablanca (Humphrey Bogart)

- John Coltraine's jazz performance just as profound as Vladimir Horowitz playing a Chopin piece?

- Beetles as good as Beethoven? "

"Specific version of Cultural Relativism about art

-Art is an elitist concept--Herbert Gans

-Claim that our concept of art is elitist

-Social critics like Gans claim that concept of arts harmfully distinguishes between

-What elite and educated and powerful enjoy

-Which they call art and say is more valuable than

-What the lower class enjoys

-Thus, concept of art is merely conventional

-Art is a group of artifacts identified by an elite of a society as a way of articulating their superiority"

But that seems all centered around the notion that a bourgeois concept of arts was imposed onto mankind by some evil power and now we must destroy it. The fact is that the concept of fine arts was formed 3000 years b. c. and to reduce it to a post-industrialist class struggle is like saying Steven Spielberg is the epitome of american cinema.

The point is that, as in all sciences, the definitions for art are ever-changing and what you cite as social criticism is an old hat by now. If there are not at least some guidelines and benchmarks, which very well might be overseen by more articulate and educated people, there is no need for the concept, easy as that.

[A24 4,364]

Yes, it's true, we're all artists, my brothers, just like John Williams or Michelangelo. Our art might not be as highly regarded as theirs, but it's art anyway. Say, let's talk about our art for a while. How is your art doing these days?

My art is fine, just fine. Keep it stimulated daily, and it's perfectly content. And yours?

Well, I'm doing pretty fine. Here's an example of my latest work:

"If Jeshopk likes it, it can't be art."

What do you think? It still needs some polishing but the idea is pretty good, no?

Very intellectually stimulating. You excel at the art of dickery.

You may not like (or understand) my art but that's fine because we all have different tastes (or a different IQ). Ah, the hard life of an artist!

Alex

[Jeshopk 8]

You may not like (or understand) my art but that's fine because we all have different tastes (or a different IQ). Ah, the hard life of an artist!

Alex

Well, you're just insulting your own taste, because your favorite scores are the same as mine.

[A24 4,364]

That's not the point I was trying to make. I've always admired your musical taste and knowledge. No, no, my art goes deeper than that and has nothing to do with you.

Alex

[Jeshopk 8]

That's not the point I was trying to make. I've always admired your musical taste and knowledge. No, no, my art goes deeper than that and has nothing to do with you.

Alex

Oh, so your art is that anything I like is not art, so therefore some of your favorite scores, which are the same as mine, are not art. Very smart. Let me just ask you, were you inspired more by

A) The Gong Show

B) Kindergarten playground antics

C) Laugh in

D) Hee-Haw

[Marian Schedenig 8,240]

I tell you, if a computer could write music (which I don't believe, and not in the next 100 years),

Yes, it doesn't seem too likely in the forseeable future.

then a computer would be able to write the screenplay, write novels, paint pictures from "its" imagination, tell funny stories, etc....

Yes, of course.

No, art is something very specific to humans.

How so? It's created by the human brain. It's specific to humans insofar as we don't know any other species that has brains as "advanced" as ours. There might be some out there, if they are in any way comparable to us, they probably have art. If technology ever gets closer to mimicking the human brain (or, more meaningfully, creating something more or less related to it), the the resulting "computers" might create art, too.

[Josh500 1,615]

How so? It's created by the human brain. It's specific to humans insofar as we don't know any other species that has brains as "advanced" as ours. There might be some out there, if they are in any way comparable to us, they probably have art. If technology ever gets closer to mimicking the human brain (or, more meaningfully, creating something more or less related to it), the the resulting "computers" might create art, too.

Because it has nothing to do with whether a brain is highly advanced or not. You probably think somebody with a very high IQ can create better art. But that's not so. Great imagination and high creatity don't always equal high IQ (of course, you can't be dumb as a doorbell, either). A person can have an IQ of 200, but if he doesn't have the imagination, the creativity of mind (which are innate, I think, and unique to humans), he couldn't, say, write "good music" or write "good novels."

[Marian Schedenig 8,240]

Where did I connect it to the IQ? Nowhere.

I'll say intelligence is very important when it comes to the technical skills of the craft, like counterpoints, orchestration etc., i.e. all the things you can do "on autopilot". I don't know about Bach, but Bruckner certainly wasn't a very educated, or intellectual, man, but both certainly were very intelligent and mathematically skilled.

As for inspiration, intelligence is probably pretty much irrelevant there. But the human brain isn't just about intelligence.

[Josh500 1,615]

As for inspiration, intelligence is probably pretty much irrelevant there. But the human brain isn't just about intelligence.

That's what I've been saying all along. That's why a computer can never replace a human brain (at least in the foreseeable future).

[Marian Schedenig 8,240]

A computer cannot replace a human brain in many regards for now. Intelligence being a major factor here, too. Computers are fast and skilled with numbers, but formal logic alone so far hasn't been enough to "sample" real-world scenarios. But all I'm saying in this regard is that, from all we know, it might just be possible to do all that with computers sooner or later - except that it might not be possible to combine it with the common paradigm of *controlling* such a computer. Not because the computer would refuse to be controlled, but because the only model we have so far - the human brain - also forms without control.

As far as inspiration vs. intelligence - that's what I've been saying all along, too. It's just that I'm convinced that it's the intelligence side that can be still mostly utilised "on autopilot".

[Jeshopk 8]

"Pop movie no less artistic interest than art film by serious artist

- Superman/Casablanca (Humphrey Bogart)

- John Coltraine's jazz performance just as profound as Vladimir Horowitz playing a Chopin piece?

- Beetles as good as Beethoven? "

"Specific version of Cultural Relativism about art

-Art is an elitist concept--Herbert Gans

-Claim that our concept of art is elitist

-Social critics like Gans claim that concept of arts harmfully distinguishes between

-What elite and educated and powerful enjoy

-Which they call art and say is more valuable than

-What the lower class enjoys

-Thus, concept of art is merely conventional

-Art is a group of artifacts identified by an elite of a society as a way of articulating their superiority"

But that seems all centered around the notion that a bourgeois concept of arts was imposed onto mankind by some evil power and now we must destroy it. The fact is that the concept of fine arts was formed 3000 years b. c. and to reduce it to a post-industrialist class struggle is like saying Steven Spielberg is the epitome of american cinema.

The point is that, as in all sciences, the definitions for art are ever-changing and what you cite as social criticism is an old hat by now. If there are not at least some guidelines and benchmarks, which very well might be overseen by more articulate and educated people, there is no need for the concept, easy as that.

Well, you're making my point for me. The day I defer my concept of art to be "overseen by more articulate and educated people" is the day I will cease to be an artist. How is this any different than allowing the media to tell you your wife is fat and ugly? You might wonder why you still get that erection, but hey, better to believe Cosmopolitan magazine covers. Art is an abstract concept that can not be conceived for you without your express permission. You're giving others permission to define it for you, and that is your choice. I don't take stock in those others' opinions. You're attempting to solve an unsolvable problem by prescribing an authoritarian solution which can never be enforced.

And I think there are general guidelines already without having to get too restrictive. Anything that is created with some level of planning (or craft it could be put) in a tangible medium - paint, sound, words, light - could be seen as art.

[publicist 4,643]

Well, you're making my point for me. The day I defer my concept of art to be "overseen by more articulate and educated people" is the day I will cease to be an artist. How is this any different than allowing the media to tell you your wife is fat and ugly? You might wonder why you still get that erection, but hey, better to believe Cosmopolitan magazine covers. Art is an abstract concept that can not be conceived for you without your express permission. You're giving others permission to define it for you, and that is your choice. I don't take stock in those others' opinions. You're attempting to solve an unsolvable problem by prescribing an authoritarian solution which can never be enforced.

You really want the shoot in the foot, don't you?

You have just to accept that it's impractical to occupy a term and trash it's whole meaning. What comes next, Jeshopk declares war to the jurisprudence because he has decided he does not like the established definitions of the field anymore?

And what about this fat woman? What has she to do with the fact that it makes no sense to call yourself an artist if you don't believe in ANY of the established notions, broad as they may be, of what constitutes art?

I could play devil's advocate and say that someone who plays this double-standard might gain a healthy profit from it. Yeah, let's trash those stubborn yet established art views of yesteryear, but please, call me ARTIST!

[Josh500 1,615]

A computer cannot replace a human brain in many regards for now. Intelligence being a major factor here, too. Computers are fast and skilled with numbers, but formal logic alone so far hasn't been enough to "sample" real-world scenarios. But all I'm saying in this regard is that, from all we know, it might just be possible to do all that with computers sooner or later - except that it might not be possible to combine it with the common paradigm of *controlling* such a computer. Not because the computer would refuse to be controlled, but because the only model we have so far - the human brain - also forms without control.

As far as inspiration vs. intelligence - that's what I've been saying all along, too. It's just that I'm convinced that it's the intelligence side that can be still mostly utilised "on autopilot".

I think it's time for us now to discuss the score for A.I.

[Jeshopk 8]

Well, you're making my point for me. The day I defer my concept of art to be "overseen by more articulate and educated people" is the day I will cease to be an artist. How is this any different than allowing the media to tell you your wife is fat and ugly? You might wonder why you still get that erection, but hey, better to believe Cosmopolitan magazine covers. Art is an abstract concept that can not be conceived for you without your express permission. You're giving others permission to define it for you, and that is your choice. I don't take stock in those others' opinions. You're attempting to solve an unsolvable problem by prescribing an authoritarian solution which can never be enforced.

You really want the shoot in the foot, don't you?

You have just to accept that it's impractical to occupy a term and trash it's whole meaning. What comes next, Jeshopk declares war to the jurisprudence because he has decided he does not like the established definitions of the field anymore?

And what about this fat woman? What has she to do with the fact that it makes no sense to call yourself an artist if you don't believe in ANY of the established notions, broad as they may be, of what constitutes art?

I could play devil's advocate and say that someone who plays this double-standard might gain a healthy profit from it. Yeah, let's trash those stubborn yet established art views of yesteryear, but please, call me ARTIST!

This is not about me, but since you brought it up... I don't care what you call me, artist or craftsman or hack. It really doesn't matter because my goals are in line with what I think of as art, and at times I have performed to my own satisfaction. So, to me, I am an artist. You might disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that I have met my own criteria. Let me ask you about this 3000 year old arts council you mentioned before. When was the definition of Art ever "established"? Who exactly presides over the process of elimination? Are you referring to museum curators? The different schools and scenes of art over the decades? The movers and the shakers of high society? You mean to say all these people agree?

I mean, cultures have shown trends in opinion, so maybe that is what you mean. Our culture, generally, would not at this point contest certain things as being high art. Most people would agree that many of the older works in the Metropolitan are high art. But all art is not high art, and even what is high art is up for debate. Ever notice who sets trends in society? Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Donald Trump, Michael Jackson, Princess Diana. Just because people follow something does not make the leader worthy. It could be posited that the museums are tainted with the private collections of a bunch of dead, rich, gullible idiots.

Jerry Goldsmith derided the idea that a film composer was any less serious than a concert composer. Aaron Copland said the same thing. Williams the same. They were not speaking for themselves, but for countless other colleagues who never became as successful for various flukes - people like Herrman Stein and Alex North. I don't really think you know what you are talking about here.