Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 02-05-2013, 07:30 PM   #4001
Weaponized
add me on deviantart
 
Weaponized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: [QUOTE=Weaponized]the fast lane[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnus_maximus
The Torah says that the Messiah would be a great military leader.

Jesus was not.
Can't refute my point so bring up something else huh
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazysam23_Atax
Is the officer going to ask for the butt, so he or she can check whether it is hot?


last.fm
Weaponized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:36 PM   #4002
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
Semantics.... When what something says can be subjective, how can you justify your views without looking at intent?

This whole conversation is about semantics ya dingbat.

You justify your interpretation from evidence that is objective within the piece, which is the nature of criticism.
WhiskeyFace is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 08:31 PM   #4003
progdude93
Banned
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
This whole conversation is about semantics ya dingbat.

You justify your interpretation from evidence that is objective within the piece, which is the nature of criticism.


So you're saying the standard of interpretive justification is based on what is objectively in the piece? Gotcha.

...so then how does identifying objective phenomena within a piece of art, for example, the use of chiaroscuro in a baroque painting, lead to logically justifiable statements of intent (because while you might use different words, you were criticizing people who extrapolate too much because they ignore the artist's intent), aesthetic judgments, or final causes?

There's a gap that your logic fails to address, and that is the gap between objective terms and aesthetic terms.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:01 PM   #4004
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Ok, the intention of the artist is irrelevant to when the art is being interpreted (if I said something contrary to this earlier then I take that back), but it is important if we are to discuss quality of art, but that's a separate matter.

Intention is also important because I don't believe in accidental art.

And my criticism of people who extrapolate too much was more to do with how they refuse to accept that objectivity in art actually has value.
WhiskeyFace is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:04 PM   #4005
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
The intention for the piece to be art has to be there, but the authors intentions with regards to the 'meaning' of his or her art has been known for quite a while to be completely irrelevant to any form of criticism/discussion of meaning. One of the worst possible things you can do when studying an art is to take more than a passing glance at the biography of the author/artist/musician.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:10 PM   #4006
progdude93
Banned
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
But how can you claim objectivity has value in art when aesthetic terms aren't condition-governed terms? There could always be someone who criticizes YOU for extrapolating too much, and you wouldn't be able to prove him wrong. Why? Because aesthetic terms aren't condition-governed terms. The objectivity you're talking about seems to be oddly subjective....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
The intention for the piece to be art has to be there, but the authors intentions with regards to the 'meaning' of his or her art has been known for quite a while to be completely irrelevant to any form of criticism/discussion of meaning. One of the worst possible things you can do when studying an art is to take more than a passing glance at the biography of the author/artist/musician.




That's odd, because I've never met somebody who studied art who did not also study the artists. Nobody looks at the paintings and ignores the names. Psychical distancing is bullshit. Art is gestural. And gestures rely on context, whether personal, subjective, or objective.

Last edited by progdude93 : 02-05-2013 at 09:12 PM.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:10 PM   #4007
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
EDIT:^ What do you mean by 'condition-governed'? And I could justify my own extrapolation by pointing to evidence within the piece

Another way to think of it is that art is a language, and every piece of art a statement. You can say something while actually meaning something else, and it's not the 'listeners' fault if they don't get that.

Also, art would be pointless if we could express all our feelings and ideas perfectly through words.

Last edited by WhiskeyFace : 02-05-2013 at 09:13 PM.
WhiskeyFace is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:20 PM   #4008
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93


That's odd, because I've never met somebody who studied art who did not also study the artists. Nobody looks at the paintings and ignores the names. Psychical distancing is bullshit. Art is gestural. And gestures rely on context, whether personal, subjective, or objective.


Ever since the development of New criticism in the '20s it's been pretty much universally agreed by art critics and literary theorists that biographical readings are a non-starting point. The fact that plenty of universities still rely on biography just proves how behind much of the academy is.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:27 PM   #4009
progdude93
Banned
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
EDIT:^ What do you mean by 'condition-governed'? And I could justify my own extrapolation by pointing to evidence within the piece

Another way to think of it is that art is a language, and every piece of art a statement. You can say something while actually meaning something else, and it's not the 'listeners' fault if they don't get that.

Also, art would be pointless if we could express all our feelings and ideas perfectly through words.


There are three types of condition governance:

1. Strictly condition governed terms. Example: triangle. This kind of term has necessary conditions/strict definitions. A three sided geometric figure whose angles add up to 180 degrees is a triangle, and must always be a triangle. If those conditions are not met, it is not a triangle.
2. Loosely condition governed terms. Example: intelligent. This kind of term has a set of sufficient conditions (like initiative, creativity, problem solving, et al), but it has an unbounded set, and it has no necessary conditions. This means that while there is a certain combination of sufficient conditions for "intelligence" to be satisfied, the amount of sufficient conditions is unspecified and cannot be necessarily true. Meaning that while most people would agree that someone who satisfies many of those conditions is intelligent, it cannot NECESSARILY be true.
3. Defeasible terms. Example: contract. This kind of term can be proven inapplicable by a single property. I forget the distinction between this kind of term and the first kind but there is one. But the distinction isn't too important in this instance.

Since aesthetic terms are not condition-governed, meaning they can never be proven false, you can't really claim there's much objectivity in art. Yes, there may be certain patterns in a painting. But why the **** does that logically justify normative claims? The reality is that the important part of art lies in the reaction of the subject. It's the aesthetic emotion that makes art art. And aesthetic emotion is distinct from the regular term emotion. And by no means am I saying that aesthetic emotion is ALL art has. But it is the unifying principle of art, that all art has.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:30 PM   #4010
treborillusion
UG Fanatic
 
treborillusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The London Borough of Croydon, GB
So why can't we all be like
"What ever gets you through the night."
?

Y'know, who cares if people don't believe in the same shit?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by laid-to-waste
look nigga, if you're chillin with 5 bros and 2 hos, you're gonna wanna pay attention to all of em equally. not moon over the hos forever and laugh at every shitty thing they say and just stare at them all night, like some of my mates do.

Last edited by treborillusion : 02-05-2013 at 09:31 PM.
treborillusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:48 PM   #4011
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Because racism. There's one reason. You can figure out the rest yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
Since aesthetic terms are not condition-governed, meaning they can never be proven false, you can't really claim there's much objectivity in art. Yes, there may be certain patterns in a painting. But why the **** does that logically justify normative claims? The reality is that the important part of art lies in the reaction of the subject. It's the aesthetic emotion that makes art art. And aesthetic emotion is distinct from the regular term emotion. And by no means am I saying that aesthetic emotion is ALL art has. But it is the unifying principle of art, that all art has.

Yeah, and the point of criticism is to identify why it is we reacted a certain way to a piece of art by pointing to objective evidence within the piece.
WhiskeyFace is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:27 AM   #4012
progdude93
Banned
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
Ever since the development of New criticism in the '20s it's been pretty much universally agreed by art critics and literary theorists that biographical readings are a non-starting point. The fact that plenty of universities still rely on biography just proves how behind much of the academy is.


So now "pretty much" universal agreement passes for truth? I don't care what a bunch of people bundled under the umbrella of art critics and literary theorists have to say. I think knowing the artist's background and personal philosophy can be quite useful and interesting in evaluating art, though it must certainly be taken with a grain of salt. Context is a tool, not the toolbelt.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:41 AM   #4013
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
So now "pretty much" universal agreement passes for truth? I don't care what a bunch of people bundled under the umbrella of art critics and literary theorists have to say. I think knowing the artist's background and personal philosophy can be quite useful and interesting in evaluating art, though it must certainly be taken with a grain of salt. Context is a tool, not the toolbelt.


Yes, that's how science and philosophy, but especially literary and artistic theory, have worked since the Greeks.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 01:12 AM   #4014
progdude93
Banned
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
Yes, that's how science and philosophy, but especially literary and artistic theory, have worked since the Greeks.


And it's a piss poor metric for truth.

EDIT: And it's not how science and philosophy work. Remember, science was very different than it is now.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:26 AM   #4015
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
art sucks anyway, except slacker's paintings which are top class

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:32 AM   #4016
captaincrunk
See, I Got News for You.
 
captaincrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
And it's a piss poor metric for truth..

truth is nothing more than what the body of perceivers would agree to with perfect information. given that information, it's actually the best metric for truth
__________________
#15 in the 2012 top 100
#23 in the 2010 top 100

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
I respect crunk.
captaincrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:39 AM   #4017
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weaponized
If Jesus wasn't the messiah, then why does he fulfill the phrophecy "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalms 22:16)" which is written years before crucifixion was even a thing?

Checkmate athiests.

But that's a mistranslation, in the original Masoretic Text, Psalm 22:16 said "they bite like a lion at my hands and my feet"", but when it was translated into Greek for the Septuagint around the late 2nd century BC it somehow became "they pierced my hands and my feet."
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:43 AM   #4018
progdude93
Banned
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
Yeah, and the point of criticism is to identify why it is we reacted a certain way to a piece of art by pointing to objective evidence within the piece.


But that's all guesswork. The reality is that we react to a piece of art due to our individual context. Like I referenced before, Cone wrote a fascinating essay, but I forgot the title

He makes his case about music in particular, but that's because some people claimed music wasn't art. His principles apply to all art, however. See, art is gestural, like I said before. Why? Because it relies on expression in various forms, and yet it is not expressive on its own. The piece of art itself doesn't express anything until it is contextualized. It can't. It's like the word "oh." That word can mean any number of things, but until it is contextualized, it is meaningless gibberish. It could be out of shock, pleasure, fear, pain, anything really. It's like the Ditto of the semantic world.

Imagine looking at a piece of music written out on sheet music. As that song is on a piece of paper, and you can't hear it, you can't properly contextualize it. At that point, the piece of paper with notation on it isn't art, because we have no connection or reaction to it. But once it is played, we can listen to it, enjoy it, contextualize it, react to it, and connect to it. At that point, it is art.

So speak of the objective criteria within the artwork all you want, but it's not the key issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
truth is nothing more than what the body of perceivers would agree to with perfect information. given that information, it's actually the best metric for truth


But nobody has perfect information, so it's an awful metric for truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
But that's a mistranslation, in the original Masoretic Text, Psalm 22:16 said "they bite like a lion at my hands and my feet"", but when it was translated into Greek for the Septuagint around the late 2nd century BC it somehow became "they pierced my hands and my feet."


That's quite a convenient mistranslation for them to have made....

PS, slackerbabbath, your paintings are pretty boss.

Last edited by progdude93 : 02-06-2013 at 03:47 AM.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:54 AM   #4019
captaincrunk
See, I Got News for You.
 
captaincrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
But nobody has perfect information, so it's an awful metric for truth.

it's the only metric you could possibly have, so it's therefore the best metric
__________________
#15 in the 2012 top 100
#23 in the 2010 top 100

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
I respect crunk.
captaincrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 04:56 AM   #4020
progdude93
Banned
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
it's the only metric you could possibly have, so it's therefore the best metric


There are far too many morons out there for me to trust conventional wisdom. Especially when I see reasons that demonstrate that it doesn't make sense. Conventional wisdom comes and goes. Is it true that the world used to be flat, and true that the world is and always has been roughly spherical? If conventional wisdom dictated truth, there would be far too many conflicting truths for truth to be true. Truth would become meaningless.

The epistemological school I value most highly is that of skepticism. We have no "truth" per se, but what we call "truth" is in fact the greatest possible account (that which accounts for more than anything else). And I don't really give a **** what Todd Hart says a bunch of people said to be true. Last year I studied under one of the most widely respected living aestheticians, one who I personally know to be quite intelligent. How do I know this? From lots of discussion. He didn't agree with this so called conventional "wisdom." And look at Dickie. He completely disagreed as well, claiming that psychical distancing is absolute bullshit (I'm paraphrasing).

Yeah, Bullough and Kant were huge proponents of psychical distancing, but there's plenty of disagreement, and I see no reason to value the opinions and logic of people I don't know to be intelligent higher than my own or others I have read and found to be intelligent and logical.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.