brainpanhandler wrote:barracuda wrote:OP ED wrote: barracuda wrote: OP ED wrote:i'll grant you "very good". as close as i can come.
Well that's great. Just great. Over one and a half million tesserae, none larger than 4 millimeters, using only four colors, scores of figures and horses depicting the penultimate moment of the battle, fifteen feet wide, and all we get is "very good". "It's okay." "Could use some improvement." Sheesh.
you seem to be operating under the assumption that greatness is to be automatically equated with technical aptitude, which is not at all what i'm suggesting. Technical skill
is one of the requisites for transcendental artistic expression, that is, for what i'd call greatness.
but only one.
No, but near superhuman technical virtuosity in the sevice of the essence of the human ideal might get you into the finals. But there are no automatics. It's all a matter of taste.
I would automatically assume that a creature as complex as Barracuda would have a much more complicated set of criteria for what he defines as great art than mere technical virtuosity. I wouldn't even question it or waste his time by forcing him to clarify. I'm a little surprised that you would. Are you going to do this to me as well?
probably.
the reason i asked, btw, is because when i suggested that i found the propagandistic nature of the art in question to be to my personal distaste to the point of disqualification for greatness, his response was a digression about how many rocks were used and how big the object was and how seemingly accurately innate heroism was contained in the depictions of Alexander...
i took his comments to be suggesting that i was criticizing the technical aspects of the mosaic and not its content. i wished to clarify that this was not my sole criteria for judgement.
how clearly defined the artist may've rendered Alex's cheekbones, while important to a viewer in any case, means not as much to me as the artist's vision as represented by his depiction of the subject. that is, what is the purpose of the art, what is its intent.
for propaganda, this is usually obvious, as with the mosaic above. what does the art teach/demonstrate?
that alexander was greater that you.
apologetics for tyranny and expansionism.
i consider, in the context of this thread especially, this question of demonstration to be very important with regard to how i will personally judge and interpret creative output.
because ART does make you do things. How many humans converted because of John's compelling prose?
even the Christians instinctively recognize this and use references to his book as the beginning and end of their evangelisms. [3:16]
how many tyrants did artistic depictions [demonstrations] of Alexander's greatness inspire?
...
OP ED wrote:I wrote:I can always be swayed by a well reasoned argument, always. I'm a slave to reason.
sorry to hear about your slavery, btw, i've always found the cult of mechanistic "reason" to be among the primary causes of the ills of our time.
I should clarify (sigh) ... I tend to exaggerate for comedic effect. More accurately, I place a greater emphasis on reason in this context. That is to say, if we are going to have a debate about aesthetics online where what we have for tools are words then reason will have to trump most everything else. I would think that since you've expressed a tepid appreciation of my poesy it would go without saying that I am not entirely a slave to reason and I was engaging in hyperbole. (As an aside, one of your responses to my intial offering on the poetry slam thread was to ask me "What does it mean?" Can I draw any conclusions about how you approach art from this?) You may be right that the "cult of mechanistic reason" is among the primary causes of the ills of our time, but it is probably safe to say that what you term the cult of mechanistic reason is the reason we are even able to communicate in this fashion right now, so mechanistic reason ain't all bad, I guess.
not yet. all bad that is.
my approach to art: see above. Meaning is what art communicates. if it fails to do so, it is just more roses in the blender. fortunately, even mediocre art can usually accomplish some communication of meaning, it'll probably have a title, if nothing else.
OP ED wrote:in this area, i'd admit to being utterly inflexible. my entire life philosophy is one of aesthetics, and i do not compromise on these things.
Sorry to hear you are utterly inflexible in any area of your life. I have found that sort of inflexibility is typically not a characterisic that can be cordoned off into one area only and generally speaking inflexibility is among the primary causes for many of the ills of our time. I am uncertain. Take that to the bank. Even when I appear to be certain you can rest assured that if not publicly then at least privately I have misgivings and I might change my mind any minute given new facts. This is often taken as a sign of weakness. I've found it to be a source of strength if not comfort.
perhaps there is a misunderstanding wrt my standings.
there is very little comforting about my positions. at least on the surface. My total inflexibility on this point is not a sign of internal distress, but rather due to the nature of the subject itself, i.e. its subjectivity precludes any recourse to retreat from entrenchments. As there is no accounting for taste, there is no room for compromise at the extremes of judgement. Facts, as i see them, have little to do with the ability of an object to convey symbolic meaning nor can they often alter the apparent meaning once the creation is completed. There are exceptions of context, of course, but this applies only to individual segments of the total output of the artist, as in turns of phrase that take on added meaning as a story nears its end. In the finished cannon of the artist, this exception recedes into invisibility as all context is eventually provided by the cannon itself.
for example, an future announcement as to the indentity of the mosaic's creator would not change the technical skill demonstrated by the art, nor would it change either the intended or apparent meaning of the art as interpreted by the receiver.
another example: knowing that de Sade probably actually left a lifelong trail of victims of rape and other abuses in his wake, that he wrote from some experience, doesn't make his characters any less one dimensional.
OP ED wrote:i'm not really interested in arguing with anyone, per se, despite my "quote and reply" style often making it seem otherwise. i find its easier to gather my thoughts and address points raised when i approach it this way. no personal offense intended.
Understood and on this we agree. yay. And no offense taken, but were you to remove a glove and slap me across the face it's not like I'd slink off and cry. I'm likely to eventually offend and maybe even intentionally, but that does not seem out of bounds with you so I won't feel too bad about it.
we champions of the dark arts aren't in a position to call very many things out of bounds. as long as you leave talking about my mother, my personal religion and/or my sex life to me, we're probably cool.
OP ED wrote:brainpanhandler wrote:Even if one doesn't lazily and thoughtlessly equate depiction / exploration / enactment / habitation (of sociopathy etc) with "glorification" there is still the difficult work of drawing the distinctions in cases where it is not clear at all that a work of art can be neatly tucked into so and so pigeonhole.
sounds like apologetics for bad art to me, bph.
if art cannot be pigeonholed into worse, bad, mediocre, good, or great, it probably is not art.
I guess this is a fundamental distinction between us. I am uncertain and you are not. I don't see how you can even suggest I am apologizing for "bad" art when we have not even agreed on a defintion of any kind of art. You have at least offered one criteria here. Art cannot be art unless it can be judged worse, bad, mediocre, good, or great. Hmmm.... well, I suppose for the purposes of talking about it that is true, but since I am loathe to leave the criteria for applying these labels entirely to anyone's subjectivity what is needed are some sort of objective criteria and it seems to me that given your certainty in this area it is incumbent upon you to provide those criteria. I am uncertain and inflexible in this area myself and for the life of me cannot understand how anyone could be inflexible in this regard, hence my curiosity to see you defend your position. I'll use my reason to analyze your words.
my comment as to your apologetics was a mere poke, silly.
my meaning is, if something cannot be judged on its aesthetic qualities, i.e. its creative value as demonstrated by technical expertise and depth and breadth of vision, it probably isn't art, um, by definition.
for confirmation of this, use wikipedia to analyse the term "aesthetics". Actually, i'll just skip to the end and cut and paste something i consider halfway relevant:
The value of art
Tolstoy defined art, and not incidentally characterized its value, this way: "Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."
The value of art, then, is one with the value of empathy.
Other possible views are these: Art can act as a means to some special kind of knowledge. Art may give insight into the human condition. Art relates to science and religion. Art serves as a tool of education, or indoctrination, or enculturation. Art makes us more moral. It uplifts us spiritually. Art is politics by other means. Art has the value of allowing catharsis. In any case, the value of art may determine the suitability of an art form. Do they differ significantly in their values, or (if not) in their ability to achieve the unitary value of art?
But to approach the question of the value of art systematically, one ought to ask: for whom? For the artist? For the audience? For society at large, and/or for individuals beyond the audience? Is the "value" of art different in each of these different contexts?
Working on the intended value of art tends to help define the relations between art and other acts. Art clearly does have spiritual goals in many contexts, but what exactly is the difference between religious art and religion per se? The truth is complex - Art is both useless in a functional sense and the most important human activity.
It has been said, that a Vogon Starship arriving at the earth and ordering its destruction would ask what use is humanity? The only justification humanity could give would be a Shakespeare play, a Rembrandt or a Bach concerto. These are the things of value which define humanity itself.Special emphasis on the respective final sentences of the final two paragraphs. [nods to nietzsche]
Freddy would say, btw, that it is precisely
because art is useless in a functional sense that it is the most important human activity.
[OP ED may further suggest that it may be the only thing that really makes us different from the other beasts]
[that is, it is the only solely "human" activity]
i have said before, in this place, that i consider metaphysical rebellion to be the only sort worth engaging in, and also, that art is the only way to do so completely. anything less would be inhumane.
OP ED wrote:Brainpanhandler wrote: Great works of art rarely operate on just one level and if they have something to say about the nature of violence it is very often in a way that is subtle enough to leave room for the experiencer to draw their own conclusions, including that violence has been glorified.
again, i take issue with this vague defintion of "great".
great art is rarely subtle in the conventional sense. it compels decisions or it isn't great art.
this is my "opinion" of course, but not one i'm even slightly questionable about.
I wasn't attempting to provide a comprehensive definition of "great" as it applies to "art". But this might prove one of those axes around which we will go in circles. Just to take the most obvious example in the history of art...
I am at a loss to understand how this work compels me to any decisions about it. In fact, if it wasn't revered as one of the greatest works of art ever produced by human beings then I probably wouldn't think much about it at all, except to wonder, "Is she smiling at me"? But since you used that qualifier "rarely", perhaps this sort of work is an exception. Namely, one where one of the subjects is in fact ambuguity itself? Although, I don't see how you can reconcile the use of the qualifier "rarely" and yet also say that you are not even slightly doubtful about your opinion.
It compels you to wonder, if nothing else. but i'm not sure its a good example, as i'm not sure about equating popularity with greatness outright. Further, your point wrt subjectivity often being part of the meaning should not be overlooked in any case. [especially with davinci]
Ultimately, what I was trying to say and what I now offer as a criterion for determining what is great art and therefore also what isn't great art is that great art, like life or at least my life, contains a multiplicity of meanings that are conveyed by distinct strata and part of that definition is in fact technical prowess. So for instance, take just about any of Shakespeare's plays... Not only is there the "play" composed of elements and a narrative that a not necessarily sophisticated audience of his day would recognize and be entertained by, but also there are layers of symbolism and allegory at play, subplots, plays within plays, and if that were not enough there is the music of the language and what then finally boggles my mind there is also the structure of the play itself which has a definite, clearly defined form. None of these elements consciously created by Shakespeare contend with each other, but rather they all harmonize with one another, which to my mind is an astonishing feat. That's the sort of thing I meant, which harkens back to somehting similar to what Barracuda said, "...near superhuman technical virtuosity in the sevice of the essence of the human ideal..."
indeed.
[and the essence of the human ideal doesn't glorify violence]
[because violence represents, even as a symbol, the degradation of the human essence to mere functionality, to "necessity", which reason might "explain" but never justifies]
[it is rejected as incompatible with great art because it is an inferior representation of the essence of the human ideal]
[circles]
OP ED wrote: I wrote: I mean it entirely depends on the ethics of the experiencer.
depends on what you mean. crazy people and dumb people, i suppose, may often find themselves unable to grasp easily demonstratable truth, but this is hardly a reflection on the quality of truth.
No argument there, except to ask can I count on you to steer me toward this truth you speak of 'cause I've been looking for that for awhile and I could use a map?
i don't have a map, but i could draw you a picture.
OP ED wrote:good art teaches ethics. Great art demonstrates ethics.
Another criteria.... you'll have to elaborate. Honestly, I don't know what you mean by this absent an example or two. My self vaunted reason is at a loss.
As a general principle I can agree to the proposition: good art teaches, but great art demonstrates, but that has as much to do with the notion that those that cannot create, teach, as anything else.
de Sade teaches that moral codes and principles are functionally useless to save you from executioners.
The Gospel of John demonstrates that principles derive such high value precisely because they cannot save you from executioners.
they elaborate on similar episodes in places, an example being the torture and eventual death of an innocent for no obvious reason. the difference is that de Sade ends with the failure of reason to supply an answer, and John has only begun.
OP ED wrote:I wrote:Is there ever "good" violence?
no.
Hmmm... I am tempted to say that we will simply have to disagree on this one and leave it at that as I assume that you have already imagined all the potential examples of what someone might reasonably argue are "good violence" and felt that a flat "no" was all that was necessary in reply.
If what you mean is that all violence is by defintion bad, but that violence can sometimes serve the good then I'd say that was a distinction without a difference and you might have saved me the trouble.
Going around in circles is pretty much unavoidable, but we needn't run each other around in circles. Know what I mean?
no, i meant that there is no good violence. it does not serve good. although i rarely think in moralist terms. violence is always a restriction of activity. even in those cases wherein it restricts a restriction [other violence] it is still a restriction itself and serves only the feedback loop of further restrictions.
at its best it can only do bad to bad. it, in and of itself, is always negative.
we could digress to defining "violence" or to notions of its reactive or preventative value, but these would do little to change the nature of the acts themselves. always "bad".
which is sort of beside my point anyway, which was: it is never glorious.
"
