Dilbert outplayed on this one
NeXuS wrote:
Lol. I'm not gonna lie. A lot of her songs are really catchy.
You seem to be an expert in misinterpreting word and sentences.uzique wrote:
r. expert dilbert discredits the turner prize! it is bullshit! there is no good art and bad art! there is no right and wrong! i defy you michaelangelo, leonardo, raphael, donatello! you are rubbish! what we need is corporate-manufactured blonds with machine-gun tits singing in an easily-imitable manner!
I didn't say there is no good or bad art, just that I object to people deciding for me what is or is not art, who is a 'real artist' and who isn't.
Its subjective and therefore no one person's opinion is more valid than someone elses.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-29 18:09:02)
Fuck Israel
art and appreciation of art is subjective to a degree (that degree being one's personal judgement of the subject), but there are objective standards and modes of classification/distinction that do, and indeed MUST, exist. if these mid-way objective standards did not exist then there would be no measure of the standard of beauty, of creativity, or of sublimity; and indeed without these, how can one appreciate art? in the wider-picture, the 'liking' and 'disliking', the relative 'skill' and lack thereof creates an objective field in which generalizations can be made about subjective-behaviour. there are many 'subjective' discourses in the observable, ontological world and all of them have commonalities and methodologies of analysis and evaluation. you're wrong, basically. besides i doubt your argument against the 'standards of taste' are anything to do with a proper philosophical argument - it's more just like you're pissed that people shit on lady gaga because you have a plebian taste in art.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-06-29 17:51:50)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Thats all I need to know.art and appreciation of art is subjective to a degree (that degree being one's personal judgement of the subject)
Not really, I never said Gaga was performance art, nor did I say it wasn't.it's more just like you're pissed that people shit on lady gaga because you have a plebian taste in art.
More likely you shit on Lady Gaga because you have a snobbish, elitist taste in art and feel the need to shit on people who don't.
Fuck Israel
i think gaga is doing a valid thing... it aint my thing though, and i just shudder when people claim/hype/celebrate it for something it is not
enjoy that sort of 'art' for what it is - please do, be my guest. just don't join the droves of fans calling her the next musical/performance messiah.
enjoy that sort of 'art' for what it is - please do, be my guest. just don't join the droves of fans calling her the next musical/performance messiah.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Irony is ironic.uzique wrote:
it aint my thing though, and i just shudder when people claim/hype/celebrate it for something it is not
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-29 18:59:10)
Fuck Israel
Ya telling me Doris, this thread is about Lady Gaga and every post has the word 'art' in it.
how is that ironic? i personally do not like it. you personally do like it. that's fine.Dilbert_X wrote:
Irony is ironic.uzique wrote:
it aint my thing though, and i just shudder when people claim/hype/celebrate it for something it is not
the issues occur when people take their preference one step further and start making ridiculous claims about it.
you really do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the arts or music... so gtfo.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Lady Gaga isn't bad. She's just mediocre. The only reason she gets attention is because she's weird. She knows how to market herself, and that's 50% of being an artist...
-kon
-kon
Problem is, they have as much right to those claims as you have to say they are ridiculous.the issues occur when people take their preference one step further and start making ridiculous claims about it.
Fuck Israel
no, they don't.
does a person with no engineering qualifications have as much right and likelihood to solve an abstract problem as you do? no?
okay then. i've already explained why education and 'fine taste' in arts is important, how it comes about, and how it delineates objective fields in a subjective area. if you can't understand those simple concepts and you aren't willing, through your gritted-teeth and petty-grudges, to go do a short and simple bit of background reading- then kindly get the fuck out. you are wasting everyone's time and precious posting space with your purposefully-ignorant approach. whether or not you want to acknowledge it, dilbert, standards do exist within the arts and always have done- since classic antiquity and right up to the hotly-debated now (with polarizations cropping up between, say, classical schools and modernist aesthetics). if it's an area you don't understand and don't know enough about... admit it, and stop pugnaciously arguing a moot point. i wouldn't try to school you or explain something to you about engineering or the sciences, so have some humility and know where you are beaten.
gaga is entertainment. that's a valid area of art. it isn't fine art, though. it isn't genius. she entertains many people and for that she is a good performer. she is not pushing the envelope, though, on any high-art ideals or fine-art frontiers; she is a produced, manufactured corporate entity that will sell a lot of records and cause shockwaves in the 'pop industry'. but the 'pop industry' is not the 'fine art' establishment; gaga is not contending with leading contemporary classical composers to push forward any emerging aesthetic. she's just entertaining a mass of people that want simple, catchy songs. it's fine if you enjoy that - but don't claim that there isn't another world of art that operates on a different level: just because you don't know much about it, doesn't mean it ceases to fucking exist. you are a manic egotist, dilbert. in almost every topic you try to 'debate' (e.g. literature, weed, now gaga) the argumentative epithet "as far as i know" / "in my experience" / "which i suspect, is right" is attached to every single view. it's nearly solipsist in its absurdity. okay... 'as far as you know'. which clearly isn't anywhere near enough.
does a person with no engineering qualifications have as much right and likelihood to solve an abstract problem as you do? no?
okay then. i've already explained why education and 'fine taste' in arts is important, how it comes about, and how it delineates objective fields in a subjective area. if you can't understand those simple concepts and you aren't willing, through your gritted-teeth and petty-grudges, to go do a short and simple bit of background reading- then kindly get the fuck out. you are wasting everyone's time and precious posting space with your purposefully-ignorant approach. whether or not you want to acknowledge it, dilbert, standards do exist within the arts and always have done- since classic antiquity and right up to the hotly-debated now (with polarizations cropping up between, say, classical schools and modernist aesthetics). if it's an area you don't understand and don't know enough about... admit it, and stop pugnaciously arguing a moot point. i wouldn't try to school you or explain something to you about engineering or the sciences, so have some humility and know where you are beaten.
gaga is entertainment. that's a valid area of art. it isn't fine art, though. it isn't genius. she entertains many people and for that she is a good performer. she is not pushing the envelope, though, on any high-art ideals or fine-art frontiers; she is a produced, manufactured corporate entity that will sell a lot of records and cause shockwaves in the 'pop industry'. but the 'pop industry' is not the 'fine art' establishment; gaga is not contending with leading contemporary classical composers to push forward any emerging aesthetic. she's just entertaining a mass of people that want simple, catchy songs. it's fine if you enjoy that - but don't claim that there isn't another world of art that operates on a different level: just because you don't know much about it, doesn't mean it ceases to fucking exist. you are a manic egotist, dilbert. in almost every topic you try to 'debate' (e.g. literature, weed, now gaga) the argumentative epithet "as far as i know" / "in my experience" / "which i suspect, is right" is attached to every single view. it's nearly solipsist in its absurdity. okay... 'as far as you know'. which clearly isn't anywhere near enough.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Doris - Its like ya in a test match. You got bowled out yesterday for 164 and we sent in our nightwatchman late last night. He's just scored his 50 and the other fella is on 112 not out. You better pray for rain fella, gonna be a couple of hard days otherwise.
I disagree, evaluation of art is subjective and opinion based - just because someone somewhere has come up with definitions of art, fine art etc doesn't mean we have to burden ourselves with them.Uzique wrote:
no, they don't.
does a person with no engineering qualifications have as much right and likelihood to solve an abstract problem as you do? no?
okay then. i've already explained why education and 'fine taste' in arts is important, how it comes about, and how it delineates objective fields in a subjective area. if you can't understand those simple concepts and you aren't willing, through your gritted-teeth and petty-grudges, to go do a short and simple bit of background reading- then kindly get the fuck out. you are wasting everyone's time and precious posting space with your purposefully-ignorant approach. whether or not you want to acknowledge it, dilbert, standards do exist within the arts and always have done- since classic antiquity and right up to the hotly-debated now (with polarizations cropping up between, say, classical schools and modernist aesthetics). if it's an area you don't understand and don't know enough about... admit it, and stop pugnaciously arguing a moot point. i wouldn't try to school you or explain something to you about engineering or the sciences, so have some humility and know where you are beaten.
gaga is entertainment. that's a valid area of art. it isn't fine art, though. it isn't genius. she entertains many people and for that she is a good performer. she is not pushing the envelope, though, on any high-art ideals or fine-art frontiers; she is a produced, manufactured corporate entity that will sell a lot of records and cause shockwaves in the 'pop industry'. but the 'pop industry' is not the 'fine art' establishment; gaga is not contending with leading contemporary classical composers to push forward any emerging aesthetic. she's just entertaining a mass of people that want simple, catchy songs. it's fine if you enjoy that - but don't claim that there isn't another world of art that operates on a different level: just because you don't know much about it, doesn't mean it ceases to fucking exist. you are a manic egotist, dilbert. in almost every topic you try to 'debate' (e.g. literature, weed, now gaga) the argumentative epithet "as far as i know" / "in my experience" / "which i suspect, is right" is attached to every single view. it's nearly solipsist in its absurdity. okay... 'as far as you know'. which clearly isn't anywhere near enough.
As for bridges, there are only two tests
Does it work? Yes/No
Could it have been done better? The answer is always yes.
The fine engineering points are of interest only to engineers.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-30 06:30:21)
Fuck Israel
well then accept graciously that there are fine art 'points of interest' that do exist.
if a bridge works - yes or no - then that's a fundamental summary, an evaluation, a basic scenario. if art is entertaining to you, subjectively, that's great. similar outcome - it doesn't matter that you don't know any more about it, just as it doesn't matter when you drive across a bridge if you know how it is constructed and on what principles. BUT, and the huge operative and dependant BUT here, is that 'fine points of interest' do exist. there is an entire field, an entire discipline and a multitude of schools-of-thought that exist for the 'finer' aspects.
your analogy essentially just reflected the point i have been drumming all along. want to know where that division between 'agreeable, entertaining' art (i.e. 'does the bridge work? yes or no is enough') and the 'finer aspects' (i.e. the engineering principles, the design and science of it) originate? KANT. see my first post.
you're slowly getting there, bit by bit. but now you're boring me.
if a bridge works - yes or no - then that's a fundamental summary, an evaluation, a basic scenario. if art is entertaining to you, subjectively, that's great. similar outcome - it doesn't matter that you don't know any more about it, just as it doesn't matter when you drive across a bridge if you know how it is constructed and on what principles. BUT, and the huge operative and dependant BUT here, is that 'fine points of interest' do exist. there is an entire field, an entire discipline and a multitude of schools-of-thought that exist for the 'finer' aspects.
your analogy essentially just reflected the point i have been drumming all along. want to know where that division between 'agreeable, entertaining' art (i.e. 'does the bridge work? yes or no is enough') and the 'finer aspects' (i.e. the engineering principles, the design and science of it) originate? KANT. see my first post.
you're slowly getting there, bit by bit. but now you're boring me.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Then instead of saying 'ITS NOT ART' try saying 'in my opinion its not art, but I accept other peoples is different'.
The point really is 'Could it have been done better' is of zero interest to 99.9% of the population.
The point really is 'Could it have been done better' is of zero interest to 99.9% of the population.
Fuck Israel
how about reading my original posts instead of, as per usual, dilligently drumming home the same bug-bears you've had all your lifeUzique wrote:
i think gaga is doing a valid thing... it aint my thing though, and i just shudder when people claim/hype/celebrate it for something it is not
enjoy that sort of 'art' for what it is - please do, be my guest. just don't join the droves of fans calling her the next musical/performance messiah.
yawn dilbert, yawn. i know what im talking about and concede points to gaga where they are due.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yeah, but your first reaction is to sneer at stuff which doesn't meet your pretentious standards.
Or so they say at least...
I'd like to know how a performance artist gets frustrated, given they do it for its own sake, their amusement and not external validation.uzique wrote:
they've started calling gaga 'performance art'
a whole community of proper artists just died in utter frustration
Or so they say at least...
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-30 17:23:48)
Fuck Israel
are you still going
also for something to be given to 'pretense' it has to have a degree of falsity or ostentatious display. my standards are grounded in a lot of solid reasoning, judgement and experience. so i wouldn't really call my sense of 'taste' pretentious. it may seem pretentious to those with significantly lower-standards, or those lacking any knowledge of the arts... but no, not really. good try, though... again:
it's all in this thread dilbert, go read something
also for something to be given to 'pretense' it has to have a degree of falsity or ostentatious display. my standards are grounded in a lot of solid reasoning, judgement and experience. so i wouldn't really call my sense of 'taste' pretentious. it may seem pretentious to those with significantly lower-standards, or those lacking any knowledge of the arts... but no, not really. good try, though... again:
it's all in this thread dilbert, go read something
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
uzique wrote:
it may seem pretentious to those with significantly lower-standards, or those lacking any knowledge of the arts
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-30 17:54:33)
Fuck Israel
righty-ho dilbert, righty-ho.
my point is the "that's pretentious!" jibe is normally one used by people to hide their own lack of understanding.
like in this thread, for example.
my point is the "that's pretentious!" jibe is normally one used by people to hide their own lack of understanding.
like in this thread, for example.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Okay, so the video isn't the same...but I have to say...Lady Gaga is following a certain and familiar path...
...
i think she is purposefully, as part of her 'aesthetic', trying to match-up to or emulate madonna:
there's always an element of tip-the-hat tribute in drawing obvious and unashamed influence, too.
after all that's pretty much the female pop-zenith, is it not? jackson for the males and madonna for the females.
there's always an element of tip-the-hat tribute in drawing obvious and unashamed influence, too.
after all that's pretty much the female pop-zenith, is it not? jackson for the males and madonna for the females.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yeah, I suppose Madonna did the Marilyn Monroe thing for awhile. I see what you mean.
...
I don't understand how you can have a "trying to seem smarter than the other guy" argument over Lady Gaga.