to kick this party off:
Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns-or dollars. Take your choice-there is no other-and your time is running out.-- Ayn Rand
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins.--Ayn Rand
All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out.--Ludwig Von Mises
If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own lives, then you are merely like mice trying to argue with owls.-- Terry Goodkind
Observe, in politics, that the term extremism has become a synonym of 'evil,' regardless of the content of the issue (the evil is not what you are extreme about, but that you are 'extreme' -- i.e., consistent).-- Ayn Rand
So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can\'t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?--Ayn Rand
To find yourself, think for yourself.--Socrates
Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.--Ayn Rand
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.--Thomas Sowell
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss. --Robert A. Heinlein
Nothing is given to man on earth - struggle is built into the nature of life, and conflict is possible - the hero is the man who lets no obstacle prevent him from pursuing the values he has chosen.--Andrew Bernstein
The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it\'s yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.--Ayn Rand
The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.-- Ayn Rand
To the extent that a man is guided by his rational judgment, he acts in accordance with the requirements of his nature and, to that extent, succeeds in achieving a human form of survival and well-being; to the extent that he acts irrationally, he acts as his own destroyer.--Ayn Rand
and that's enough of that for now.
I got into a discussion with someone over what one should consider good art. She told me that anything that the artist considers to be art is considered art and from there, anything that is appealing to the eye. I disagree, I believe that art should be defined by 2 characteristics. The first, art must show some amount of skill in it's creation. the second is that the piece must have a purpose in mind by the artist that can be readily seen and explained.
now, by this standard, realism (which exhibits the greatest skill) is the greatest style of art with any reason behind it(but my favorite is romanticism), would be the best, but, just as in music, i find myself attracted to other styles as well. if the skill that is lacking in a piece contains an even greater purpose in mind, I still find this okay.
anyways, another thing i have a problem with is when people say every piece of art they see is good with no standard as to why or how. to explain why this is, i use the car explanation.
Let's say there are 2 cars sitting side by side. the first is the best designed car in the world, it's exterior is as beautiful as it's interior, with a engine to back up this beauty with a power befitting to it. sitting next to it, we find a junker from the 80s with enough rust to choke an elephant with and a top speed of 45 mph. now, if any person says that the latter is a better car than the former, he now is devaluing the hours and hours of work that went into the design of the former car and the time put into it's creation, when the designer could have, with a hundredth of the effort, created a piece of shit like the car next to it.
that's all
About Me
- Chuckles
- Being generally crazy all the time, i keep my insanity at bay. the voices tend to quiet when you talk for them, strange , eh?
16 comments:
i dont' think anyone has the right to judge art. it's comepletely up to whoever is viewing the art. there is no rhyme or reason to it, it just is. that's the beauty of art. it doesn't have to makes sense.
and as for the car analogy, there are people who would choose the latter. i'm one of them. that's just the way it is. you can't generalize like that. everyone is completely different and no can explain why people like certain things over others
alright then, you can define art like that, and i'll think my way, and when i say something is good, the artist will know i'm telling the truth. I judge art based on my own standards, and you can judge them based on your (lack) of standards as well.
well sure, but surely you know that the former took more skill to make and would probably succeed that the former deserves more credit, even though you choose the second (speaking of which, why would you choose the latter?)
Now I dont mean this to be rude, but that is bullshit.
Take Jackson Pollock-- one of the best artists in the 20th century. There is no skill within his work. He simply does.
And now, art that has an explanation behind is often forced and crappy. Take a look at art classes. Forced art to have meaning behind it sucks ass.
And for your car explanation-- the crappy junker is better because of many things. Nostalgia, for one. A second reason? The fancy mustang represents all that is wrong with society. Over priced, over stylized, and often too much function for the purpose. That 80s junker is almost perfect for normal people.
Ok, and Jackson is good by what or whose standards? I looked at his work and... it's a bunch of paint splatters. It so deep and soul-changing that people speculate whether or not he attempted to put a purpose into his art (In case you couldn't tell, i find him to be, at best, a third-rate painter)
What makes it monumental is the fact that he went beyond the norm. Up until him no one even bothered to try anything like that. Skill is one thing, but having the kahonas to go up against years of preconceived notions of what art "should" be is what made him monumental.
And before you go off again, maybe you should try and look at a style different than the one that you like and see what made them so amazing. There's a reason why.
to go against the norm is great, but when the only thing that defines your art is the fact that it is different and no other reason is not a reason why i should consider it good.
find an artist that you think i would dislike and tell me the reason why it's amazing(and it cannot fit the criteria, so the artist must never state the purpose and the purpose must not be readily available in the art)
james stop being an ass. no one can explain why anyone else likes something. no shoudl be forced to explain it either.
and news flash, not everyone will agree with you. you're convincing no one by being hostile
James, I was forced to join this conversation by the comments you've made about Jackson Pollock. Seriously, look at his pieces. There is movement and it's almost like a dance. He painted energy and he walked around his creations and was a part of that painting. He didn't paint things he saw or felt that he should paint, but he painted himself. Jackson Pollock is one of my favorite painters, one of the most famous artists in the entire world and the best modern painter. To insult his work by saying that it's just a bunch of paint splatters and not art - well James I find that incredibly dim-witted.
The car metaphor...I would not go as far as the other two to say that the junker is better in functionality, but I will say that I find the junker more aesthetically pleasing. That's my taste because I like things with character and I think practicality and humor will always win over enhanced performance that takes itself too seriously, regardless of top speed.
I'm going to go ahead and sum up with this: Art is in the eye of the creator. If you were to say "I am an artist" and actually pursue the creation of whatever your brand of art may be, I would not disagree with you. Realism may be your favorite form, but what about abstract, non-representational, modern, and what about other sorts of mediums that may take little or no skill? Are those not art?
Also, DO NOT EVER say that Katie Baker has a lack of standards. That's insulting and rude.
to Katie: I am not attempting to explain why anyone else likes something, i am again merely showing my opinion on the matter (you may hold whatever ideal you wish, and i will hold mine)
to Jenna: On Jackson: it's the 9/11 thing again, i see nothing in his art minus a bunch of paint splatters, if he wished to convey the movement while he was painting, he would have taped himself painting it. (and by the 9/11 thing i mean that i will not say that his art is good because you say so, i don't see it, so i won't say it's good (but i will say that it is art because i will allow that it matches the definition))
On Car: again, your opinion, personally i would not choose the nice car (cause it's not for me) but i will say that the former is a far superior car, it just doesn't fit my personal style.
On art: again, i said that there are times when the reason behind is greater than normal that realism is not necessary. but most of this "modern" stuff isn't "good" because i don't wish to define it as such. if you think i have something against modernism, i must say that picasso is one of my favorite artists simply because he had the skill, he mastered art, then went on to create an obscure style. I dislike many modern artists because they skip the skill study and just start creating their "style" and say that no one can say that their art is "bad" because they can't define anything as such cause no one can.
it's just like i would never be able to listen to aharmonic music then say that it was "good" because it is against my definition of good.
and on the Katie thing: she says that no one can judge art, which makes me belief that she doesn't have the "right" either, so me saying that, in relation to art, she lacks standards, should be irrelevant because she doesn't wish to judge art. Now, this is not meant to be rude, but merely a statement of what she has said. when you claim that no one can judge, that means that there need be no standards and when she said that, she has removed her standards to say such a thing.
TO ALL: all of what i said of art is not meant to be taken as a universal rule, it is my own opinion and I understand that others hold different opinions and that i hope that they would hold onto those opinions with their lives and never allow anyone to change them against their will. and as such, i will not change my opinions, either, do to this same rule.
then james you need to not be as offensive in your statements. you speak in fallcy and broad generalization. you essentially beg for people to argue with you, and then you refuse to hear anyone's point of view.
james, if you're going to learn anything in life you have to be able to draw upon the opinions of others. i'm sick to death of feeling the need to defend myself after reading what you've written.
i'm sorry, i just think you're wrong.
I do question why i need to draw upon the opinions of others...
but i will attempt to make my arguments more focused (sorry, i assume that people would think that i was talking of opinion, not of a statement of which i would force upon all other people(i would never force anything on anyone))
if you feel that you need to defend yourself, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take your criticism of my ideals defenselessly. I don't refuse to hear anyone's point of view, i hear it, then i put my opinion as to why i won't take their advice if i choose not too(and if they offer any) or as to why i disagree with what they said.
I did, however, enjoy your last statement. it's very broad, which is what you just said i should avoid (of course, you have already quantified what you meant, this is not an attack, i just found it humorous :D)
Well James, there's personal opinion, and then there's calling something good or bad, which you seem to have confused. Our arguments mainly make the point that art can't be "bad" or "good" because it's art. It can be your taste or not and we would be less inclined to defend ourselves if you would be so kind as to state it in that way. Saying that art is good or bad was probably not your intent because really, that IS forcing your "opinion" onto us.
Also, some art may take less skill, but often the simple pieces have a lot of meaning, and even something that looks simple may have taken a tremendous amount of skill to develop. Unless an artist goes public and says "I didn't try at all, and really it doesn't mean anything to me," then I agree that it isn't art because it wasn't made with any intent.
I agree completely with Katie's so-called "lack of standards" because if one intends to create art - whether it is a Romantic portrait or a urinal with permanent marker graffiti on it - it is art, not good, not bad, just ART.
SO, TO ALL: I think the difficulty here is the distinction between good/bad and personal taste. And just...it's really taboo to say that art is good or bad. It just is. Do you see why? Because THIS happens. James, all you need to do is state your cases accurately and people would be more receptive to your opinion.
Let me illustrate this for you:
"I got into a discussion with someone over what one should consider good art. She told me that anything that the artist considers to be art is considered art and from there, anything that is appealing to the eye. I disagree, I PERSONALLY PREFER PIECES THAT CONVEY TWO COMMON CHARACTERISTICS. The first, art I LIKE SHOWS some amount of CLASSICAL SKILL AND TRAINING in it's creation. the second is that I ENJOY PIECES WITH AN EXPLICABLE MEANING OR PURPOSE."
I don't know, but that gets across the same meaning, doesn't cut off the definition of art to only include realism, and makes you sound like an agreeable critic rather than a contrary asshole.
Oh and in a quick response to, "when i say something is good, the artist will know i'm telling the truth." : Well, James. the artist will know your opinion, not the true merit of their craft. The only justification that an artist needs is their own, but feedback is always present. If you were to go back in time and tell Jackson Pollock that his art wasn't good, he would know that you were lying. Others might agree with you, but Pollock would know for sure that you were wrong. And then I think he'd probably shank you in a drunken rage...or something.
You make me go into rants, James. And not in a good, thought-provoking way. More in an angry, why do I even bother? kind of way.
Also, again, I'm going to defend Katie from you and your condescending attitude toward her. I know you said you meant nothing by it, but really James. Be respectful to this young woman who's more tolerant than you are. Really. Don't call her arguments humorous when she obviously was giving you a serious criticism. It's healthy to learn from another's point of view and to admit if you've made a mistake in your wording or have a major flaw in a theory that someone else can point out. Life is all about absorbing information and applying it, not resisting everything that doesn't fit in with your exact philosophy. Be accepting and respectful, please. It would make dealing with you a lot easier.
Post a Comment