jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeSeptember 14, 2012 - 5:22pm
"It's my general impression this place is geared towards advice and instruction from a careerist point of view."
Exactly. Many of us, myself included, want to do this for a living and are taking the necessary steps to get there. Perhaps that's just not your bag.
Perhaps not. But I've never criticized someone for going that route, have I? Told them they were wasting their time? I don't believe I have and I don't believe I would.
Class Facilitator
ReneeAPickup
from Southern California is reading Wanderers by Chuck WendigSeptember 15, 2012 - 11:21pm
JY--If everyone in the entire forum is reading you wrong, it's probably the way you're presenting yourself and not the fact that we're all just big dumb meanies.
And it's not that a debate about art is irrelevant. It's that THIS debate about art is irrelevant. Because you're not actually debating.You may not write to have something to brag about, but you certainly seem to want to prove something here. Again, if I am wrong, you might want to re-read your posts and think about how you're presenting yourself.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeSeptember 16, 2012 - 7:43am
^ I have no idea why you wrote that. My last few remarks have been to Brandon. But you're right, at this point there is no active debate; I am not currently debating, and I realize this.
bryanhowie
from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING.September 21, 2012 - 9:06am
Back to the original idea, I feel like we've got to the point where we recognize Craft as something that can be learned. Art, on the other hand, is up in the air. Some people say it is intrinsic to the creation, some say it is the object that pocesses the spirit of art, and some say that art takes place between the object and the observer (mostly me, it seems).
So, my question now is, what would you NOT consider art. I know we've had a plain chair described as not art, but what other examples do you think apply?
(as a side note, here's a VERY not-safe-for-work blog post about Tubgirl being considered art: The Importance of Seeing Tubgirl)
drea
from Rural Alberta, Canada is reading between the linesSeptember 21, 2012 - 9:13am
Thank you, bryanhowie for picking off the mental scab my consciousness had healed over Tubgirl.
bryanhowie
from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING.September 21, 2012 - 9:15am
It's what I do. I never could resist picking a scab.
drea
from Rural Alberta, Canada is reading between the linesSeptember 21, 2012 - 9:19am
Me, either. I showed a girlfriend the image and she lost her proverbial shit, and when I went to click it shut with half closed eyes, I accidentally enlarged Tubgirl to the full size of her 32" monitor. Ha, ha, ha. She has not trusted me with a link or image since that day three years ago...
(great blog post, BTW; it reminded me of the University student's critique of 2 Girls 1 Cup as a film and the Prof's subsequent review. Internet gold.)
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeSeptember 21, 2012 - 1:54pm
[I thought I left a comment about the comment box. "Shenanigans!" or "Thanks for not deleting everything else I've written, great master."]
I don't believe you can prove what isn't something unless you know what that something is. You can't prove a negative, only disprove a positive. Therefore, while "art" is up in the air, so is "not-art," yes?
Real Life: If I think something is art, I'll say so. If I don't think something is art, I'll say so. If I don't know and haven't the sightest idea whether it's art, I'll say so. I'm not an expert on other people's work, and so I can only speak with absolute certainty about my own work's "art." And even then, of course, people would have to believe me for my opinion to matter.
avery of the dead
from Kentucky is reading Cipher SistersSeptember 21, 2012 - 2:02pm
"Thanks for not deleting everything else I've written, great master."
That one.
"You can't prove a negative"
WRONG! Amaerican justice system would disagree with you.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeSeptember 21, 2012 - 2:19pm
They make a case against the positive claims made by the opposition. They disprove charges brought against the defendant. They disprove assertions made by the prosecution. They do not "prove a negative." They prove things which contradict other things, or disprove things.
If they demonstrate how "it couldn't have been my client because he was in Taipei at the time," it is in response to the prosecution's claim that "it could have been, or was" their client.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeSeptember 21, 2012 - 2:23pm
[This is just a semantic-logic thing. I think I'm right, but I might very well be off-base.]
drea
from Rural Alberta, Canada is reading between the linesSeptember 21, 2012 - 4:33pm
Perhaps not. But I've never criticized someone for going that route, have I? Told them they were wasting their time? I don't believe I have and I don't believe I would.
JY--If everyone in the entire forum is reading you wrong, it's probably the way you're presenting yourself and not the fact that we're all just big dumb meanies.
And it's not that a debate about art is irrelevant. It's that THIS debate about art is irrelevant. Because you're not actually debating.You may not write to have something to brag about, but you certainly seem to want to prove something here. Again, if I am wrong, you might want to re-read your posts and think about how you're presenting yourself.
^ I have no idea why you wrote that. My last few remarks have been to Brandon. But you're right, at this point there is no active debate; I am not currently debating, and I realize this.
Back to the original idea, I feel like we've got to the point where we recognize Craft as something that can be learned. Art, on the other hand, is up in the air. Some people say it is intrinsic to the creation, some say it is the object that pocesses the spirit of art, and some say that art takes place between the object and the observer (mostly me, it seems).
So, my question now is, what would you NOT consider art. I know we've had a plain chair described as not art, but what other examples do you think apply?
(as a side note, here's a VERY not-safe-for-work blog post about Tubgirl being considered art: The Importance of Seeing Tubgirl)
Thank you, bryanhowie for picking off the mental scab my consciousness had healed over Tubgirl.
It's what I do. I never could resist picking a scab.
Me, either. I showed a girlfriend the image and she lost her proverbial shit, and when I went to click it shut with half closed eyes, I accidentally enlarged Tubgirl to the full size of her 32" monitor. Ha, ha, ha. She has not trusted me with a link or image since that day three years ago...
(great blog post, BTW; it reminded me of the University student's critique of 2 Girls 1 Cup as a film and the Prof's subsequent review. Internet gold.)
[I thought I left a comment about the comment box. "Shenanigans!" or "Thanks for not deleting everything else I've written, great master."]
I don't believe you can prove what isn't something unless you know what that something is. You can't prove a negative, only disprove a positive. Therefore, while "art" is up in the air, so is "not-art," yes?
Real Life: If I think something is art, I'll say so. If I don't think something is art, I'll say so. If I don't know and haven't the sightest idea whether it's art, I'll say so. I'm not an expert on other people's work, and so I can only speak with absolute certainty about my own work's "art." And even then, of course, people would have to believe me for my opinion to matter.
"Thanks for not deleting everything else I've written, great master."
That one.
"You can't prove a negative"
WRONG! Amaerican justice system would disagree with you.
They make a case against the positive claims made by the opposition. They disprove charges brought against the defendant. They disprove assertions made by the prosecution. They do not "prove a negative." They prove things which contradict other things, or disprove things.
If they demonstrate how "it couldn't have been my client because he was in Taipei at the time," it is in response to the prosecution's claim that "it could have been, or was" their client.
[This is just a semantic-logic thing. I think I'm right, but I might very well be off-base.]
Art or Craft? Discuss <Warning: do not have any beverages in your mouth when you open this link> http://gawker.com/5936665/heres-what-happened-when-an-elderly-man-took-it-upon-himself-to-restore-a-painting-in-a-nearby-church
I appreciate that this discussion has merit for art critics, etc.
As a writer it's enough for me to know this much; The great artists have been master craftsmen.