ATTN: LMNO PEE: I IZ TOO STOOPID TO "GET" AUTECHRE

[LMNO]

As I said, I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like something that I do or don't like.

What really bothers me is when they can't explain why, or don't even bother trying.  It just seems lazy to me, and it stifles communicaton and thought.

[East Coast Hustle]

OK, but you DO enjoy that people get confused and/or upset when you have them listen to stuff like that, right?

I know I would. In fact, I do, it's just that I use technical death metal to achieve that effect rather than asymmetrical electronica.

[Telarus]

I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."


The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'...  (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.

Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...

[P3nT4gR4m]

Yeah! Sometimes I just like stuff though but, yeah, for the most part it's cool to look a bit deeper.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As I said, I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like something that I do or don't like.

What really bothers me is when they can't explain why, or don't even bother trying.  It just seems lazy to me, and it stifles communicaton and thought.

Why? Everybody has different priorities and devotes their energy to certain things. Why don't you make glass pipes, LMNO? Can you explain or justify it beyond "I don't want to"? Or "I chose to put my time and energy into other arenas"?

Is "It is not aesthetically pleasing to my particular taste" a good enough explanation? Because it's just a wordier way of saying "I don't like it".

I don't like modern jazz, and the reason is because I don't like it. I don't even enjoy thinking or talking about why I do or don't like certain music, because it feels like a trivial waste of time and energy over something that is completely unimportant to me. Is that a stifling of communication or thought? Am I intellectually lazy? Or are you just insecure because other people don't prioritize the same things you do, and it makes you afraid that they might not think your priorities are worthy?

[LMNO]

OK, but you DO enjoy that people get confused and/or upset when you have them listen to stuff like that, right?

I know I would. In fact, I do, it's just that I use technical death metal to achieve that effect rather than asymmetrical electronica.

I usually keep that stuff in reserve, to use whenever someone starts babbling on about how "weird" the music they like is.  And the fun thing is, even if they say things like, "I listen to weird music like Autechre", you can always counter with The Shaggs.


In the same way, I usually keep the Stooges' "I Got A Right" (1969), Motorhead's "The Hammer" (1980), and Bad Brains' "Big Takeover" (1982) in reserve for when people brag about how they like how "heavy and powerful" today's music is.

[LMNO]

As I said, I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like something that I do or don't like.

What really bothers me is when they can't explain why, or don't even bother trying.  It just seems lazy to me, and it stifles communicaton and thought.

Why? Everybody has different priorities and devotes their energy to certain things. Why don't you make glass pipes, LMNO? Can you explain or justify it beyond "I don't want to"? Or "I chose to put my time and energy into other arenas"?

Is "It is not aesthetically pleasing to my particular taste" a good enough explanation? Because it's just a wordier way of saying "I don't like it".

I don't like modern jazz, and the reason is because I don't like it. I don't even enjoy thinking or talking about why I do or don't like certain music, because it feels like a trivial waste of time and energy over something that is completely unimportant to me. Is that a stifling of communication or thought? Am I intellectually lazy? Or are you just insecure because other people don't prioritize the same things you do, and it makes you afraid that they might not think your priorities are worthy?

Would an adequate response be, "It bothers me because it bothers me"?

[BabylonHoruv]

I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."


The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'...  (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.

Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...

I think the designers who designed the soupcan (and it's label) might disagree with you.  I know the designers of Levi Jeans would.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Levis are art. Especially a pair of black 501's with my ass in them.

[Telarus]

I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."


The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'...  (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.

Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...

I think the designers who designed the soupcan (and it's label) might disagree with you.  I know the designers of Levi Jeans would.

I think you're mistaking Concept Art and Design for a final product, classic Map/Territory mistake. There's where I see that difference: The Tempest is a work of art. Does that make every single cheap pulp paperpack copy of it sold for $3 "A Work Of Art"?

[I gotta admit, I didn't have a clear concept of what a Concept Artist did before attending AI]

[BabylonHoruv]

I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."


The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'...  (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.

Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...

I think the designers who designed the soupcan (and it's label) might disagree with you.  I know the designers of Levi Jeans would.

I think you're mistaking Concept Art and Design for a final product, classic Map/Territory mistake. There's where I see that difference: The Tempest is a work of art. Does that make every single cheap pulp paperpack copy of it sold for $3 "A Work Of Art"?

[I gotta admit, I didn't have a clear concept of what a Concept Artist did before attending AI]

That $3 paperback is art in the same way that a print of a Van Gogh painting is art.  Same for Levi's or a soup can, or what have you.  A reproduction of art is a lot closer to being art than a map is to being the territory. 

[Telarus]

Well, fuck, then we're back to "anything touched/formed by human hands", and haven't we rendered the term meaningless?


Or have we all been arguing a fictional binary function where-as reality is shades of probability........


Does Art exist in some strange Quantum Superposition... oh shit, did I have to go there? 

[LMNO]

If we look at how the definition of "ART" has been trending since the dawn of civilization, we must necessarily broaden our scope to incorporate artists who attempt to cross those boundries of what is acceptable.  Eventually, we have to water it down to phrases like, "art is what you can get away with" or "art is deliberatly intended change within a context".  And even those definitions may prove to be inadequate.

[P3nT4gR4m]

That's why my definition is entirely subjective. Art isn't the thing I experience, it's how I experience it. Art is a reaction. It isn't even necessarily a reaction to something created, on purpose, by an artist. I look at shit, or I listen to shit and I judge it art, in my head.

[LMNO]

But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?