The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. Just finished the first volume.

I didn’t like it when I read it 20 years ago, but now I do. Many people go on about how deep and difficult it is, and fail to convey how beautiful, engrossing and enjoyable it is.

In contrast, I recently read Lord Valentine’s Castle by Robert Silverberg, having been impressed by some of his earlier books. Like the Wolfe, it has an SF-tinged fantasy setting, but it’s embarrassing, the kind of stuff that gives fantasy fiction a bad name.

"Video unavailable".

I take it it's Porcupine Tree. I noticed there was a new album. I shall listen.

OK; so it was an act of mercy (no sarcasm intended) — Bitter Crank

I don't know what you mean.

He asked to be banned? Odd, but maybe that was a self-intervention he needed. — Bitter Crank

Streetlight did not ask to be banned. That was someone else.

By the way, Ornette's harsh tone has always been a stumbling block for me — Noble Dust

He certainly made the most of the tone of the Grafton plastic sax, and I can understand why people dislike it. I really hated it myself when I first heard his music (hated everything about it actually), but he won me over in the end.

evidently an ole timer, and not a word was spoken about it by anyone. From multiple posts everyday, this fella suddenly stopped. Naturally one will wonder. — skyblack

I can confirm that this member asked to be banned.

I don't necessarily disagree with either of you, at least broadly, but the Collingwood quote I put in the OP set me thinking. According to him, some of the greatest art ever made isn't art at all, or at least was not considered such by those who made it. Here's more from Collingwood:

If people have no word for a certain kind of thing, it is because they are not aware of it as a distinct kind. Admiring as we do the art of the ancient Greeks, we naturally suppose that they admired it in the same kind of spirit as ourselves. But we admire it as a kind of art, where the word ‘art’ carries with it all the subtle and elaborate implications of the modern European aesthetic consciousness. We can be perfectly certain that the Greeks did not admire it in any such way.

The bold is mine. So how does that change things. Perhaps it doesn't for you, but I think it at least puts some strain on Jamal's distinction between craft as work product and craft as skill. — T Clark

But isn't Collingwood saying that we admire a work product as art precisely because we are so far removed from the practical use of the object?

In any case, I think it's wrong to break it down in the way that @Pinprick has done. As you've shown with your examples, and as I mentioned in passing myself, it's often precisely the perfect functionality of an object that makes it aesthetically pleasing. This distinction between function and prettiness is, to me, obviously a fruitless way of looking at it.

My question is can you have good art without good skill, craft, technique. Or maybe which matters more. — T Clark

I think maybe you sort of can, when the originality or beauty of a work outweighs the techincal flaws. I'd put this into two categories, (a) works by great artists who were nevertheless technically bad in some ways, and (b) accidentally good or interesting art made by people who are entirely unskilled and talentless.

(a) Don Quixote is full of mistakes, inconsistencies, continuity errors, boring bits, and yet it's been massively influential and loved by millions. Similarly, Henri Rousseau was a self-taught painter, clearly lacking in technical training, but was quickly considered a great and original artist by others in the art world. And his paintings are great. Crucially though, there is some kind of skill, craft, and technique going on here, just different.

(b) Outsider music is not always made by unskilled people, but the Shaggs surely is. The girls were pretty much forced to do it by their father. But the thing about this sort of thing is that, precisely because there is no conventional skill on show, it can sound refreshing, sonically interesting and arresting, etc., and it can be influential, meaning that it has a place in the world of art.

The question raised by (a) is what makes these great artists great, if it's not total technical competence? I wouldn't say it's meaning, though I wouldn't rule that out. Off the top of my head I think there can be great artistry in following a path of one's own, because doing so can produce unconventional, fascinating, and beautiful things--things that would not be the same if the artist possessed an all-round competence. So I think it comes down to a single-minded creativity and confidence in certain, sometimes narrow, directions.

If we discount (b) for the moment, maybe the proper answer is no, you can't have good art without some kind of technique, craft, or skill.

Or maybe put it like this: technique or craft is almost always required, but not necessarily the technique and craft that is traditionally handed down in formal training; certain individuals invent their own technique because they don't know any better. I just thought of another example: Ornette Coleman, the free jazz saxophonist, learned to play based on a total misconception of the notes he was playing, and his music is brilliant no doubt partly because of this:

When he learned to play the saxophone — at first using an alto saxophone his mother gave him when he was around 14 — he had not yet understood that, because of transposition between instruments, a C in the piano’s “concert key” was an A on his instrument. When he learned the truth, he said, he developed a lifelong suspicion of the rules of Western harmony and musical notation.

In essence, Mr. Coleman believed that all people had their own tonal centers. He often used the word “unison” — though not always in its more common musical-theory sense — to describe a group of people playing together harmoniously, even if in different keys.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/arts/music/ornette-coleman-jazz-saxophonist-dies-at-85-obituary.html



The way he freely shifts key in the solo starting at 1:46 is likely not something he'd have come up with if his training had gone more smoothly.

I wouldn’t call this separation “ill-conceived”, I would simply tend to regard the result as commercial art, or art produced with the intent of making money, promoting some cause, or whatever. The ‘conceptual artist’ in this case is the capitalist or boss and in this way does hold a higher status position, and reaps the lion-share of profits. It’s not just artistic concepts though, like any business it’s having access to resources that the talent lacks. — praxis

Yes, I agree. I suppose I meant rather that the separation is not the way it has to be.

Any names? — Noble Dust

Damien Hirst. Now, I know he has changed over the years but some time around 10 or 15 years ago he was asked (I can't find it online so I'm going from memory here) if skill was important to art, and his answer was something like, "no, because otherwise you might as well be doing macramé", and I remember being irritated by this dismissive attitude to skill. This and the fact that many of his works were (are?) actually produced by his employees.

As I say, he may have changed. I do know, for instance, that he does or has done his own paintings.

I'm trying to suggest that skill and creativity cannot be separated, that this is what some conceptual artists have tried to do.

What is an alternative role for the artist if she's not a creator? — Noble Dust

I didn't want to suggest that an artist is not, or should not be, a creator. Rather, I meant that artists might have been artificially elevated as practitioners of pure creativity, meaning something higher than a creativity tied to the physical aspects of making a work of art.

I wouldn't want to say that art = [craft, skill, and technique] + [vision, emotional investment, imagination], because it seems simplistic and reductive, but it might be a way of looking at it. For instance, some conceptual artists have the second addend, and the first is applied by the employees of the artist. And what does this say about conceptual art? — Jamal

Answering myself here...

What it might say is that conceptual art is a mistaken or ill-conceived separation of the two, that it's the exemplar of a belief in the false equation, art = [craft, skill, and technique] + [vision, emotional investment, imagination]. And this belief could be the result of the inflated status of the artist as creator, which is an ecomonic and sociological phenomenon.

I know people that love beautiful glassware, cabinetry, motorcycles, etc — Noble Dust

Many restaurants and homes have what I consider to be badly designed forks. I was in an Italian restaurant yesterday and ordered tagliatelle, but was shocked (shocked!) to see that my fork had short tines. Some might say that it was beautiful to look at, but if a tool is not fit for purpose, any beauty it might have is empty. Its eye-pleasing shape was superficial; for any tool, an important element in its beauty must be its functionality (and how it feels in the hand etc).

I sometimes stop to wonder why this is my favourite mug or t-shirt or sword.

Hey ND, don't derail the discussion. Agent Smith just likes to get involved in every discussion even when he doesn't have anything to say. His comment was likely more playful than malicious, and I deleted it because it wasn't a good contribution.

Craft, as an activity separate from art, aims to produce useful objects, which are more or less fit for purpose and more or less beautiful. Art aims to produce objects solely for aesthetic appreciation (which are therefore more difficult to judge).

Craft, as a part of art, is the application of traditional skills that the artist has been trained in. Or more loosely, it is the skill or technique involved in making a work of art. How important is it? I'd say very important, but it's more complicated than a linear scale of skillfulness.

They say that Van Gogh was not as accomplished a painter as Picasso, but I don't think we can say that he was an inferior artist. I suppose we might say that because Picasso had mastered the traditional artistic skills, he was more able to revolutionize art in the way he did. Things seemed to come easy for him; was that because of technical mastery?

Similarly, there have been many more technically able guitarists than Frank Zappa or Robert Fripp, but the music of, say, Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai leaves me cold. Could this be because Zappa and Fripp had other skills, not particularly involved in guitar technique, that they brought to bear on their guitar playing (harmonic awareness, note choices, etc., that they got from being composers and having a natural all-round musical knowledge and musicality)? Or do we in this case want to reach for the arty stuff to explain it: conceptual vision, emotional investment, or imagination?

Some painters are terrible at painting hands but great at other things. Can we only say they are great once they've finally managed to master hands?

It becomes apparent that craft, skill, and technique are not the same thing, or can at least encompass a range of different and overlapping kinds of abilities. One answer is that craft (and possibly technique) is the set of traditional techniques that are handed down by training, whereas skill seems to be something wider or more general.

I wouldn't want to say that art = [craft, skill, and technique] + [vision, emotional investment, imagination], because it seems simplistic and reductive, but it might be a way of looking at it. For instance, some conceptual artists have the second addend, and the first is applied by the employees of the artist. And what does this say about conceptual art?

I can recommend “From the Oasthouse”, which is a fictional podcast released as if it were a real one. Alan Partridge is one of the best comic creations of modern times, although I’m not a huge fan of the newer TV stuff.

But then aren't the children being used to promote a cause? If you believe in deontological ethics surrounding the idea of not using people as a means, this is problematic. — schopenhauer1

No, I think you misunderstood. I did not mean to suggest that children are being produced by Marxists merely as tools to bring on the new society. I was addressing your main points, from which you said it follows that Marxists should not have children:

Modern human living requires the very central aspect of laboring in a privately owned milieu.

This privately owned situation is near impossible to change. — schopenhauer1

Against the first point, many Marxists think that life is nevertheless worthwhile. Against the second, virtually all Marxists believe change is possible. So you did not carry your point.

What you're missing is that many Marxists enjoy life, thinking it's worthwhile despite the general lack of human emancipation. So it depends on the temperament of the individual Marxist--which of course applies generally for antinatalism, not just to Marxists--although I think we can say that virtually all Marxists would not like to see an end to the human species, because they don't think that progress is impossible.

Yes, I completely understand. However, (a) I'm not going to rip apart the discussion by deleting a bunch of posts that have received replies, and (b) I'm going to bed now and hereby hand over all responsibilities to @Baden. :up:

@karl stone

I'm leaving your posts here because they've received some good replies, but I'm warning you: they are off-topic, evangelical, and plainly transphobic. Any more of those posts will be deleted, and you might also be banned.

20 years before the creative use of Auto-Tune.

:up: The Talk Talk influence is very much in evidence on that one. Sounds like "New Grass".

it does have recently-widowed-40-something vibes to it at times — Noble Dust

Seems to suit me fine.

But when I decided to put it on while I was working yesterday, the nostalgic melancholy was so unbearably poignant as to be distracting. (Then I put on all of Bohren & der Club of Gore's albums for the next few hours, and wondered why I was feeling down at the end of the day.)

Ironically I've listened to this one, since I used to be a Wilson-head back in high school. — Noble Dust

I like his work with Tim (No-Man). Not a huge fan of the other stuff.

I recently found “The Album Years” with Steven Wilson and Tim Bowness.

It feels like radio to me, or how it used to feel. 30 years ago I tuned in to my favourite radio programmes each week, and now I do the same with podcasts. Plus I can listen to the old ones too.

the country was called "Russia" as a general designation.

The Soviet Union was referred to as "Russia" in every-day language including in the press. — Apollodorus

Only by ignorant outsiders.

Hi Varde, I deleted it. I couldn't make sense of it, and I judged this to be partly down to the writing. If English is not your first language then I'm sorry, but this is an English language forum and we ask that members write at a good level of standard English.

Hume, Kant and Hegel. — Jack Cummins

Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer — Jack Cummins

If it hasn't been said already, it might be important to note that Hume's and Kant's attacks on metaphysics have probably been the most important in the history of philosophy. To embrace these philosophers is not to embrace metaphysics (or, when it comes to Hume, "system building").

I'm puzzled by this phenomenon. Every so often people arrive here and start complaining about the evils of belief. What's going on? Is this a thing, some kind of movement, perhaps related to new atheism?

I agree with Banno. Also it's clear that the OP's complaint is with believing wrong or evil things, and that swearing off belief as such is going too far, not to mention impossible. Be careful about what you believe, and never think yourself infallible, and try only to believe true things rather than things that make you feel good--that seems like a more useful response to the evils that have been committed on the basis of certain beliefs. Or criticize faith, unquestioning belief, etc.

When I heard this song for the first time it seemed like the best piece of music I'd ever heard. Context is everything.

I fault that song primarily for a couple of historical inaccuracies. Rasputin was probably not the "Lover of the Russian queen" and I have not seen sources supporting the claim that he was "Russia's greatest love machine". Otherwise it's pretty much spot on.

It's a reflection of the private and perhaps even sacrosanct nature of shitting and fucking, but another aspect is probably the widespread cultural conception of these things as low and of the animal, maligned by preachers, poets, and philosophers since forever.

Current
Graham Joyce, Indigo

Recently read
Robert Silverberg, The World Inside :up:
Patricia Highsmith, The Talented Mr Ripley :up:
Richard Matheson, I Am Legend :down:

Soon to read
Orhan Pamuk, The Black Book
Jan Potocki, The Manuscript Found in Saragossa
Robert Silverberg, The Book Of Skulls
Christopher Priest, The Glamour
Italo Calvino, The Baron in the Trees
Philip K. Dick, Radio Free Albemuth
Shirley Jackson, We Have Always Lived in the Castle

Well I'm not arguing in favour of uncaused causes, just pointing out that it's not self-contradictory in the way that "nonexistent existent" is.

I guess you’re lucky he didn’t give you bigpox.

The term uncaused cause makes no sense, it's like saying the nonexistent existent — universeness

The latter is self-contradictory, but the former is not. It’s not nonsense to say that a cause is itself uncaused: it causes, but is not caused. However it is nonsense to say that something existing does not exist.

Goat pox is a thing, only it’s not conventionally a single word.

If my memory serves me right, sources of the virus include cutaneous lesions, saliva, nasal secretions and faeces, and is most likely to occur in crowded stock.

Succinct and useful :up:

A followup question might be: how much does neoliberalism allow capitalism to abandon states, that is, nation states?