Yes, I agree. What they're doing is, I often feel, a bad way of doing philosophy as well as a bad way of doing art. — jamalrob
personally I don't like the urinal — Agustino
I do agree with Thorongil that it does not give me an aesthetic experience which makes my mind come to a halt and become fully present, with no will, passions, or desires left. — Agustino
Most of the art created after this date irritates me. So I freely admit my knowledge of art history is largely determined by the art I like. — Thorongil
And what have you got against urinals? — Bitter Crank
I'm not sure when or if I experienced such a reaction to art, but... take yourself back to 1917 to the New York Armory show in which the urinal it's first and last appearance as a one-off shockeroo. it might very well have stopped any number of people in their tracks. — Bitter Crank
Like democratizing art. If I declare that something is art, then it is art. — Bitter Crank
I remembered just how strange philosophy is, you know, and you can say you really get Deleuze and Guattari or your really get Nietzsche. But there are enormous components that I find incomprehensible and bizarre and have no frikkin Idea what they are talking about. That's true with every philosopher for everybody. You know, for the greatest Kantian expert there are still moments that are just strange, you might have an explanation about what's going on there but the fact is every philosophy is very strange. Only through the institutional practices of normalizing it does it become something we can even talk about sanely and not sound like lunatics.
It's the same with art, you look at Pollack and he is scattering this paint on a canvas and your thinking 'what the hell are you doing dude, what the hell are you doing?' Or your look at an elaborate luscious classical scene of rape which seems to be a very common theme to a certain time... What a strange thing to do. But within an institution of art, somehow within this field of immanence or the field of affective perceptual practice that Pollack operates in, scattering paint on a canvas, putting the canvas on the floor, not looking at anything but the canvas right, not looking at an object to portray it. Overcoming all mimetic aspects or components of art, just to make art an event of splattering paint on a canvas over and against any object, the object is the paint, the object is the canvas right. There is no other object other than the act of painting, well that makes perfect sense from the perspective of Jackson Pollack and studying the history of modern art we can say 'yes, this make sense'. It's the same with philosophy, philosophy is very strange it's very personal it's very idiosyncratic... — Rough Transcription
It's the same with art, you look at a pollack and he is scattering this paint on a canvas and your thinking 'what the hell are you doing dood, what the hell are you doing?' — Rough Transcription
Did they (as I have sort of always supposed) try to 'communicate' via their art at all and if so... why didn't they simply write a book or just say what they had in mind rather than to go to all the trouble of making us sort of 'feel their intentions' via paint of a canvas? — Mayor of Simpleton
Not all art is for everyone...
... I can live with that.
Can you? — Mayor of Simpleton
To be fair...
... any realist after the invention of the camera should have just take an photo and saved us the effort of bothering to look at their efforts of representation, eh? — Mayor of Simpleton
To be honest, the quote is unclear to me, so I can't honestly say how much it does in overcoming my conception of art. — Thorongil
FIND IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FREE ICE TO WRITE ABOUT JEEPAXLE MY WORK. THE CONCEPT I PLANTATARIUM [sic] STRUGGLE TO DEAL WITH KETCHUP IS OPPOED [author’s note: the s has been dropped from “opposed”] TO THE LOGICAL CONTINUITY LIFT TAB INHERENT IN LANGUAGE HORSES AND COMMUNICATION.
MY FASCINATION WITH IMAGES OPEN 24 HRS. IS BASED ON THE COMPLEX INTERLOCKING OF DISPARATE VISUAL FACTS HEATED POOL THAT HAVE NO RESPECT FOR GRAMMAR. THE FORM THEN DENVER 39 IS SECOND HAND TO NOTHING. THE WORK THEN HAS A CHANCE TO ELECTRIC SERVICE BECOME ITS OWN CLICHÉ. LUGGAGE. THIS IS THE INEVITABLE FATE FAIR GROUND OF ANY INANIMATE OBJECT FREIGHTWAYS.
I don't understand how it can make sense to say that the Platonic Ideas can be represented. — John
I think Schopenhauer's use of the Ideas in his aesthetic theory is a vapid distortion of Platonism — John
What do you take representational art to be representing? — John
Thorongil: The Platonic Idea. — Thorongil
I don't believe I said or implied that, and if I did, my apologies for the unclarity. — Thorongil
And just where do you draw the line between the figurative and the abstract? What do you think of these landscapes by Turner, Cézanne, and Strindberg? — jamalrob
music can represent tension and release, climax and decay, chaos and order, solidity and ethereality, surprise, etc. — jamalrob
Did they (as I have sort of always supposed) try to 'communicate' via their art at all and if so... why didn't they simply write a book or just say what they had in mind rather than to go to all the trouble of making us sort of 'feel their intentions' via paint of a canvas? — Mayor of Simpleton
They communicate, certainly, but what they communicate are not concepts, as one finds contained in books. They communicate the Ideas, or universals, of the particulars of which they paint. An Idea is not the same as a concept. Concepts do not transport us out of time, as happens in aesthetic experience, only Ideas do, seeing as they do not exist in time. Hence, "conceptual" art is a contradiction in terms. — Thorongil
Not all art is for everyone...
... I can live with that.
Can you? — Mayor of Simpleton
Sure, but some things purported to be art I do not find to be art. Can you live with definitions that clearly demarcate the limits of concepts? A definition that includes everything is no definition at all. I do not mean to denigrate the creations of Duchamp et al, but I do mean to exclude them from what it means to be art. — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.