Ironically I think it’s this subjectivity and the impossibility of getting outside of it that’s led to the relativism we experience in so many aspects of life today and led consequently to the what can only be described as the commodification of art.

Because anything can be said to be art then anyone can be an artist, and so the world is flooded with ‘art’ that is meaningless and flourishes in a world of personal preference. Consequently anyone’s opinion about art is also valid.

Can this really be all that art ever was, or has it become this?

While I wish your post convinced everyone I myself still see a problem.

Someone might read a book and take no more from it than they might from a film. There are books that do no more than that, so basic and rudimentary is the narrative and characters.

The idea of interpretive imagination to understand the meaning of the text is still subject to whoever is reading it: some may bring more to the reading than others, some may have less experience to apply to the reading, some may interpret it from their cultural background. So how can we agree on the degree of nuance and subtlety?

To know that animals produce art you would have to prove they’re doing it as a conscious act.

Art is not just man made, all animals have their arts. — Schzophr

What arts?

Can you be sure you’re not applying your subjective opinion on what art is, that what you recognise as art is just yourself applying our concept of art to something that happens outside of human activity?

Some say a piece of art is but a fart,
Transformers save the universe,
And Hamlet only dies, not smart,
Where is the might? Who is real bard?
O art, thy heart, so full of surprise — Henri

I’m sure there’s a moral in there somewhere.

Yes, in fact those words are used by me on special occasions, so to speak. They have a purpose.

It’s true, this is an Antinatalism Post.

Sending a generation out into space who will bear and raise children as they fly to their destination is the same as having children here on Earth and sending them out into the future.

Women don’t have children because they want to give a child a life, they have children because they want a child, then they try to make a life for it. The desire to have the child comes before the child’s interests.

The only way to address the ethical decision is to refuse to have children because it’s likely that child’s life will be difficult and possibly unwanted. Having a child is a selfish act, mixed with love for the child no doubt, but still for the Mother’s satisfaction.

So, the trip into outer space is unethical. There’s no way the birth and life of the children can be justified.

:up:

I was paraphrasing what you seemed to be implying. — Unseen

No, that wasn’t me, wasn’t my comment.

I think I created my own cage, because as time went on I was less inclined to take on the difficulties that would eventuate if I didn’t conform a little. Admittedly society is a tough master, but the choice is there every day.

Edit: But those choices also led me away from myself so that I wasn’t trapped in my own thoughts.

Nor do you get citizenship merely by agreeing to the laws of the USA, you have to be accepted.

it appears 'the blessings of liberty' belong to those who have agreed to the social contract. That would be signified by a person agreeing to keep the laws of the USA — ernestm

Which would be signified by becoming a citizen. Citizenship is an agreement and acceptance. So those amendments apply only to citizens.

“In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.” Wikipedia.

‘The scope of the Constitution is twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty",’ Wikipedia.

You would think that the idea of ‘the blessings of liberty’, if they mean anything should apply to all people. So shouldn’t the spirit of the 1st and 2nd amendment apply to all people of the world?

Though I accept things are not that simple.

They days, usually because the people who were commissioned to make it are related to politicians. Most frequently, spouses of city officials. — ernestm

Which is an interesting point. The use of the word elite in these posts is beginning to get very general and broad. But in your case I would regard them as part of the elite. I’d like to refine this use of the word ‘elite’, mainly because my question is going to be: if there is a group of people who understand art more than others, let’s call them the ones inside the movement, then why shouldn’t their opinions have precedent over the general appreciation and understanding of that work? If you are conscious and understanding of Cubism then why shouldn’t your opinions be taught over the general ideas of personal preference?

I was saying you need that if you want to know the purpose the artist had in mind, — Terrapin Station

I might add to that, that if the artist had no purpose or intent then what are they doing, what does their art represent, why is it there and why should it be valued above others?

Surely art is presented to you (to us) by the artist, and we like it or we don't. I can imagine that, sometimes, the artist might pass along some idea of her intention, but is this really necessary? Do you need art to be explained to you before you will like it, or to persuade you (how? :chin: ) to like it? — Pattern-chaser

This is where things begin to diverge a little, or a lot. If someone is looking at Picasso’s ‘Ma Jolie’ without any idea of what’s going on then they’re going to be mystified and maybe just turn away. Others may like just the appearance of it without understanding. Sometimes things do need explaining, probably every new art movement needs explaining. So it’s not just about liking something. The artists has a purpose, an intent and a challenge. Just looking at it as an appealing object is far removed from what the artist had in mind.

These tendencies would have to be suppressed before the space ship is built, before the destination is discovered. Life abroad the starship Enterprise under Picard was peaceful and purposeful because the tendency to discontent, tribalism, revolution, murder, patricide, mass murder (and more) had been trained out of human society. (somehow -- not explained in any of the episodes). — Bitter Crank

This is a very long trip, plenty of time for a bit of bio genetic manipulation. Of course by the time they reach their destination they would no longer be human.

↪Brett Slavery changes people for the better. Whether they like it or not, I guess. — Unseen

I don’t understand this.

Really? So if you were a policeman, or a councillor, what language would you use interviewing a young girl who had been raped?
— Brett

My point is that any "language" should be considered acceptable...and polite. We should not be artificially designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good." — Frank Apisa

‘Should, should, should. You’re all over the place and you ignore everyone else’s comments.

Did you chose not to answer my question.

Sorry. To reassure you, it was a joke, intended to suggest that this is a silly trollish topic. I used to take my daughter swimming, and there is a delicate moment when a child becomes aware of the niceties of social conformity and decides to go alone to the 'appropriate' room. And just to end the controversy, it is the delicate sensitivity of the child that must be respected, and philosophers politicians, lawyers should all keep their damn noses out. — unenlightened

:up:

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa

Really? So if you were a policeman, or a councillor, what language would you use interviewing a young girl who had been raped?

If the people on the spaceship can't change from what the first generation were, human nature still operating as it always has, then it's unlikely the ship will reach its destination: discontent, tribalism, revolution, murder, patricide, mass murder.

If the ship does reach its destination then it's because these things didn't happen and the nature of men and women had changed for the better.

If they reach the planet the journey was worth it.

I was thinking the trip might change them for the better.

But why should the second generation pay the price for what their parents did? The context of the ship, the nature of living like that, generation to generation, time, new lessons, could change who they are.

:up:

But I could teach the concept of "symbolism" just as well using a Transformers movie, and many other concepts as well — ZhouBoTong

I’m not disagreeing. When I said ‘nah’ I’m just being flippant. It’s how we elites roll.

Well, I'm not in control of the mission, but I think keeping them in the dark is going to be necessary to stem rebellion. — Unseen

The problem is that the first generation experienced the past, they know.

You’re probably right, though sailing to the New World (I was actually thinking of the settlers who left the East Coast for the mid west) might have seemed like that back then.

So in a way art is a closed circle. — Brett

I should add that there are many closed circles, some big, some small. They’re closed only in the sense that you get it or you don’t. Some get William Burroughs, some don’t, some get Harold Pinter, some don’t, some get Van Gogh, some don’t, I never have. But I accept the love others have for him. ‘Transformers’, nah.

I get the sense that you were thinking I want to replace half of all literature with films. — ZhouBoTong

No, I wasn’t thinking that, well I don’t think so (I can’t be bothered even going back over my own posts). Anyway, I don’t now. Like I said, if kids aren’t going to engage with books and if things are going nowhere then why not use film?

But, because students don’t want to engage with books is no reason to let them have it their way. However, if I was going to use a film for the purpose of education it wouldn’t be ‘Transformers’.

Your logic is unassailable. Most of your posts are reasonable even, most times, under pressure. And in the case of art and subjectivity I agree with you, even though I don’t want to.

The visual arts has been a central interest all my life and it’s difficult for me to accept that the appreciation of art is subjective, that it’s based on preferences. But there’s no way I can see of getting around it, though it’s hard to accept that some work I look at is not better than others or worse.

It’s partly because of this subjectivity that enables so many charlatans to operate and even steer or influence the course of art. Which is why it’s hard to go along with.

I’ve tried to look at this on a steady incline, where it’s still within the bounds of The Principles and Elements of art. A portrait is a good start. It has to have the basic features of a face: even at its most basic children will draw a circle with two dots or circles for eyes. Then the eyes have to resemble the subject, the nose, the mouth, and so on. These are all based on the the principles of art. So, so far it’s logical and clear what’s working and what isn’t happening, success or failure. But we’re still going up that incline. Then there might be expressions of the subject, things not fixed, but recognisable. The expressions are still formed by the principles of art.
But after that things get difficult. The artist might use colour to suggest character, or darkness, the features of the face may take second place, the portrait becomes more about the personality, or even how the painter ‘knows’ or ‘sees’ the subject.

Now we’re crossing the line, moving away from the stability and logic of the principles of art.

Picasso’s portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler crashes right through the line. Now you have to know something about Picasso, Cubism, and what Kahnweiler looks like to appreciate it. If one had an understanding of Cubism then they would see the logic applied, the principles of Cubism in action. If you didn’t have this understanding you’d regard it as the work of a moron.

So in a way art is a closed circle. People can call those inside ‘the elite’ if they want, but they have a greater appreciation of what’s happening in a painting than someone who just wants to see a Picasso and see if it’s true that he paints like a child.

This doesn’t explain much except my position.

In the described situation, generations of humans will live out their lives in the service of the mission. — Unseen

Is this service a voluntary act? Is the first generation in the space craft serving a purpose for the sake of the future of mankind or seeking something better for themselves like the settlers of the mid west?

I don’t imagine the following generation of the first settlers in the mid west felt they were slaves to an idea. However, if they heard that they had been used to perpetuate an idea from the past then they may consider it differently.

What now happens, is, Bolton claims, there will not be mutually assured destruction after he uses tactical nuclear devices. The most the Russians can justifiably do is use nuclear bunkerbusters themselves. — ernestm

Interesting. So they’ll fight each other on an agreed upon breaking of the rules. Sort of a gentleman’s agreement.

But this doesn't address Wallows thoughts on SDI which is a defence strategy making America impregnable. What you're talking about us another offence weapon.

All your posts contain very accessible information. How do we know this isn't another version of Reagon's SDI strategy?

That’s very interesting. Once again, did it work or have we been lucky? I’m guessing it worked in the sense, as I understand it, that the USSR backed down. SDI was poker.

The USA already did enact it. The name says it. It was only strategic. It was always a technical impossibility. And it was effective. — ernestm

Im a bit confused here. It can only be enacted if we had the lasers. Yet you say it was effective. But in fact we were still living the MAD strategy.

↪Brett its SDI not STI. — ernestm

Oh, no wonder it sounded like a disease. Thanks.

That’s interesting. Then both are illusions. An illusion for each age.

I’m interested in Wallows existential imperative. When he says ‘we’ I’m assuming he means the USA, which I accept and understand. Assuming such a thing as STI (sounds like a disease) is possible and was enacted what sort of country would this make America? Would it be better or worse?

But then if people feel safe and secure, even if it’s only a perception, then I’d guess they’re less likely to behave aggressively.