Danneskjold Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Victor,RCR,......It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on. -VictorThere's a dubious apology . I think what you said there is that it's his mistake that he thought you meant what you said? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) Victor,RCR,......It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on. -VictorThere's a dubious apology . I think what you said there is that it's his mistake that he thought you meant what you said? ;)Jeff, I am not apologizing at all. Christian is attributing positions to me that I do not hold. It is a standard ploy practiced by button-pushers who feel that they are on thin ice when it comes to “intellectual combat” and start to commit the various intellectual sins I listed on “Intellectual debate—the good, the bad, and the ugly.” Now that I deny having ever said what has been attributed to me, let’s see if he acknowledges what I am in fact stating - and therein we’ll either see further intellectual dishonesty or a person who back peddles once having committed the infraction in the first place. Sit back, grab some pop corn and observe. -Victor Edited January 27, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (sigh)Dishonest?Why not misunderstood? Is that not an option?Why not do like I did with Ellen elsewhere and state that if my words conveyed the wrong meaning, regardless of why, it was not intended, and then explain further what the intended meaning was? Nobody has a crystal ball and communication is often difficult when people feel strongly about matters. Notice that neither Ellen nor I got close to the word "dishonest" (or "evader" or "concrete bound" or any of that other crap).Notice the good vibes.Notice the understanding.Notice the confidence and happiness in addressing each other.Maybe attempting proper understanding is not as much fun as standard Objectivist put-downs? What kind of soul does that show?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 Maybe attempting proper understanding is not as much fun as standard Objectivist put-downs? What kind of soul does that show?Michael,One who has a lot of experience with this type of thing, but I am still able to offer the benefit of the doubt when given a reason. -Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Victor,RCR,......It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on. -VictorThere's a dubious apology . I think what you said there is that it's his mistake that he thought you meant what you said? ;) Bingo.RCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) Yes, I am aware that there was a modernist movement in architecture. But this is not art. My discussion on this thread (among others) has been about art and only art. It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on.Uh...earth to Victor....the discussion referenced was not about architecture, the discussion was about specific works by FLW and Victor Hugo that I posted, which I consider to be abstract modernism (something you've universally decried as not requiring any "skill" to create). Further, I acknowledged that you may not be of the opinion that these specific works by FLW and Victor Hugo that I POSTED were art--but that they none-the-less took "skill" and "vision". So your retort above about only talking about "art" is pretty meaningless. Your reply in the original thread was crystal clear, "There is no 'vision' or 'skill' in said works. And I mean it". Your follow-up response above is a remarkable display of back-peddling...and I think pretty much everyone here can see that. Now, I may have been overly general when I recently wrote that you claimed, "Frank Lloyd Wright and Victor Hugo didn't have or utilize 'skill'"...and probably should have added, "in the creation of the pieces that I posted here". But, I find it difficult to understand how someone can be of the opinion that FLW's buildings took "skill", but that this art-glass work did not....So, if you want to change your original position and say that the works that I posted did require "skill" and "vision", fine. Or, if you want to stick by what you actually said, great. But, this silly dance of yours is really becoming tiresome.RCR Edited January 27, 2007 by R. Christian Ross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Victor,RCR,......It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on. -VictorThere's a dubious apology . I think what you said there is that it's his mistake that he thought you meant what you said? ;) Jeff, I am not apologizing at all. Christian is attributing positions to me that I do not hold. It is a standard ploy practiced by button-pushers who feel that they are on thin ice when it comes to "intellectual combat" and start to commit the various intellectual sins I listed on "Intellectual debate—the good, the bad, and the ugly." Now that I deny having ever said what has been attributed to me, let's see if he acknowledges what I am in fact stating - and therein we'll either see further intellectual dishonesty or a person who back peddles once having committed the infraction in the first place. Sit back, grab some pop corn and observe. -Victor LOL. Victor, I'm curious, have you ever heard the term "shadow-self"?RCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 Victor,RCR,......It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on. -VictorThere's a dubious apology . I think what you said there is that it's his mistake that he thought you meant what you said? ;) Jeff, I am not apologizing at all. Christian is attributing positions to me that I do not hold. It is a standard ploy practiced by button-pushers who feel that they are on thin ice when it comes to "intellectual combat" and start to commit the various intellectual sins I listed on "Intellectual debate—the good, the bad, and the ugly." Now that I deny having ever said what has been attributed to me, let's see if he acknowledges what I am in fact stating - and therein we'll either see further intellectual dishonesty or a person who back peddles once having committed the infraction in the first place. Sit back, grab some pop corn and observe. -Victor LOL. Victor, I'm curious, have you ever heard the term "shadow-self"?RCRYeah, that's telling me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) Lately, I've been getting the distinct impression that Victor and RCR won't be getting together for beer and burgers anytime soon. Just not feelin' any love in the room...nope. Once again, I feel obligated to suggest winter-rules Greco Roman Wrestling (insulated thongs and snowboots permitted).rdeYikes... Edited January 27, 2007 by Rich Engle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Victor,RCR,......It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on. -VictorThere's a dubious apology . I think what you said there is that it's his mistake that he thought you meant what you said? ;) Jeff, I am not apologizing at all. Christian is attributing positions to me that I do not hold. It is a standard ploy practiced by button-pushers who feel that they are on thin ice when it comes to "intellectual combat" and start to commit the various intellectual sins I listed on "Intellectual debate—the good, the bad, and the ugly." Now that I deny having ever said what has been attributed to me, let's see if he acknowledges what I am in fact stating - and therein we'll either see further intellectual dishonesty or a person who back peddles once having committed the infraction in the first place. Sit back, grab some pop corn and observe. -Victor LOL. Victor, I'm curious, have you ever heard the term "shadow-self"?RCRYeah, that's telling me. LOL. I'll take that as a "no".RCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 This thread has regressed beyond hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 ~ I'd get into the discussion in this thread, but, the original topic went out the window after the flame-fest got going on Vic. I'll check out the other (a)esthetic threads.LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 ~ I'd get into the discussion in this thread, but, the original topic went out the window after the flame-fest got going on Vic. I'll check out the other (a)esthetic threads.LLAPJ:DI think people took objection to me when I criticized shit on a canvas. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Vic:~ I'm unclear as to what you mean. How does one 'criticize' shit-on-canvas? One just 'identifies' such for what it is, no? Like paint-on-canvas. --- I do understand that there's now a debate regarding shit being acceptably useable as a medium in art [what's next? a mixing with fetus-blood and fish-heads?], but, that's a different subject from merely identifying that it's there, isn't it?~ Man, why can't this debate just stick with whether a 4-yr-old's fingerpaint is 'art' or not?LLAPJ:DP.S: Oops! I interjected myself herein, on your behalf, no less; n-o-w watch the, er, 'paint' hit the fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Vic:~ As concretely irrelevent as this little story of mine may be, it may be quite metaphorically relevent.I worked at a (then called, now, I don't know, nor care in these 'PC'-times) state Training School. It was where parents unable to deal with their retarded kids (mainly because of 'tantrums' by 150+ lb'rs) sent (in some cases 'dumped') them.~ Some 15-60 yr-olds had the behaviour/brainpower of no more than a 2-5 yr-old. Most had the strength of their physical yrs. Think about that for a moment while thinking of tantrum-throwing. Some found an 'artistic' bent: feces-using as an 'art'-medium. These few, if left alone and unobserved for 10 mins really covered their room walls and bed (and, if they target you...heh...they had extra ammo available) with feces.~ Guess what the unofficial 'nickname' was given to them by the ones ('aides') that had to deal with this?~ "Painters."LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) Vic:~ I'm unclear as to what you mean. How does one 'criticize' shit-on-canvas? One just 'identifies' such for what it is, no? Like paint-on-canvas. --- I do understand that there's now a debate regarding shit being acceptably useable as a medium in art [what's next? a mixing with fetus-blood and fish-heads?], but, that's a different subject from merely identifying that it's there, isn't it?~ Man, why can't this debate just stick with whether a 4-yr-old's fingerpaint is 'art' or not?LLAPJ:DP.S: Oops! I interjected myself herein, on your behalf, no less; n-o-w watch the, er, 'paint' hit the fan!John, Yes, I agree with you. I am proud to stand up and to announce without reservation that the Emperor has no clothes! Since I’m speaking of famous literature, do you know about Cloud Cuckoo? Cloud Cuckoo Land is the fictional city in the clouds from Aristophanes’s play “The Birds”--a parody of the mystical fantasies of the philosopher Plato and his followers. This seems like the ideal location for a Modernist exhibition ---based on a gossamer foundation of fiction and fantasy. The play Cloud Cuckoo Land will be compromised of the self anointed mediocrity of mindless institutional bureaucrats and pontificating journalists fawning over toilet installations and feigning erudition over asinine ‘creations’. It is the modernist ideologues who are behind closed doors banning, censoring and relegating to the gutter of oblivion the truly talented. It is you and me—and anyone else--that can put a stop to the injustice of impoverishing talented artists by demanding your money back should you stumble into a modernist scrap yard.-Victor Edited February 13, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Vic: Finally...(well, don't take that literally)...~ I sometimes wonder how much money those rooms and mattresses could've added to the state treasury (and, given legislators reason to cut back our taxes!) if handled properly in the right galleries (or 'venues'...whatever); especially after being properly appreciated by the obviously quite knowledgeable 'modern-art' appreciators who've shown up in the threads you started in this forum.LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) John,You know, I agreed with Rand even before I knew her thoughts about art. Modernists contravene the rules of the human mind: it is targeted to a human being as he does not perceive and cannot think--and even though the defenders of modernist art claim that the aim is to discover higher levels of consciousness----it is, in fact, the attempt not to re-create reality, but to annihilate our understanding of reality. It is the attempt not to integrate, but to disintegrate a human being’s mind. It is an attempt to invert --the purpose of art, the purpose it has served for thousands of years. In place of purposeful focus, meaningful selectivity, integration, and clarity, modernist art cultivates lack of focus, the arbitrary and the random, disunity, and meaningless complexity. While going to art school, I have seen this type of mentality up close and too often--too often! It is a game to these people, a gleeful nihilistic game to them. Here in Toronto, I am immersed in the art community and I have seen too much for too long for anybody here, at OL, to convince me otherwise. I have seen it all! And not just Toronto, but New York as well. (In New York, it is even worse).In a nutshell, this is the modernist and postmodernist credo: if it moves, it can be dance; if makes a sound, it can be music; if it includes colours, it can be a painting; if it is three-dimensional, it can be sculpture; if it has printed words, it can be literature. Art must be intelligible; it must conform to the laws of human cognition. As an artist, I am outraged by it all. What outrageous you about modernism? -Victor Edited February 13, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) Vic:~ I did read Aristophenes' THE BIRDS. Unfortunately, so long ago at a time it didn't impress me with anything worth remembering. I worked through it, then forgot about it; like too much then. Maybe I'll recheck it. 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' doesn't ring a bell. Interesting analogy (simile) you bring up, though.LLAPJ:DP.S: I'll have more to say on this whole subject of 'art'...in another thread you already established; after I re-read "What Is Art?" I'll even bring up Philobolus. Edited February 13, 2007 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Vic:~ I did read Aristophenes' THE BIRDS. Unfortunately, so long ago at a time it didn't impress me with anything worth remembering. I worked through it, then forgot about it; like too much then. Maybe I'll recheck it. 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' doesn't ring a bell. Interesting analogy (simile) you bring up, though.LLAPJ:DP.S: I'll have more to say on this whole subject of 'art'...in another thread you already established; after I re-read "What Is Art?" I'll even bring up Philobolus. As a matter of interest: Cloud cuckoo landFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCloud Cuckoo Land refers to an (unrealistically) idealistic state where everything is perfect - "You're living in Cloud-cuckoo-land". It hints that the the person referred to in quotation is naïve, unaware of reality or deranged in holding such an optimistic belief. The reference is to the play by the Athenian playwright Aristophanes, The Birds, in which the birds of the title, tired of the Earth and Olympus, decide to erect a perfect city between the clouds, to be named Cloud-Cuckoo-Land (Nephelokykkygia). :turned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) Vic:~ Re your prev post #93: you're preaching to the choir. I've not been to any 'art' school, but, I understand and agree.~ It's the 'others' you need to (why, I don't know) persuade, show, whatever.~ Why O'ism's aesthetics need to be debated about, rather than worked from a consensually-accepted base in this forum, I'm a bit perplexed by, given the established FAQ, but, such is...as it is.LLAPJ:D Edited February 13, 2007 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Vic:~ For now, just a comment to suffice...my support for your views.~ By post #15, it's pretty clear that anyone who 'agrees' with you, generally (or merely 'in the abstract'), clearly would rather castigate you for arguing a supposedly pointless point or, complain about your daring to complain about hoi-polloi shysters 'defining' the content and worth of 'modern' (whatever that really is) art.~ I found it interesting that absolutely no commenters, to that point, specifically agreed with any specifics you spelled out.~ "Fascinating."LLAPJ:DP.S: MUCH more to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Addendum:~ All further comments I make in O-L will be reviews of the comments in THIS thread 'till I reach the end of it. --- ''Til then, I'll not comment on news/entertainment/etc. --- I expect to help Victor spur more 'commenting' in this thread on this subject of 'aesthetics' (painting-wise/music/modern-dance/etc...but now, especially, 'painting').~ Victor has evaluated the worth of what he calls 'modern' art. - Commenters have given (very!) evaluated (emotional, maybe?) comments on his views (presumably assuming the same meaning as his undefined label 'modern art.')~ I shall concentrate on *my* evaluations of *their* 'reviews' of his comments, generically (if negative by them) and specifically (if positive by them; I suspect there'll be few of these.)LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Vic:~ For now, just a comment to suffice...my support for your views.~ By post #15, it's pretty clear that anyone who 'agrees' with you, generally (or merely 'in the abstract'), clearly would rather castigate you for arguing a supposedly pointless point or, complain about your daring to complain about hoi-polloi shysters 'defining' the content and worth of 'modern' (whatever that really is) art.~ I found it interesting that absolutely no commenters, to that point, specifically agreed with any specifics you spelled out.~ "Fascinating."LLAPJ:DP.S: MUCH more to come. ~I found it interesting that absolutely no commenters, to that point, specifically agreed with any specifics you spelled out.John, Welcome to Cloud Cuckoo Land! :frantics: The most disappointing thing for me is this: no quarter is given me whatsoever--even when I am so clearly right on a certain point. And I am 'wrong' no matter what current preposterous outrage I cite that takes place in today’s “art world”—from excrement skewered canvasses to urinal installations. Nobody will simply stand up and call it for what it is: a fraud, a sham—anti-art. Instead we see a hybrid intellectualizing post-treatises in unintelligible and rationalistic vocabularies—and all for the purpose of rising in esteem of those similarly afflicted. A coterie has been nested around the common cause of “flame Victor” by which others have bonded. Oh sure, MSK tosses me a few patronizing bread crumb compliments, but he down-plays my points by calling it “opinions.” You see, I never have anything factual to say—oh no, never! I'm just a poor, sad little Ortho-Objectivist, you see. No matter how well argued my case, and no matter how demonstrably I prove my case—denial becomes the easiest bow out and blank out. Consider this: MSK wrote: “If you see a urinal as part of a composition in an art gallery, cognitively you have to call it art. It is in a place used for exhibiting art works. It is exhibited as an art work. People go there and contemplate it as an art work. It is sold and bought as an art work. It is even a part of reality that the artist selectively chose for recreating reality (according to his "metaphysical value judgments"). There is a concept that covers all of this, regardless of what the value of the work is to anyone. If a person puts this same urinal in a room in his house, it would no longer be art in cognitive terms. Men would use it for urinating. It would be a utility.”The above speaks for itself. Put the urinal in a room at a person's house--it is utility. In an art gallery, it is art---cognitively speaking. Yeah. My challenge and charge to MSK here was that his presentation is what is called the “institutional definition” of art. He then denied that there was such a thing --only to discover the ever-reliable Ellen—lo and behold—confirmed that such a concept does exist and that it is not some fragment from the mind of Victor Pross! He now felt himself on thin ice. So he grants the existence of the “institutional definition” of art—but denies that his writings incases it. Man! In fact, in connection to this, Ellen went on to say thus: "...there are items which these days are put in art museums and called "art" which I would say aren't "art" and don't belong there. In other words, I don't agree with you that just being put in an art museum, or just being something or other on a canvas, is adequate "form" for classifying the item as "art." I think a certain type of symbolic intent is required. And that leads to, What is art?, What's a good definition?, i.e., back where this started."Jesus, the above quote is so obviously and clearly—and undeniably—an “institutional definition" of art. I’m sorry, but I was reading some old posts and this screamed out at me. Well, yes, I am tenacious as hell, I know that. And, John, other than these annoyances I face at the hands of MSK (I’m not saying that I don’t piss him off) he’s a swell egg. The others....um, I best not say anything. -Victor Edited February 21, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Victor,I have two ways to go. Either I delete this last post of yours or I open a thread on art where you will not post.I will open the thread. As I said, I will not discuss art with you. You get way too much wrong about what I write and are way too strident about it. I am out of patience.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now