 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 503 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's no difference. There's no point in opposing art and craft because they're not on the same plane. Art is anything which, percieved this way, has no purpose outside of art. It's pretty global and meta innit. Craft can be percieved as art, it doesn't mean it's not craft anymore. lol @ The_Funkmaster |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you qualify bed-time music as good, if it puts the baby to sleep (purpose), or if it sounds good? Is there any thing that is not apparant? "Thing" implies body = surface. No matter how small a piece of material may be, it will still have a surface. Is there any object that does NOT have a body/surface? Quality is not IN a thing. All you know OF a thing is an appearance, a surface. How can you tell the quality of ANYTHING apart from how it appears? "Brownness", "properly grown", etc, are concepts applicable to an object to justify the idea of quality. If you found a banana that you THOUGHT was of a high quality (as it appears), but which infact only was an empty banana shell stuffed with potatoes, would it still have the same quality as a banana? No? So what has changed? Your conception of the banana. If an inherent quality can be observed, that thing must have an essence, which however you dismissed as a "theoretical tool". Similarly, if the thing has no essence, the quality, so called, is only in the surfaces (how you conceive it), and quality would be skindeep. If a function is a thing that depends on another thing to exist, then a function is not a thing in itself. Therefore the essence of a thing is nothing but the function of the thing. You have implied this twice now, but do not seem to realize it: "Quality can't really be measured as a form of fulfilling a function either. That's more of a way to DETERMINE WHAT A THING IS." - DM "... Because IT DETERMINES THE BEING of the thing." - DM |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Haha, this topic has become quite hilarious, if you think about it. It's got nothing to do with The Field, anymore. Ah, well... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I essentially agree... art is art irrespective of craftsmanship. I simply disagree that art must involve "quality craftsmanship". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course art can involve the person, it's just not its purpose. Seeing a person being murdered in front of you can be pretty involving too, just like anything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BUT IS MURDER ART HEH |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose it can be. but what would be a muderer of good quality and what of bad quality? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Murder is only art when committed by an artist with the intent to create art. But I suppose murder can also be found art. Does that redeem it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What if the artist has the intent of creating a poor quality murder as an ironic statement? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
tricky one. one would need to have a look at the concept. can war be an act of art as well then? if yes, iraq was an example of low quality art..unless it was meant to be taken ironically..ahh yes |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
artist in Washington sounds any1 a fan? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's so much more tolerable this way. Good old art, I'm so glad you don't matter at all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
let me give it one more shot. simplify, man, simplify! in this context, i'm talking about the experience of music, not music in notation, or concept, or anything else. the experience that we call "music" is the interaction of a stimulus and one nervous system, or the simulation of stimulus within one nervous system (eg reconstructing the experience of music from memory, or composing music in the mind via imagination). the "music" does not exist in a map, or a recording, or a description, or an equation, or as a soundwave, or in a purpose or intent. the "music" only exists in the interaction. you cannot evaluate "quality" in "music" because you cannot remove the nervous system from the experience. each nervous system is different. i think "quality" in music *is* "taste" in disguise. a human being wants to say that a piece of music lacks "quality" because that human being is in denial regarding their egocentric motivations to assign "quality" to music that you like. "quality" is an imaginary friend that whispers in your ear that you know better. there is a positive side to all of this. my egocentric interest in setting the internet straight is exposed for me. i'll be meditating in the temple from here on out... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"It's got nothing to do with The Field, anymore" we determined it is shit in the first page. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'll spare you my taoist view, pls don't argue against me or my head will explode. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what a quality thread :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The things which we perceive as real are actually just shadows on a wall etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are they of good or bad quality though? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, as I said, that was not about quality. It was just a note on the "subjective" state of matters of taste. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"A piece of conceptual art could involve keeping things refrigerated or failing to keep things refrigerated. So the physical craftsmanship of the refrigerator-as-art could be either of good or poor quality depending on the intent of the artist." Yes, but then you would be talking about it as a refrigerator and not art. Imagine a piece of art that is basically a refrigerator with the door open and decaying food inside. Should you judge it as art, or as a refrigerator, and what is the difference (I believe you already got the reference). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it depends on the context...fabien already explained it rather well |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah said: "... quality isn't a subjective concept." This claim is at the very core of this discussion. A lot of philosophers would argue that quality actually is a subjective concept. If quality isn't a subjective concept, you are then implying that it is an objective concept. And what sort of objectivity are you operating with in relation to the term quality? Objectivism must be divided into two fundamentally different views which are important to separate: - Scientific objectivism. The very foundation of this involves determining the scientific truthfulness of something through reasoning. For instance, it is scientifically true (and provable) that the Earth is round. - Metaphysical objectivism. This view involves that there is a reality of objects and facts existing independent of the mind. For instance, what is 'truly' good or beautiful exists as facts (and/or ideals) outside of our consciousness. This view is closely related to the thoughts of Plato (and to several modern religions). You reject that the term quality is subjective. What is it then? A scientifcally objective truth? That's impossible. One cannot, by any stretch of the mind, assign scientific truth to a non-physical and abstract notion like quality. What you're implying, then, is that the term quality is metaphysically objective. You seem to mean that there are truths about the term quality which are universal for all humans. Metaphysics, like religion, is non-scientific, unprovable and based on belief. The universal (or objective) nature of - in this case - the term quality can never be scientifically true and is therefore based on belief. Nietzsche, for example, rejected metaphysical objectivism and the concept of truth all together. He meant there are no objective facts and that true knowledge of the thing in it self cannot be achieved. He would most definitely argue against your claim that quality is not subjective. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Due to the fact that you reject quality as a subjective concept, I can only assume that you believe it to be an objective concept. But if I've misunderstood you, could you answer what the term quality is if it is NEITHER subjective or objective? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Do you qualify bed-time music as good, if it puts the baby to sleep (purpose), or if it sounds good?" It's of good quality if it is better than other bed-time music in certain respects. I have no idea what these may be. "Is there any object that does NOT have a body/surface?" No physical object, no. Unless you count stuff from quantum-whatever. "If you found a banana that you THOUGHT was of a high quality (as it appears), but which infact only was an empty banana shell stuffed with potatoes, would it still have the same quality as a banana?" This just means that looking at the brown colour isn't necessarily a good criterion for determining quality, not that quality is the same as taste. "If a function is a thing that depends on another thing to exist, then a function is not a thing in itself. Therefore the essence of a thing is nothing but the function of the thing. You have implied this twice now, but do not seem to realize it:" A function is a co-constituting property of a thing's being what it is. The essence is more of a theoretical tool because it's something we use to conceptualise a group or type of things when we want to talk about the group. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not sure about your concept of purpose.. is the purpose of art something that is constituted irrespective of the artist's and the viewer's attribution of purpose to the art? Other than that, you two have basically finally found a convincing distinction.. or at least it convinced me (which is what matters, right?). Most fitting, and the statement I agree with the most, is Mr. Mouse's statement that "art can involve the whole person intellectually, emotionally and spiritually as well. As a shameless romantic I prefer that." There should be more distinctions, though... The devil is paying me large fees. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Should you judge it as art, or as a refrigerator Making the audience evaluate how it succeeds or fails as a refrigerator could be essential to the intent of the artist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"It's of good quality if it is better than other bed-time music in certain respects. I have no idea what these may be." but you will take the criterion by a group of selected experts? what is the point of that really? what will you get out of it? for example if you took experts advice on roof you'd probably get a roof that would keep rain from falling on your head. what will you gain by music of good quality? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"you cannot evaluate "quality" in "music" because you cannot remove the nervous system from the experience. each nervous system is different." By that logic, you can't evaluate anything at all by any standard; each nervous system is different. "i think "quality" in music *is* "taste" in disguise." But why can't quality apply to music unless it is taste? Why is it so that quality can apply to carpentry, and then be "true" quality while it will only be taste in disguise when you're talking about music? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"If quality isn't a subjective concept, you are then implying that it is an objective concept." False dichotomy.. at least in the sense I believe you to be using the word "objective." It's objective in the sense that objectivity is constituted intersubjectively. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sure, but would the audience then see a refrigerator or a piece of art? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If it is false dichotomy, what other than subjective or objective can the term quality be then? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"what is the point of that really?" Well, when judging the quality of a song in that way, as a bed-time song, and in the way one judges quality, they would be more likely than me to be right.. what with them being experts and all... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Intersubjective, and in that manner, it would be objective. That could be equivalent to your first version of subjectivity, but not all people like to admit that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hypothetically one or the other, both, or neither. It depends on the audience, the work, and the way the audience is introduced to the work. Shouldn't we be discussing particular responses to particular works instead of speaking of art abstractly in a way that allows our favored conclusions to follow logically from our cherished assumptions? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"It's objective in the sense that objectivity is constituted intersubjectively." That's only slightly less startling than Elusive's "If it's Base 10, but it could be Base anything" EVERYTHING WE KNOW IS WRONG |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahaha |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not if we're discussing the nature of art as such, no. Do you believe they could perceive it both as a refrigerator and a piece of art at the same time? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
pretty good movie too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sure, it's not unusual to perceive something as belonging to multiple categories at once, and I don't see how refrigerator and art are necessarily contradictory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah, your old recordings are lost. Make some new tracks that in your eyes have 'no quality' but quite a few people here will enjoy and recommend. Post them and that'll resolve this silly affair. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the field killed it in chicago last summer. [whilst drinking obscene amounts of beer] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
quality is an appreciation for a property in the music by a conscious being. you'll find that some people like things that another person finds repulsive.. i find that art is also whatever is defined as such.. when people get together, either large groups like an entire species, or small groups like friends, and decide that something is good or bad, then that is essentially unique to that group, even if another group may agree later that it sucks. we get fooled into thinking there is some kind of objective quality to quality, but really it's just a lot of people agreeing on it. a person who wants to find art, and find quality, needs to reject all other opinions and go searching for his own creativity and his own perception of reality - then can he find his own true art in this world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahaha, I do so all the time! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
his new (last) ep was well jackson. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OMG, this thread is like a bloated freak that's well past its best-before date, like the proverbial brown banana you've been fretting about... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's funny how people seem to resent and even ridicule the concept of giving something a bit of thought. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there's a lot to be said for pithy, terse writing |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sure everyone has given this a lot of thought. We just happen to disagree with you I guess. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
200. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
