Author Topic: Young people don't buy cars because "They’re narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered."  (Read 47089 times)

Cinder

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 468
  • Location: Central PA
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.

Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people?  As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?

When I was in high school, I wasn't allowed to get piercings or tattoos by my parents, but I could do anything I wanted with my hair/clothes within reason.  For most of highschool, My hair was electric blue, I occasionally wore fangs you could put in with denture creme, Super wide leg pants (32inch to 40 inch openings per leg), trenchcoat with spikes on the shoulders, spiked red leather collar, black fingernail polish (never went as far as makeup though). 

All of this while being in the National Honor Society, Singing in our school's elite music group, becoming an Eagle Scout, being in the top 10 of my class, etc...

I did this to combat the exact same type of bigotry that was everywhere in the small town, rural area I was in. 

Anyone who didn't want to bother with me due to the way I dressed/looked wasn't someone that I cared to bother with anyways, so it acted as a good personality filter against people who were unable to see past the physical appearances on the outside.  Anyone who came up to me and got to know me forgot that I had blue hair in about 5 min of talking with me.

I kept the blue hair up though college until I needed to find a real job, and figured it wasn't worth the cost' associated with the negative impressions in the standard work force.  I still feel like going back to my day glow blue hair.

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Art is, at best, a pathetic human attempt to try to match the feeling of awe nature can induce. 

Since the thread has already been hijacked... I understand that this may have been a bit of a throw away comment to make a point about body modification, but I profoundly disagree with this assessment of art.

Art, at it's best, is a full expression by the artist of the human experience.  At it's best, it does not imitate, it creates.  It recapitulates not only awe in a form others can understand, but grief, pain, love, joy, the full gamut of our emotions can be expressed.  At it's best it is not an attempt to copy or an primarily an attempt to impress, it is expression by the artist of a feeling that cannot be otherwise expressed.  I don't sing to emulate the birds, I sing because how could I do otherwise?

Rebecca Stapler

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
    • Stapler Confessions
This post just explained all the weird stares I got from older businessmen when I boarded a 6am plane while wearing a suit and lugging a briefcase full of legal files. I have a discrete nose ring that I forget about 99.99% of the time. They must have been wondering how on earth I got a professional job even with a visible mutilation.

Good thing the judges who have awarded me favorable judgments and courts and law firms I have worked for didn't seem to let it get in the way of recognizing my qualifications.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
Art is, at best, a pathetic human attempt to try to match the feeling of awe nature can induce. 

Since the thread has already been hijacked... I understand that this may have been a bit of a throw away comment to make a point about body modification, but I profoundly disagree with this assessment of art.

Art, at it's best, is a full expression by the artist of the human experience.  At it's best, it does not imitate, it creates.  It recapitulates not only awe in a form others can understand, but grief, pain, love, joy, the full gamut of our emotions can be expressed.  At it's best it is not an attempt to copy or an primarily an attempt to impress, it is expression by the artist of a feeling that cannot be otherwise expressed.  I don't sing to emulate the birds, I sing because how could I do otherwise?

+1

As a general matter, I find the dismissiveness of the arts and culture to be one of the saddest things I see on this forum (not that it's by any means universal, just far more often mentioned here than in the rest of my life). I don't think that "art" merits the same treatment as "toys."

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
I never did understand why we could look at other cultures, who stretch bone disks through their lips, bound their feet tiny, elongate their necks, cut or even sew up their sex parts, and say that is horrible and weird, and yet we don't think twice about almost all of our women punching holes through their ear lobes.  And then hanging small decorations from the holes.

I think the obvious answer to this portion of your question is function.  The first four practices you mention inhibit the function of the body, causing disorders that severely limit the ability of the body to work as it should and some cause lifelong pain and irreversible damage to major tissues.  Tattooing and the types of minor piercing practiced by most (lets not get into a discussion of the extremes, since the original disparagement was towards ear piercing), these do not cause lifelong pain or affect the natural function of the tissue. 

I personally do not have tattoos and have no desire to get any, but I was pretty surprised and the vehement distaste they provoked in some here.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
I kept the blue hair up though college until I needed to find a real job, and figured it wasn't worth the cost' associated with the negative impressions in the standard work force. 

Right there you have the major difference between clothing/makeup and tattoos/body modifications.  One's permanent, one you can change according to your taste, current mood, job-hunting needs, or whatever.  Nor did I, back in the days when I did such things, have problems wearing jeans & a t-shirt in a room full of suits, or going to symphony concerts in my motorcycle leathers...

Further, to circle back to where this started, I would imagine a few bottles of blue hair dye would cost far less than the $10K or so that might be spent on tattoos.  And hurt a lot less, too :-)

As a general matter, I find the dismissiveness of the arts and culture to be one of the saddest things I see on this forum (not that it's by any means universal, just far more often mentioned here than in the rest of my life). I don't think that "art" merits the same treatment as "toys."

Unfortunately, we live in an age in which most "art" is either pretentious fakery, outright fraud, or - sometimes quite literally - trash.  See e.g. http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark-Contemporary/dp/0230620590  If you don't want your art/culture to be treated with dismissiveness, try creating something that doesn't deserve to be dismissed.

Crash87

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Age: 32
  • Location: St. Louis
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.

Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people?  As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?

At this point I feel like I've been duped by a troll...

unitsinc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Houston/Denver
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.

Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people?  As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?

At this point I feel like I've been duped by a troll...

While I like to read Jamesqf's posts as he brings an interesting perspective to many things, he has a few trollish qualities. Namely posting bait and ignoring counter arguments. Overall he seems to be a pretty ok guy though and not someone who I would say is actually a troll.

Kriegsspiel

  • Guest
When I was in high school, I wasn't allowed to get piercings or tattoos by my parents, but I could do anything I wanted with my hair/clothes within reason.  For most of highschool, My hair was electric blue, I occasionally wore fangs you could put in with denture creme, Super wide leg pants (32inch to 40 inch openings per leg), trenchcoat with spikes on the shoulders, spiked red leather collar, black fingernail polish (never went as far as makeup though). 

All of this while being in the National Honor Society, Singing in our school's elite music group, becoming an Eagle Scout, being in the top 10 of my class, etc...

I did this to combat the exact same type of bigotry that was everywhere in the small town, rural area I was in. 

Anyone who didn't want to bother with me due to the way I dressed/looked wasn't someone that I cared to bother with anyways, so it acted as a good personality filter against people who were unable to see past the physical appearances on the outside.  Anyone who came up to me and got to know me forgot that I had blue hair in about 5 min of talking with me.

I kept the blue hair up though college until I needed to find a real job, and figured it wasn't worth the cost' associated with the negative impressions in the standard work force.  I still feel like going back to my day glow blue hair.

Kriegsspiel: That's SLC Punk, dude.

Cinder: What?

Kriegsspiel: You just described the plot from 'SLC Punk.'

-Everyone agrees-

Kriegsspiel: Yea, come to think of it, that's not the first time you've described your life in the way of SLC Punk.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 04:01:05 PM by Kriegsspiel »

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
While I like to read Jamesqf's posts as he brings an interesting perspective to many things, he has a few trollish qualities. Namely posting bait and ignoring counter arguments.

If I ignore things, it's either because I have limited time & attention, don't think I have anything useful to add, or (sometimes) because rebutting a piece of obvious nonsense takes an order of magnitude more time than posting the original nonsense.

As for bait...  Well, one person's bait is another's interesting discussion topic :-)

PS: And on the subject of art, here's either bait or material for discussion:
Quote
Definition of ART
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a: a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts
  b archaic : learning, scholarship
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
  b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan
  b : the quality or state of being artful
6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

Notice how many of those usages depend on skill & learning?  Yet today's art (or at least the mainstream of it) seems to have almost entirely eliminated the skill component.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 04:58:18 PM by Jamesqf »

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Well if we're going to use dictionaries to prove our understanding of a subject i prefer:
Quote
Definition of art
noun
1the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:
the art of the Renaissance
great art is concerned with moral imperfections
she studied art in Paris
works produced by human creative skill and imagination:
his collection of modern art
an exhibition of Mexican art
[as modifier]:
an art critic
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture:
she’s good at art
2 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance:
the visual arts
[in singular]:
the art of photography
3 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects):
the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible
the Faculty of Arts
4a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice:
the art of conversation
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/art?q=art

Notice how most of the definitions focus on creativity and expression?  I think that's what missing in art appreciation, the ability to view the creative impulse as a expression of humanity without valuation for the result.  Just because something is not easily and objectively monetizable does not mean that it has no value.  Just because you don't see value, doesn't mean it is valueless.

Also if we're going to talk about things we dislike, I just want to throw out white people dreads.  Although my office mate has them, and we still manage to be friends.

nktokyo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 370
Heaps of people wear dreads where I'm from, it doesn't mean anything more than they like wearing dreads.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Notice how most of the definitions focus on creativity and expression?

Notice how most of the definitions in the other dictionary don't?  Which was, after all, the point I was trying to make: that (as in so many other areas of life) skill has virtually disappeared from contemporary art.  (Which probably explains the different dictionary entries: the Oxford seems to concentrate on current American usage, the one I cited has a broader historical range.)  Thus if you look at historical artists, you could admire the skill that went into say Leonardo's "Last Supper" or Michaelangelo's "Pieta" without in the least subscribing to the messages they were intended to convey.

Quote
Just because something is not easily and objectively monetizable does not mean that it has no value.

Read the linked book: putting a stuffed shark in a tank* and selling it for $12 million?  That seems monetizable to me :-)

*And it wasn't even the "artist" who caught the shark, stuffed it, or put it in the tank.  He just hired it done.

ep114

  • Guest
The tattoo/blue hair discussion reminded me of a funny dressing down we received at my job a little while ago. I work for a huge very conservative company. And the president started with "When I walk around here I wonder - Where the hell are the kids with blue hair?"  He then explained that that we weren't hiring creative people who aren't afraid to challenge conventional thinking. And believe me, this place is as serious and conservative as it gets- full of middle aged white guys.    I'm still waiting for the blue haired kids to show up (by mass transit!)

And I just have to say that insulting people for not buying cars on THIS WEBSITE is hilarious.  What's next? Hating people for not using $100 bills as kindling in the fire?

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364

Read the linked book: putting a stuffed shark in a tank* and selling it for $12 million?  That seems monetizable to me :-)


I read the link the first time.  I got it you don't like the stuffed shark. However, I considered it a non-sequitur, since my original argument was about art at it's best, and you have chosen an example that is obviously not art at it's best to dismiss any contemporary works, confining my argument to a period and attempting to change the argument by having me defend contemporary avante garde works which is not something I desire or have the knowledge to do. 

Heaps of people wear dreads where I'm from, it doesn't mean anything more than they like wearing dreads.
What else would wearing dreads mean?  I don't attach meaning, I just don't get it.  If you have straight fine hair, it's not a natural style, it's a lot of work to initiate and I guess I feel like it's a silly affectation.  I was trying to bring levity, but sometimes the only person that thinks I'm hilarious is me, my bad. 

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
He then explained that that we weren't hiring creative people who aren't afraid to challenge conventional thinking.

(Sigh) But blue hair is so conventional.  If it's not magenta, dead black, or shaved off entirely...

Quote
And I just have to say that insulting people for not buying cars on THIS WEBSITE is hilarious. 

Why?  Quite apart from the fact that searching for plausible explanations is not the same as insulting.  I always thought this place was about enhancing quality of life, not about being a miser.  So for most people, having a modestly-priced car enhances quality of life.  Not having one seems as bad as the other extreme of spending most of your income on a giant SUV.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
I read the link the first time.  I got it you don't like the stuffed shark. However, I considered it a non-sequitur, since my original argument was about art at it's best, and you have chosen an example that is obviously not art at it's best to dismiss any contemporary works...

So where exactly IS this contemporary "art at it's best"?  I certainly haven't seen any of it, at least not wearing the "art" label.  Now the world certainly has a number of people who are skilled at the arts of drawing, painting, &c (or their digital equivalents), but they aren't, as far as I am aware, making careers as "artists".  They're doing video game animation, paperback book covers, and similar commercial work.

kyleaaa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 327
    • Kyle Bumpus
I'm pretty sure the article is saying that the "They’re narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered. And addicted to their four-inch screens" stereotype is NOT true.

nktokyo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 370
I read the link the first time.  I got it you don't like the stuffed shark. However, I considered it a non-sequitur, since my original argument was about art at it's best, and you have chosen an example that is obviously not art at it's best to dismiss any contemporary works...

So where exactly IS this contemporary "art at it's best"?  I certainly haven't seen any of it, at least not wearing the "art" label.  Now the world certainly has a number of people who are skilled at the arts of drawing, painting, &c (or their digital equivalents), but they aren't, as far as I am aware, making careers as "artists".  They're doing video game animation, paperback book covers, and similar commercial work.

Pretty sure that the great painters worked for commissions too.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
And I just have to say that insulting people for not buying cars on THIS WEBSITE is hilarious.  What's next? Hating people for not using $100 bills as kindling in the fire?
I don't think that's what most of either this thread or the linked article is about.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Pretty sure that the great painters worked for commissions too.

Sure, I have no problem with people making money off their art, especially when using art in the sense of an acquired skill.  After all, computer programming is an art, and I've made a good bit of money from it.

The point I'm trying to get across is that there is the "art" world: the whole racket of dealers, museums, critics &c (as described in the Stuffed Shark book), then there is the commercialized art world in which skill is of primary importance, and there is an absolutely uncrossable barrier between the two.  No one who displayed art-as-skill in their work would ever be allowed into the inner circle of the "creative" arts.

kevin78

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Location: Columbus, Ohio
Mass transit just can't take you to most of the interesting places, including that secluded back lane with your g/b-friend.

Heh, the image of a couple in the back seat of a little Honda Insight made me laugh :D

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Mass transit just can't take you to most of the interesting places, including that secluded back lane with your g/b-friend.

Heh, the image of a couple in the back seat of a little Honda Insight made me laugh :D

Especially since the Honda Insight doesn't have a back seat :-)

I must admit, in my younger days, I did some interesting things in an Austin-Healey Sprite :-)

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
So where exactly IS this contemporary "art at it's best"?  I certainly haven't seen any of it, at least not wearing the "art" label.  Now the world certainly has a number of people who are skilled at the arts of drawing, painting, &c (or their digital equivalents), but they aren't, as far as I am aware, making careers as "artists".  They're doing video game animation, paperback book covers, and similar commercial work.

Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art?  Because they don't have what you consider the art label?  I would suggest not worrying so much about what other people consider art, true appreciation should come fro the individual.

Perhaps it's true that nothing seen read or heard in the last 30 or 40 years has moved you, or perhaps nothing created, performed or written has been up to the skilled standards of your exacting taste.  Either way I will continue to enjoy music poetry, art, design and literature (the creative arts if you will) and continue to believe that they add substance to human life even if they don't have the Jamesqf seal of approval.  It must be my narcissism and apathy kicking in.

Hmm, I wonder if this is how all those tattooed people feel...

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art?

Because you don't find them for sale in art galleries, hung in art museums, or commented on favorably by art critics.

Quote
I would suggest not worrying so much about what other people consider art, true appreciation should come fro the individual.

Because those self-appointed guardians of the art world don't allow such works to come before the public except as part of the commercial work.

[qupte]Perhaps it's true that nothing seen read or heard in the last 30 or 40 years has moved you, or perhaps nothing created, performed or written has been up to the skilled standards of your exacting taste.[/quote]

Partly true, though I wouldn't call my taste all that exacting.  I have of course heard & seen a lot of new-to-me work in those 30-40 years, but (outside of writing) it was mostly created centuries ago, and in the case of music, performed by small groups of eccentrics like me.

Quote
Either way I will continue to enjoy music poetry, art, design and literature (the creative arts if you will) and continue to believe that they add substance to human life...

And I will continue to find that substance in things which were created in the past, because look as hard as I can, it just isn't in the new.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8838
  • Registered member
Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art?

Because you don't find them for sale in art galleries, hung in art museums, or commented on favorably by art critics.

Wrong, Wrong, and of course, Wrong

http://arton5th.com/dr-seuss-collection/
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=3325
http://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2010/04/declining-art-of-movie-poster.html

(Three random examples in a minute of Googling.  Not guaranteed to be the best examples.)

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Quite a different thing.  If someone - say Dr. Seuss or Winston Churchill - attains celebrity status, then whatever that person does will acquire a certain cachet that's entirely separate from any merit in the work itself.  As for instance, the way even the most mundane documents acquire considerable value simply because they were signed by Abraham Lincoln: http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1143356210/Items-signed-or-written-by-Abraham-Lincoln-often-sell-for-thousands#axzz2VwD6dXrz

As for your second link, it's a CHAIR (and footstool), fer crying out loud!  A useful & perhaps comfortable piece of furniture, perhaps, but art?

Now for a contrary example of a competent artist belittled by the "art" world: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/04/why-was-thomas-kinkade-loathed-by-art-critics.html

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Now for a contrary example of a competent artist belittled by the "art" world: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/04/why-was-thomas-kinkade-loathed-by-art-critics.html
You're confusing art and kitsch.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
Now for a contrary example of a competent artist belittled by the "art" world: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/04/why-was-thomas-kinkade-loathed-by-art-critics.html
You're confusing art and kitsch.

It sort of reminds me of the obsession with redefining "retirement" here. He's fixed on a particular definition of "art" to the exclusion of all others and variation, and his definition largely involves technical mastery (rather than, e.g., creative expression). That's fine, but one dimensional, and no amount of technical mastery is sufficient to make great art.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
You're confusing art and kitsch.

Now there's the perfect example of the point I'm trying to make: you don't like Kinkade's work because it doesn't meet your exacting standards of taste.  Fine, and to be honest I don't like it either.  But I think you would have to agree that his drawing & painting display a very high standard of skill.  He decided on the effects he wanted, and captured them perfectly.

Compare that with the absolute non-skill (but considerable chutzpah!) of for instance presenting your very messy unmade bed as a work of "art": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bed  Sorry, but I'll take kitsch over crap any day of the week.

...and no amount of technical mastery is sufficient to make great art.

Agreed, for the sake of argument, but once again you miss the point.  Technical mastery may not be sufficient to make great art, but it is necessary.  Without that mastery, the output is indistinguishable from garbage.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
Agreed, for the sake of argument, but once again you miss the point.  Technical mastery may not be sufficient to make great art, but it is necessary.  Without that mastery, the output is indistinguishable from garbage.

I don't miss the point; I disagree with your claim of its contours: Technical mastery is not required to make great art, although a sufficient degree of technical skill for a particular project is. I think this most often comes through in photography.

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art?

Because you don't find them for sale in art galleries, hung in art museums, or commented on favorably by art critics.

Quote
I would suggest not worrying so much about what other people consider art, true appreciation should come fro the individual.

Because those self-appointed guardians of the art world don't allow such works to come before the public except as part of the commercial work.


I should restate:  I don't think you should let how others define art interfere with your enjoyment of what you like.

You're confusing art and kitsch.

...Sorry, but I'll take kitsch over crap any day of the week.


Actually, Kitsch (the movement not the intended to be insulting term) is a movement that seems very much in line with your ideals.  I don't have much familiarity with it, but there are some brief overviews, that suggests subscribers disagree with the modern establishment interpretation of art as concept divorced from output or action as put forth by Emmanuel Kant. (Fun fact I used to carpool with one of his great-great-grand nephews).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kitsch_Movement#Exhibitions
http://artbabel.blogspot.com/2010/04/philosophy-of-kitsch-kant-kunst-and.html

...Without that mastery, the output is indistinguishable from garbage.

I'm not going to argue on the necessity of skill to execute great works, but are you really suggesting that there is no leeway between a masterwork and garbage?  It seems like you would miss a lot of enjoyment from life with that view

Quote
...and in the case of music, performed by small groups of eccentrics like me.

It's unfair to slip this in and then not tell us what kind of music that might be.  I'm trying to think what would be the most eccentric music I could think of, Tuvan throat singing accompanied by harpsichord?  Don't leave us in suspense :)

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
Quote from: Dr.Vibrissae
It's unfair to slip this in and then not tell us what kind of music that might be.  I'm trying to think what would be the most eccentric music I could think of, Tuvan throat singing accompanied by harpsichord?  Don't leave us in suspense :)

I guess "classical" music on period instruments, with derision directed at the use of the term "classical." Or early Duran Duran on period synthesizers.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's a bit pointless arguing about art.  Much of what is argued inevitably comes down to taste.

I don't get modern art.  It's not my thing, it's too abstract, the ridiculousness doesn't work for me.  Not to my taste.  That doesn't mean it's not art though.

It's foolish to think that the quality of art is described by technical mastery.  Look at music from the last 100 years or so . . . blues was often played by people who weren't technically gifted (John Hooker, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson), pop is often extremely simplistic (The Beatles, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Animals, Bob Dylan), Funk and Reggae is also very uncomplicated . . . that doesn't make it better or worse than more technically demanding types of music (progressive metal, bebop, some bluegrass, classical).  Just different.

You don't have to love everything that's art, but there's no need to try and denigrate stuff you don't like.  It's just kinda petty and sad.

unitsinc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Houston/Denver
You don't have to love everything that's art, but there's no need to try and denigrate stuff you don't like.  It's just kinda petty and sad.

Like tattoos and piercings!

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
I should restate:  I don't think you should let how others define art interfere with your enjoyment of what you like.

Sure, I agree.  But they interfere with availability.  For instance, if (as is the case in my state) the law requires that a certain percentage of public works contracts be set aside for "art", and the powers-that-be in the "art" world define art as a collection of welded scrap metal, then I have to look at that junk pile every time I walk by the university library.  Or I am forced to deal with months of traffic congestion because "art" (the two trapezoidal shapes in the upper left of the picture) must be installed on a new freeway interchange: http://www.rgj.com/article/20130327/NEWS/130327007/NDOT-Meadowood-interchange-Reno-open-fully-May


Quote
Actually, Kitsch (the movement not the intended to be insulting term) is a movement that seems very much in line with your ideals.

Humm... I had, of course, assumed that you were using "kitsch" in the insulting sense, as I hadn't heard of it as a movement.  Thanks for the second link, which if you filter out the philosophical Kant*, does seem to pretty well agree with my thoughts.

(Pun intended :-))

Quote
I'm not going to argue on the necessity of skill to execute great works, but are you really suggesting that there is no leeway between a masterwork and garbage?

Of course not.  But the modern conceptual art world denigrates all skill, and deliberately removes it.

Quote
It's unfair to slip this in and then not tell us what kind of music that might be.

Oh, things like traditional Celtic (see e.g. Altan, Ceoltori, early Clannad), or the classical baroque (Bach, Handel, etc).

Quote
I'm trying to think what would be the most eccentric music I could think of, Tuvan throat singing accompanied by harpsichord?

I confess I'd never heard of Tuvan throat singing, but I have always loved the harpsichord.  But how about lyrics in Gaelic, accompanied by wire-strung harp, hammered dulcimer, uilleann pipes, &c?  Eccentric enough?

nktokyo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 370
You'd be great at parties

wepner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Yokohama, Japan
I should restate:  I don't think you should let how others define art interfere with your enjoyment of what you like.

Sure, I agree.  But they interfere with availability.  For instance, if (as is the case in my state) the law requires that a certain percentage of public works contracts be set aside for "art", and the powers-that-be in the "art" world define art as a collection of welded scrap metal, then I have to look at that junk pile every time I walk by the university library.  Or I am forced to deal with months of traffic congestion because "art" (the two trapezoidal shapes in the upper left of the picture) must be installed on a new freeway interchange: http://www.rgj.com/article/20130327/NEWS/130327007/NDOT-Meadowood-interchange-Reno-open-fully-May

If art is as important to you as you make it sound, perhaps you would enjoy living in or near a city more than you are letting on. There is no shortage of world class art where I am.

lisahi

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
I'm amused this discussion has taken a turn to "what is art?"

My definition of art is pretty simple: anything created on purpose specifically to instill emotion, creativity or to inspire.

Whether something is good art or bad art is wholly subjective. A chair can be art if it is designed not merely to act functionally by to inspire or stir feelings--maybe of a moment in time or a season or just a mood. The intent and thought behind creating is what makes something art, not necessarily the level of objective skill.

So, for example, if you randomly throw paint at a wall in the hopes you can sell it to some poor, duped art lover, that isn't art. There's no creative or inspired thought behind it. However, if the same result was the product of careful creativity, inspired thought--if there was a purpose and meaning to each splatter--that is art. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or think that it's particularly worthy art. But it's art. It's the act of purposeful creativity and inspiration.

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
I'm amused this discussion has taken a turn to "what is art?"

yeah, sorry about that.  That was my fault, but definitely not my intention.

My rant was purely personal opinion - personal preference really, and not meant as anything more. 

And I was specifically talking about the artistry of tatoos (a large portion of which isn't anyway); though it is also true that I personally have never really "got" art - or, I should say, visual art, paintings, sculptures (regardless of both creativity and technical skill).  Its not just that "most" of it is "bad" or whatever, but (for me personally), even the best of it just seems like an imitation of nature, which does a much better job of invoking the emotions that art attempts to.
On the other hand, music and storytelling (in all its many forms) are creative endeavors frequently refereed to as artistic, and I enjoy (some) of those immensely.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
So, for example, if you randomly throw paint at a wall in the hopes you can sell it to some poor, duped art lover, that isn't art. There's no creative or inspired thought behind it.

True, but it gets sold for large sums - if, of course, you have an "in" with the dealer network.

Now the crucial question is this: How is anyone supposed to know that there is actually creative or inspired thought behind those random splatters on the wall?  Because the marketers selling the "art" are telling you how creative & inspired their latest discovery is.  A suspicious sort like me would think the creativity and inspiration are wholly devoted to separating credulous & insecure marks from their money.  And unlike most con games, selling this sort of "art" is completely legal :-)

You really need to read "The Emperor's New Clothes" :-)

NYD3030

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
At the end of the day, "art" is whatever it is "artists" make.  A lot of what people in here are decrying as "not art" has to been as a reaction against the norms of the time.  A bunch of paint thrown on a canvas looks sloppy and lazy to our modern eye, but when it was first done it was downright radical and gave the gatekeepers of "proper" art the vapors.

For a very long time art evolved toward technical mastery in pursuit of verisimilitude but thankfully human beings have more expansive minds than that, and so we got all sorts of great, weird stuff.

Besides, what's the point of trying to paint a photorealistic woodland scene when you can just take a picture of the woods?

lisahi

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
So, for example, if you randomly throw paint at a wall in the hopes you can sell it to some poor, duped art lover, that isn't art. There's no creative or inspired thought behind it.

True, but it gets sold for large sums - if, of course, you have an "in" with the dealer network.

Now the crucial question is this: How is anyone supposed to know that there is actually creative or inspired thought behind those random splatters on the wall?  Because the marketers selling the "art" are telling you how creative & inspired their latest discovery is.  A suspicious sort like me would think the creativity and inspiration are wholly devoted to separating credulous & insecure marks from their money.  And unlike most con games, selling this sort of "art" is completely legal :-)

You really need to read "The Emperor's New Clothes" :-)

Thing is -- I don't personally care. If an artist sells some unthinking, unfeeling piece of work, thus duping the "art world," I don't care. That is especially so if the unthinking, unfeeling piece of work manages to stir emotion or feeling from the buyer. That's the other side of the coin. Ultimately, that it's simply the cost of the existence of art in society. Most of what you deem to be worthless was probably created by somebody who felt something real during the process, though. You just don't like it.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Besides, what's the point of trying to paint a photorealistic woodland scene when you can just take a picture of the woods?

It's what you put in the woods that makes it art.  For an example, take Albert Bierstadt http://www.albertbierstadt.org/Valley-of-the-Yosemite-1864.html  Now those are pretty realistic paintings, wouldn't you say?  Yet I've been on the ground where a good few of them were painted, and they aren't much like that at all.  So furnishing Albert with a high-quality digital camera wouldn't have produced anything like the same results.

Or to go to an extreme, take Salvador Dali: http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/salvador-dali/santiago-el-grande  Now I'd say that (barring the 'fig leaf'), that's a pretty realistic painting of a horse, no?  But the picture is not something you could get either with a camera, or by tossing paint at a wall.

Most of what you deem to be worthless was probably created by somebody who felt something real during the process, though. You just don't like it.

Wrong.  I'm firmly convinced that the people creating "art" of this sort are of two kinds: either they are willing participants in a deliberate con-game, or - like the followers of say Scientology - they've been suckered into falling for the con themselves, and are caught in a trap of self-delusion.

Nor is it that I just don't like it, as there's plenty of real art that I don't particularly like, yet can respect.

Gerard

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: eastern canada
What I have learned from this thread:

Things a poster likes are actually objectively good.
Things a poster dislikes are actually ovjectively bad.

This is useful to know, as I had not previously been exposed to this concept on the Internet.

plantingourpennies

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
  • None.
    • Money, Kittens, Happiness

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8838
  • Registered member
That snail thing is pure art!

GoStumpy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
    • YNAB = The ultimate budgeting software
Young people don't buy cars because young people are smart enough to know that the last few generations of cars are far superior in almost every way, and it is a waste of money to buy anything newer.

Damn, are we getting smarter each generation or what??

Richard3

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
"We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect
their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently
inhabit taverns and have no self control."
Inscription, 6000 year-old Egyptian tomb1

"When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint".
Hesiod, 8th century BC

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Plato, 4th Century BC

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 1274

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946

SnackDog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
  • Location: Latin America
The whole premise is flawed. If you follow the links it is back to an article by folks pushing alternatives to cars and trying to rein in highway spending. The reduction in average miles driven starting in 2008 is the main piece of data, but could also be explained by high gas prices, economic woes, and especially retiring baby boomers who no longer need to commute.

I predict millenials will buy cars and drive more than ever.