Not bashing you at all, Shawn. If I wanted to, I certainly would. You've got an odd notion of "bashing". You've come to expect it, haven't you? What does that tell you?
As for "dangerously close to bashing modern art". Yeah, so be it. Do I go to jail for that?
Art is subjective. I happen to like mine a bit more on the positive, soul-stirring, eye-popping side (in lots of mediums and genres). I've always had a hard time attaching the term "art" to something any 6-year-old with an overactive bladder and extra time on his hands can do.
If that makes me "unhip" or whatever, I'll live with it.
I'd leave the "pseudo" off the "pseudo-patriotism." All patriotism is pseudo, so it's redundant. At least the way we seem to use the term: flag-waving, don't-criticize-the-president, we-hate-the-media-because-they-always-look-at-what's-wrong attitudes.
Hey BR, maybe you've found a new faith to start picking on now, and can leave the religion thing along for awhile.
of course the left does this, but the right plays just the same also (i remember listening to Rush Limbaugh one day and he went on and on about the liberal media and how it tells people what to think and that his audience didn't need that because it thought for itself and then all the audience members called in going "Ditto, Ditto Ditto"...i thought it very funny as of course he always tells them exactly what to think)...it is actually quite horrid how both sides behave, taking any issue and trying to turn it to their benefit...the only thing you can do as an individual is try to do what you think is right...act, vote, discuss and even argue....and as much as you can, love...it will help you live longer and happier (at least that is my opinion and hope)....g
I think one of our biggest problems is the fact that we must categorize ourselves as left or right. We can't just be citizens with unique viewpoints. Instead of elections being about the views of an individual candidate, elections are about the views of an entire party. I know that this two-party system will be very difficult to change because it is based on people's natural desires to affiliate themselves with something greater than themselves. What people fail to realize is that both Democrats and Republicans DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL. They care about one thing and one thing only: reelection. They are just two groups with a few minor ideological differences that have an insatiable thirst for power.
Until Joe America realizes this, progress, if any, will be slow. This constant bickering between the left and the right just plays right into the hands of the despots in power.
As for "dangerously close to bashing modern art". Yeah, so be it. Do I go to jail for that?
Art is subjective. I happen to like mine a bit more on the positive, soul-stirring, eye-popping side (in lots of mediums and genres). I've always had a hard time attaching the term "art" to something any 6-year-old with an overactive bladder and extra time on his hands can do.
If that makes me "unhip" or whatever, I'll live with it.
One man's jar of piss is another man's Mona Lisa.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
That's cool then. It was really what I wanted to say too.
[quote] They care about one thing and one thing only: reelection. <hr></blockquote>
i agree...that is why i propose a single 6 year term for president...he or she then doesn't have to think constantly from day one about re-election and doesn't have to keep two eyes on the polls...plus they know they will be know in the history books for those 6 years and perhaps will actually try to do great things....g
<strong>Who said anything about liberal or conservative?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You did. You quoted my entire post didn't you? Next time be more specific as to what you're refering when you blanket an entire post with a clever one-liner.
Furthermore, my response to art has nothing to do with you. So it led me even more to believe that you were just lazy and quoted the entire post rather than just the last part.
Let it be known that YOU alone created the hostility that was present in this thread. The suggestion that I have "blinders" on is one that could have been handled in a different, far less hostile manner. Good going.
i agree...that is why i propose a single 6 year term for president...he or she then doesn't have to think constantly from day one about re-election and doesn't have to keep two eyes on the polls...plus they know they will be know in the history books for those 6 years and perhaps will actually try to do great things....g
Art is not subjective though it appears that way because there is such an incredible variety of kinds of art that you can like or dislike . . . truck stop art, sci-fi art, comic book art, landscapes, Museum High Mosernism, paintings of villas in the south of France, dogs playing poker, etc etc
no one of these arts are more 'art' then any other form . . . in other words Kincaid *cough gag* is as valid as 'art' as is Duchamp . . . or as Rembrandt *heehee*
there is a difference as to what those different kinds of arts, (the different 'self institutionalizing forms' of art) addresses and dialogues with. And, there is a dialogue (a 'self institutionalizing form' of art) that is called art where the questions posed by and through it are on an ontological, self critical scale . . . this usually is what is called "high art" and is what is concentrated on in the institutions of Museums, Contemporary Galleries, Art Magazines, Art Schools . . . . often there is some measure of knowledge or acquaintanceship necessary to engage in this dialogue (though not if the work is very very strong and crosses over boundaries with ease) and oftten forms of art in this diaogue are dismissed without engagement.
Anyway, art is not subjective: you find yourself liking one of these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, because it fits your knowledge and your background and your expectations: what you are familiar with as 'art' . . . all of these are a function not of mere decisions but of where you live, how you live and who you are in daily dialogue with . . . there is a reason that Fellowship likes Kincaide, because his expectations have been conditioned so by his daily living. . . his "comfort zone" has been established so that Kincaide makes sense and feels right . . . he also goes to church to get his ontological/cosmological introspection and doesn't need to get it from the art in his life. So he is not interested in engaging in the dialogue with works such as Andres Serrano and would not bother to work at it . . . to talk with it
(I have, and frankly, Serrano didn't have the insight to pull the famous Piss christ out of mere provocation and decent photography . . . so, strangely enough, I agree with a critique of him . . though it could have been possible to see that piece as itself a perfect symbol for the power of christ in this pisser of a world . . but alas he talks about it with the intelligence of a moron so it was his intention that now colors the reception of the work for me now)
By the way, these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, become 'institutions' because of the people that 'dialogue' with them: who purchase them, who talk about them who hang them in their homes offices or etc . . . that is, in fact what I mean by 'institution' . . .
As for an earlier post, I guess I just don't notice where someone is from unless their English is somewhat poor. Other than that, I don't pay attention (unless someone brings it to the surface.) So I have no negative reaction when NEW makes a post because I have no idea where he's from. Oslo? Could be on vacation, could be away for a semester, could be an ex-pat.
My point is if you remove the fear of this being US bashing from a foreigner it's a very valid point. It might just be bashing from him, but there are other like myself that are still concerned but we're here in the States.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. When I'm reading posts, I try to ignore who the poster is. I want to judge each post based on its own intellectual merit--not on preconceived notions about the intentions of the poster. Critical statements about America (or any other issue for that matter) should be judged alone based on their own merits.
Exactly. When I'm reading posts, I try to ignore who the poster is. I want to judge each post based on its own intellectual merit--not on preconceived notions about the intentions of the poster. Critical statements about America (or any other issue for that matter) should be judged alone based on their own merits. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I do have one exception to this rule. When reading Future Hardware and I run across something like this:
I instinctively distrust patriots, that's why I live in Canada. However, unlike many here, I see a lot of good about America and don't begrudge her her well deserved success.
So Finboy when I was reading Page Six in the NY Post yesterday and they called Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, a dictator that was the press' liberal bias right?
<strong>I instinctively distrust patriots, that's why I live in Canada. However, unlike many here, I see a lot of good about America and don't begrudge her her well deserved success.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right. That's the other side of the coin. It is equally important to recognize the achievements while acknowledging the faults.
Comments
Lame art. That's dangerously close to bashing modern art.
Late for class bb@ 1:20. Bash me all you want based on statements I didn't make like conservatism= BPP.
As for "dangerously close to bashing modern art". Yeah, so be it. Do I go to jail for that?
Art is subjective. I happen to like mine a bit more on the positive, soul-stirring, eye-popping side (in lots of mediums and genres). I've always had a hard time attaching the term "art" to something any 6-year-old with an overactive bladder and extra time on his hands can do.
If that makes me "unhip" or whatever, I'll live with it.
One man's jar of piss is another man's Mona Lisa.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
Hey BR, maybe you've found a new faith to start picking on now, and can leave the religion thing along for awhile.
<strong>Hey BR, maybe you've found a new faith to start picking on now, and can leave the religion thing along for awhile.
*homer* WOO HOO!
<strong>
thanks for the kind words finboy...
of course the left does this, but the right plays just the same also (i remember listening to Rush Limbaugh one day and he went on and on about the liberal media and how it tells people what to think and that his audience didn't need that because it thought for itself and then all the audience members called in going "Ditto, Ditto Ditto"...i thought it very funny as of course he always tells them exactly what to think)...it is actually quite horrid how both sides behave, taking any issue and trying to turn it to their benefit...the only thing you can do as an individual is try to do what you think is right...act, vote, discuss and even argue....and as much as you can, love...it will help you live longer and happier (at least that is my opinion and hope)....g
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think one of our biggest problems is the fact that we must categorize ourselves as left or right. We can't just be citizens with unique viewpoints. Instead of elections being about the views of an individual candidate, elections are about the views of an entire party. I know that this two-party system will be very difficult to change because it is based on people's natural desires to affiliate themselves with something greater than themselves. What people fail to realize is that both Democrats and Republicans DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL. They care about one thing and one thing only: reelection. They are just two groups with a few minor ideological differences that have an insatiable thirst for power.
Until Joe America realizes this, progress, if any, will be slow. This constant bickering between the left and the right just plays right into the hands of the despots in power.
[QB]
As for "dangerously close to bashing modern art". Yeah, so be it. Do I go to jail for that?
Art is subjective. I happen to like mine a bit more on the positive, soul-stirring, eye-popping side (in lots of mediums and genres). I've always had a hard time attaching the term "art" to something any 6-year-old with an overactive bladder and extra time on his hands can do.
If that makes me "unhip" or whatever, I'll live with it.
One man's jar of piss is another man's Mona Lisa.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
That's cool then. It was really what I wanted to say too.
i agree...that is why i propose a single 6 year term for president...he or she then doesn't have to think constantly from day one about re-election and doesn't have to keep two eyes on the polls...plus they know they will be know in the history books for those 6 years and perhaps will actually try to do great things....g
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>Who said anything about liberal or conservative?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You did. You quoted my entire post didn't you? Next time be more specific as to what you're refering when you blanket an entire post with a clever one-liner.
Furthermore, my response to art has nothing to do with you. So it led me even more to believe that you were just lazy and quoted the entire post rather than just the last part.
Let it be known that YOU alone created the hostility that was present in this thread. The suggestion that I have "blinders" on is one that could have been handled in a different, far less hostile manner. Good going.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>
i agree...that is why i propose a single 6 year term for president...he or she then doesn't have to think constantly from day one about re-election and doesn't have to keep two eyes on the polls...plus they know they will be know in the history books for those 6 years and perhaps will actually try to do great things....g
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree whole-heartedly. Of course, it will never pass. No congressman is going to vote himself out of a job.
Art is not subjective though it appears that way because there is such an incredible variety of kinds of art that you can like or dislike . . . truck stop art, sci-fi art, comic book art, landscapes, Museum High Mosernism, paintings of villas in the south of France, dogs playing poker, etc etc
no one of these arts are more 'art' then any other form . . . in other words Kincaid *cough gag* is as valid as 'art' as is Duchamp . . . or as Rembrandt *heehee*
there is a difference as to what those different kinds of arts, (the different 'self institutionalizing forms' of art) addresses and dialogues with. And, there is a dialogue (a 'self institutionalizing form' of art) that is called art where the questions posed by and through it are on an ontological, self critical scale . . . this usually is what is called "high art" and is what is concentrated on in the institutions of Museums, Contemporary Galleries, Art Magazines, Art Schools . . . . often there is some measure of knowledge or acquaintanceship necessary to engage in this dialogue (though not if the work is very very strong and crosses over boundaries with ease) and oftten forms of art in this diaogue are dismissed without engagement.
Anyway, art is not subjective: you find yourself liking one of these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, because it fits your knowledge and your background and your expectations: what you are familiar with as 'art' . . . all of these are a function not of mere decisions but of where you live, how you live and who you are in daily dialogue with . . . there is a reason that Fellowship likes Kincaide, because his expectations have been conditioned so by his daily living. . . his "comfort zone" has been established so that Kincaide makes sense and feels right . . . he also goes to church to get his ontological/cosmological introspection and doesn't need to get it from the art in his life. So he is not interested in engaging in the dialogue with works such as Andres Serrano and would not bother to work at it . . . to talk with it
(I have, and frankly, Serrano didn't have the insight to pull the famous Piss christ out of mere provocation and decent photography . . . so, strangely enough, I agree with a critique of him . . though it could have been possible to see that piece as itself a perfect symbol for the power of christ in this pisser of a world . . but alas he talks about it with the intelligence of a moron so it was his intention that now colors the reception of the work for me now)
By the way, these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, become 'institutions' because of the people that 'dialogue' with them: who purchase them, who talk about them who hang them in their homes offices or etc . . . that is, in fact what I mean by 'institution' . . .
<strong>Content?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can't you see that some of us are having a nice discussion here? Go away if you have no content to contribute.
<strong>
As for an earlier post, I guess I just don't notice where someone is from unless their English is somewhat poor. Other than that, I don't pay attention (unless someone brings it to the surface.) So I have no negative reaction when NEW makes a post because I have no idea where he's from. Oslo? Could be on vacation, could be away for a semester, could be an ex-pat.
My point is if you remove the fear of this being US bashing from a foreigner it's a very valid point. It might just be bashing from him, but there are other like myself that are still concerned but we're here in the States.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. When I'm reading posts, I try to ignore who the poster is. I want to judge each post based on its own intellectual merit--not on preconceived notions about the intentions of the poster. Critical statements about America (or any other issue for that matter) should be judged alone based on their own merits.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
Exactly. When I'm reading posts, I try to ignore who the poster is. I want to judge each post based on its own intellectual merit--not on preconceived notions about the intentions of the poster. Critical statements about America (or any other issue for that matter) should be judged alone based on their own merits. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I do have one exception to this rule. When reading Future Hardware and I run across something like this:
I immediately assume it's Matsu.
<strong>
I do have one exception to this rule. When reading Future Hardware and I run across something like this:
I immediately assume it's Matsu.
lol
<strong>
Finboy,
Please do the following...
1)Take the remote
2)Turn off the cable news channels
3)Go outside
4)Find something interesting to do
5) Repeat as necessary
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blow me.
I figure that the response should be as relevant as the original post.
Oh, and take turns with Bunge
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
<strong>
Oh, and take turns with Bunge </strong><hr></blockquote>
Go take your spite somewhere else and blow yourself while your at it. Keep your personal attacks to yourself or go post them somewhere else.
Make sure you don't choke.
<strong>I instinctively distrust patriots, that's why I live in Canada. However, unlike many here, I see a lot of good about America and don't begrudge her her well deserved success.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right. That's the other side of the coin. It is equally important to recognize the achievements while acknowledging the faults.