If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 24, 2007, 4:21 pm
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>>> I've said that the purest form of art is the art you "never" see.
>>>>>> I said it with the idea of art with a profit-driven motive as a
>>>>>> lesser art.
>>>>>> So in some philosophic senses, I "reject" much of what is called art,
>>>>>> including music, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for your list(s), your culture seems more generous to you than me
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> maybe Don. Fortunately perhaps, there's now the internet, where,
>>>>>> ironically, the art that is "never" seen is being enjoyed by many,
>>>>>> freely.
>>>>> So, the art you never see is better... How do you know that? Faith-
>>>>> based art critic?
>>>> On first read, it reminded me of "Invisible Boy" who could only be
>>>> invisible when nobody was looking...
>>> -- Except to his spirit, soul, friends, family:
>>
>> You forgot security cameras.
>
> Good point... Would that be a Dracula-in-the-mirror thing, though?
If it was better I'd tell you to rent the movie, but alas....
|
| |
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 23, 2007, 3:59 pm
> I've said that the purest form of art is the art you "never" see.
> I said it with the idea of art with a profit-driven motive as a lesser
> art.
> So in some philosophic senses, I "reject" much of what is called art,
> including music, etc.
That you're going to have to elaborate for me. Warning: I took a couple of
aesthetics courses in school, and it's more or less ruined me for these
types of discussions. I usually stick to formal topics, or to "thumbs up" or
"thumbs down" hand gestures. Have you heard McLuhan's (short) definition of
art?
> As for your list(s), your culture seems more generous to you than me and
> maybe Don. Fortunately perhaps, there's now the internet, where,
> ironically, the art that is "never" seen is being enjoyed by many, freely.
Well, I am the one doing the abolishin'....and I did give you the BIG
loophole at the end. Did you want to let Pat Metheny, Gary Burton, Jack
DeJohnette, Gary Peacock, and Kieth Jarrett into the Jazz Ark before we
shove off into the brave new world?
I've been thinking, though...since the guys at alt.architecture are going to
abolish all cities, maybe I don't have to do a thing to jazz. It's urban
music. Presumably once all the cities are gone, jazz will be too.
<Bogart imitation>"We'll always have Branson."<imitation off>
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on December 23, 2007, 4:08 pm
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>> I've said that the purest form of art is the art you "never" see.
>> I said it with the idea of art with a profit-driven motive as a lesser
>> art.
>> So in some philosophic senses, I "reject" much of what is called art,
>> including music, etc.
>
> That you're going to have to elaborate for me. Warning: I took a couple of
> aesthetics courses in school, and it's more or less ruined me for these
> types of discussions.
I imagine many of the world's philosophers were self-taught.
At the same time, books might play a hand in corrupting thinking or
derailing trains of thought, in making them "lesser".
> I usually stick to formal topics, or to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" hand
gestures.
Like Ebert and Roper.
> Have you heard McLuhan's (short) definition of art?
No. Language is dynamic.
>> As for your list(s), your culture seems more generous to you than me and
>> maybe Don. Fortunately perhaps, there's now the internet, where,
>> ironically, the art that is "never" seen is being enjoyed by many, freely.
>
> Well, I am the one doing the abolishin'....and I did give you the BIG
> loophole at the end. Did you want to let Pat Metheny, Gary Burton, Jack
> DeJohnette, Gary Peacock, and Kieth Jarrett into the Jazz Ark before we
> shove off into the brave new world?
>
> I've been thinking, though...since the guys at alt.architecture are going to
> abolish all cities, maybe I don't have to do a thing to jazz. It's urban
> music. Presumably once all the cities are gone, jazz will be too.
>
> <Bogart imitation>"We'll always have Branson."<imitation off>
>
>
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 23, 2007, 4:15 pm
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>> I've said that the purest form of art is the art you "never" see.
>>> I said it with the idea of art with a profit-driven motive as a lesser
>>> art.
>>> So in some philosophic senses, I "reject" much of what is called art,
>>> including music, etc.
>>
>> That you're going to have to elaborate for me. Warning: I took a couple
>> of aesthetics courses in school, and it's more or less ruined me for
>> these types of discussions.
>
> I imagine many of the world's philosophers were self-taught.
> At the same time, books might play a hand in corrupting thinking or
> derailing trains of thought, in making them "lesser".
>
>> I usually stick to formal topics, or to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" hand
>> gestures.
>
> Like Ebert and Roper.
Except taller, fitter, and better looking.
>> Have you heard McLuhan's (short) definition of art?
>
> No. Language is dynamic.
He said, "Art is what you can get away with." (sic)
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on December 26, 2007, 2:34 am
>
>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>> I've said that the purest form of art is the art you "never" see.
>>>> I said it with the idea of art with a profit-driven motive as a lesser
>>>> art.
>>>> So in some philosophic senses, I "reject" much of what is called art,
>>>> including music, etc.
>>>
>>> That you're going to have to elaborate for me. Warning: I took a couple
>>> of aesthetics courses in school, and it's more or less ruined me for
>>> these types of discussions.
>>
>> I imagine many of the world's philosophers were self-taught.
>> At the same time, books might play a hand in corrupting thinking or
>> derailing trains of thought, in making them "lesser".
>>
>>> I usually stick to formal topics, or to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down"
>>> hand gestures.
>>
>> Like Ebert and Roper.
>
> Except taller, fitter, and better looking.
Good stuff. Knock 'em dead. ;)
Seriously, though, lately, I've begun to casually question whether
"better-looking" or "attractive" is necessarily actually better, desireable
or attractive, or what we mean by it. For example, some faces that some
might consider as "less attractive" can be some of the more interesting or
intriguing, hence, attractive, to me... Naturally, then there's personality,
form, movement, poise, intelligence, style, habits, creativity, depth,
etc...
There are some women that just move in certain ways that I prefer, for
example.
>>> Have you heard McLuhan's (short) definition of art?
>>
>> No. Language is dynamic.
>
> He said, "Art is what you can get away with." (sic)
Did he say how, or with whom? Because, as you know, a child may get away
with one thing with Dad, but not the same thing with Mom.
Artists may paint works just for themselves too... with the acknowledgement
that I don't always let myself get away with everything. ;)
|
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Jazz | December 22, 2007, 4:45 pm |
| Re: Jazz | January 7, 2008, 5:41 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap