Amusing incident proves that modern perception of "Art" is crap

[Arrian]

Philosophers & Historians - CAN live without 'em.

-Arrian (I wouldn't want to, btw)

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian

Oh how funny you are, LoTM.

We used to have a topped thread in the CivIII general or strategy forum to explain the abbreviations to newbies. Somebody put in the effort to not shut them out, see.

and if this were a forum devoted to art theory, and it was populated by a mix of experts and newbies, Im sure SOME expert would put up a FAQ and glossary.
and most of the experts would be thankful someone else had taken that task.


But its not. This is the off topic of a civ forum, and some folks started talking about art. someone else, who actually knows something about the field, explained it terms that probably already are a simplification.

Imagine if in the art theory site, there was an offtopic forum, and someone posted something absurd and hostile about civ. Would you feel obliged to educate the guy? What if you just werent that good at translation.

Ive tried to educate newbies here on a range of topics they spew idiocy about, and for the most part Ive become convinced its pointless. If they really wanted to seriously learn what happened in Sinai in June 1967. or what Midrash is, they would be looking for it somewhere other than here. Similarly if someone really wanted to learn about contemporary art theory, rather than just rant about a pet peeve, they wouldnt come in here making asses of themselves.

[Nostromo]

I'm with Tubes on Jargon.

I love History. My best friend is currently working on his PhD in History at Brown. He occasionally shows me stuff he's reading (and writing, for that matter), and honestly, many of these academics really do go out of their way to use words that 99% of the population has never even seen before (or invent new ones) when normal words would work as well, or even better! It *is* pretentious. There really isn't any other explanation for it. I can't give you a specific example right now, so if you don't want to take my word for it, fine. But IMO, some people would rather try to show how smart they are by displaying their vocabulary, than actually discussing the topic.

What you say is true, but only in part. I'm a professional philosopher and I simply couldn't work without some key concepts. I need some amount of jargon to get my job done properly. Without those concepts, those crucial distinctions, my work wouldn't be as clear, as precise, as rigorous as I want it to be and as my peers expect it to be. Asking me to work without those concepts would be like asking a physicist to work without mathematics, or a surgeon to work with a fork and spoon.

That is not to say that some thinkers or scholars don't go overboard and coin a new word when an old one would do just fine.

And you have to remember another thing: we write with specific reading audience in mind. If I write for my peers, I write in a certain way, expecting they're familiar with the jargon I'm using. If I write something for non-philosophers, I write differently, like I do here.

[Arrian]

I wasn't trying to brand the entire field. I said *some* academics. Certainly not all, and not even most.

-Arrian

[Whaleboy]

That's because philosophers themselves don't actually know what they're talking about.

Teh insight!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Why is that we can accept a symphony as art, even though its totally abstract, or a building by an architect, but we have trouble with an abstract painting?

But people had trouble with Schoenberg, Richard Strauss, Zemlinsky, Stravinsky....


Even now, I suspect most people prefer something pleasant and melodic to something atonal or chromatic.

One problem of course is how art is presented in the media- entirely out of context, something to poke fun at (and of course there's the retort 'a kid could do that'- yet so few do or have...).

I think some art does deserve to be laughed at- I find an awful lot of modern conceptual art not worth the effort in deciphering or elucidating the underlying concept.

However, I don't then say because it displeases me or doesn't move me, that it isn't art, or that it can only be art if it fulfils certain arbitrary criteria of my own devising.


I think you can enjoy Bosch, Klee, Rembrandt, Titian Picasso and Monet and Pollock. They just require different approaches.

No one expects all recorded music to use the same instruments or have the same rhythm or 'be about' the same things.


Pollocks to the philistines...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sikander


As a person who has proven outstanding reading and listening comprehension skills I find a lot of what is obscured by jargon unnecessary.

As do I. But even otherwise excellent writers can make an appalling hash of things. As good a medium as the English language is (it really benefits from the huge vocabulary, loan words, the Romance and Germanic roots) it is still difficult to describe a concept or a visual experience or an aural experience without at times wandering into the realms of vapidity, floweriness, vagueness and waffle.

But that's the problem inherent in trying to transcribe how we react to one kind of set of data (visual or tactile, say) into words. Which is why I suspect we feel a particular thrill when good writers or philosophers 'nail' a given emotion or sensation or concept for us.

It resembles a genuinely personal shared experience.

Even though I no longer have a religious faith, I still respond to Masaccio's 'Expulsion' on an immediate level- I recognise the sense of grief and shame being portrayed here:

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Tuberski
I don't deny it. I do deny that it takes specialized language to understand the world.

Makes it easier. My post you quoted could have used less technical words, but it would have been much longer and tedious.
If you believe that there is no room in 'intellectual effort' for learning a more specialized vocabulary, perhaps you should review your definition of it.

[molly bloom]

I do deny that it takes specialized language to understand the world.

Tuberski

Well there's 'specialized language' in most professions or crafts- the army, navy and air force have their own slang, the common law uses Norman French terms and Latin terminology not found in everyday speech, scientists and mathematicians have technical terms that lie outside the realms of common discourse.


Similarly, the visual arts have a plethora of specific words that relate to techniques or innovations in either three dimensional or two dimensional depcitions of the visual and tactile worlds- words from French, Latin or Italian.

Impasto, chiaroscuro, sfumato, contrapposto, scumbling, fresco, tempera, pittura metafisica, Dada, Cubism, naturalism, realism, alla prima, Fauvisme, Tachisme, collage, grattage, decoupage, distemper, ground, single and double point perspective, vanishing point, Golden Section, encaustic, gesso, grisaille, trompe l'oeil, pentimento....

As Molly Bloom would say in 'Ulysses':

"Oh, rocks. Tell us in plain words."

Except of course it would take longer.

If you've never read any of Van Gogh's letters, I would recommend them to you.

They are one of the best examples one can find of a person working in the visual arts attempting to put into words the techniques and philosophy behind their paintings.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Tuberski

Well there's 'specialized language' in most professions or crafts- the army, navy and air force have their own slang, the common law uses Norman French terms and Latin terminology not found in everyday speech, scientists and mathematicians have technical terms that lie outside the realms of common discourse.


Similarly, the visual arts have a plethora of specific words that relate to techniques or innovations in either three dimensional or two dimensional depcitions of the visual and tactile worlds- words from French, Latin or Italian.

Impasto, chiaroscuro, sfumato, contrapposto, scumbling, fresco, tempera, pittura metafisica, Dada, Cubism, naturalism, realism, alla prima, Fauvisme, Tachisme, collage, grattage, decoupage, distemper, ground, single and double point perspective, vanishing point, Golden Section, encaustic, gesso, grisaille, trompe l'oeil, pentimento....

As Molly Bloom would say in 'Ulysses':



Except of course it would take longer.

To explain it to me? An art simpleton? I rather doubt it.

Of course, in your example, I was in the Navy and we did have our own slang as you suggest. But I wouldn't use that slang with a civilian because I would want to be understood by the person I'm speaking to.

ACK!

[General Ludd]

Tuberski, how often do you talk to artists about their work, and are unable to understand what they say?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Makes it easier. My post you quoted could have used less technical words, but it would have been much longer and tedious.
If you believe that there is no room in 'intellectual effort' for learning a more specialized vocabulary, perhaps you should review your definition of it.

The point is, it's still tedious. Because, again, using that slang with the layman, you are going to get either disinterest, because he finds what you say tedious, or you are going to have to explain things in simpler and, for you, more tedious terms anyway.

As far as "intellectual effort", I don't really think I need to learn a specialized vocabulary to enjoy a piece of art.

Art to me is more visceral, than intellectual. If an art piece doesn't move me emotionally, all the specialized jargon in the world isn't going to make me appriciate it more.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Tuberski, how often do you talk to artists about their work, and are unable to understand what they say?

I don't, see aformentioned jargon.

I didn't understand 90% of what Oncle Boris said. Why would I want to talk to him about art when he uses terms I don't know or understand.

If he wants me to understand what he's saying, he should come to my level, he shouldn't expect me to come up to his.

If you go to another country, you don't expect every native to learn your language while you are there, you learn to communicate in theirs.

ACK!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Tuberski


I don't

Then maybe you should try before generalizing artists as being elitist and unwilling to talk to people who aren't a part of a clique

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Then maybe you should try before generalizing artists as being elitist and unwilling to talk to people who aren't a part of a clique

They may be willing to talk to people that aren't part of their clique. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a majority of artists would love nothing more than to talk about their work with laymen.

It's in the artist's best interest to speak of his art in a language that is understood.

But, if they use the specialized jargon, they aren't going to get anywhere with the layman.

What is so hard to understand?

But gee, way to only read part of what I posted, I think I explained why, in the same post.

ACK!