That sounds a damn sight more appealing than a painting by Pollock.

I did once have a 6 foot by 6 foot abstract painting with a big rock bulging underneath its surface hanging on my living room wall, but I eventually gave it back to the artist who made it.

I'm not bloody surprised.

I see what you mean, and I also agree with Looking Glass Spectacle's point about the irony of those kinds of art that're designed to break down barriers but which often build even higher ones as a result. The problem really kicked in I suppose after WW1, when form itself became politicised, and that, as a way of 'protecting' art from the ravages of the market, it adopted a deliberately 'difficult' style.

The further problem for art in the twentieth century (in Europe at least) was that it tried to seperate itself from what it saw as a corrupt European cultural tradition and so was more about destroying the values of that tradition than anything else. This never really happened in the US, which at the time was more keen to find a footing within the arts establishment. Even now, the US has never really taken on the idea of an anti-art tradition with quite the same energy as it has been in Europe. The problem now of course is that the anti-art tradition has been largely absorbed by the art market itself.

Was that on your wall as well before you gave it back to the retard who created it?

Glice! More troll pix please.

Don't you mean more creations by retards for the amusement of retards? :rolleyes:

i've heard that said of SETI.


as for the LHC, science geeks make all kinds of fun of that shit...



but since science geekery is far more of a closed system than art geekery, it's self-questioning is less visible... and as you pointed out, nobody else cares enough to pose the question.

but didn't the controversy caused by Alan Sokal's quantum gravity hoax essentially revolve around the question "is that really physics?"?

(i'm assuming that asking a question about a question requires two question marks, but i'm open to suggestions on that...)

that said... it does get asked far more often of art.

I don't think the Sokal affair revolved around 'is that really physics?' so much as it did revolve around the question of verifying science's metonymical use outside of strictly scientific disciplines; I generally feel that Sokal was calling foul play on other people's trust. The reading group I'm in are covering the Sokal affair at our next meeting, and I've a feeling I'm going to chat a lot about Feyerabend and Sokal's breach of academic trust.

Regarding your grammatical question - I understand that if the parenthesis or quotation ends with a question mark, there's no need for the closing grammatical affect in the dominant clause. Which is to say, in the above, the question mark in the quotation sufficed, no need for another one.

I'm no expert in these matters though.

arise, good sir knight.

^^^art

ps: it's obvious that temporal-backlash is causing supercolliders to fail prior to anything that would cause harm to the time-line.

right. a fucking bagel crumb, dropped by a bird. right.

:rolleyes:

I think what Sokal did was valid in its criticism of academic publishing. What I'm a bit uncomfortable with though was the way in which the whole affair was jumped on with an almost gleeful enthusiasm by those who wanted to use it as evidence of a certain fraudulance within academic departments. That kind of fraudulance does exist but it wasn't helpful to focus on a single instance without also looking at how departments have been forced to lower their standards and publish work that clearly isn't worthy just in order to secure the funding necessary for them to survive.

So, you know, what makes music, music.. Some dumb fuck near me is making all kinds of noises with guitars and his band is really popular, but, I know it isn't music. It's shit. He is fucking bulshit. Only a pretentious idiot would call what he does, music. Wankers.

thurston moore is playing a guitar near you! i'm so jealous....

yeh thurston is a fucking hack. fuck him and his cash.