[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

A framed promo poster for my first album from 1997. It was a gift from my mom.

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

[Savage Clone]

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.

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

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.

[Savage Clone]

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by ploesj

indeed, which is quite a bad thing, since this is a time when art could really be available for everyone... it used to be an elitist thing because only the rich people could afford education, books, artworks. now it's an elitist thing because the majority of the population thinks it's rubbish.

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.

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

 

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

[Savage Clone]

Glice! More troll pix please.

[Glice]

 

[Glice]

 

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Glice! More troll pix please.

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

[Glice]

 

[looking glass spectacle]

Originally Posted by Glice

Is it something particular to the nature of art that you wouldn't ever say 'well, it's not really astronomy, is it?'

i've heard that said of SETI.

Originally Posted by Glice

I tend to feel that, while there's clearly a lot of fraudhattery in the (visual, gallery-based) art world, I can't think of another field which comes under so much scrutiny by people who largely don't actually care. By which I mean, I almost never read any articles complaining that the LHC (or whatever) are a fatuous and superfluous use of money (it probably isn't, I neither know nor care) but people seem to think that galleries they haven't visited are fair game for accusations of emperor's new clothes.

Which isn't to say I don't sympathise with your opinion I just... well, it's odd is all.

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.

[greedrex]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

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

 

[Glice]

Originally Posted by looking glass spectacle

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...)

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.

[floatingslowly]

arise, good sir knight.

 

^^^art

[floatingslowly]

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.

[demonrail666]

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.

[phoenix]

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.

[looking glass spectacle]

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

[phoenix]

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