The Land of the Free, where the allowable length of the grass in your yard is regulated. But as long as you don't have free public healthcare like we have here in the evil socialist countries, I guess it's okay.
I support public healthcare, but calling it "free" is disingenuous.
The only way to change the Constitution is to pass an amendment.
True. Since the neocon's haven't succeeded in passing any amendments we can safely assume that they're breaking the law.
Look, I'm not taking the position of the GOP in this matter. I just think that exaggerations are dangerous.
Are facts? The constitution requires that government agents acquire warrants before searching the person or property of a suspected criminal, and that said person be informed of the charges against them, that they have a speedy trial before a jury of their peers, and that cruel and unusual punishment not be levied against them. These are basic, inherent human rights, and nowhere does the constitution specify that they only apply to citizens (and it often implies otherwise).
If any violations of these things have happened, the current administration has broken the law. These are simple facts.
Lisp and Scheme might be better languages to learn from an academic standpoint, but from an "I get paid money for this" pov, javascript is a much more practical language.
Meh. The only things you really to worry about with cross-browser javascript are transparency, window dimensions, and AJAX, all of which can be taken care of by using whichever of a dozen or so freely available libraries you prefer.
The flaw in your argument is the idea that the problem with your internet service is that everyone else has better than you, rather than that yours isn't good enough.
Ah. Well I'm pretty lenient with my definition of what is and isn't art, as well. I think if two people can honestly* debate it, it's probably art, but you're correct that I wasn't talking about that.
if anything has explicit and exact objective meaning, it's code.
No, code defines an explicit and objective process, what that process (or the way it's specified) means is subjective. If you are correct then society has no need for art critics (a debatable point, but somebody keeps paying them), their jobs could easily be performed by machines.
Right; excellence is one of two defining factors of art. The other is the depth, as mentioned. (Incidentally, "innovative" is next to meaningless, and "inspirational or compelling" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, but these things are not necessary for art. If you don't find a work "inspirational or compelling", that doesn't make it not-art. There is a difference between "what is art" and "what I appreciate".)
Oddly, both of the criteria you've suggested as the only viable criteria for interpreting art actually have little or nothing to do with what it means, which makes it understandable that you need the artist explain it to you literally.
I don't claim to be an artist. I use to be, in the sense that I used to enjoy producing art, never tried to make a career of it. I don't think that's relevant.
Art is the expression of the artist; the form of expression may be completely abstract, as with abstract visual art or most forms of music. It may be representational or allegorical or symbolic or many things, but it has specific meaning the artist is trying to convey. Art is communication between the artist and the observer: an artist without something to say isn't an artist.
An art without an observer is masturbation.
As with any communication, of course, the meaning is subject to interpretation, which can be right on or completely off. This does not however mean that meaning is entirely in the eye of the beholder---only that the beholder can be completely wrong. Art is also subject to analysis by third parties, which lends insight and detail to the work. Analysis, however, is also not meaning.
Analysis isn't meaning. Agreed.
Of course art means something to the artist, and of course you're right any good artist should be trying to say something. Your fallacy is in assuming that the artist's meaning is the "correct" one for everyone else. Your piece of art means to me whatever I think it means.
Quality of art is in its excellence of form and its depth. A poorly-scrawled stick figure is crap; a well-drawn stick figure that conveys multiple well-thought-out references may be pretty good art. (I'm sure you can come up with a few references to xkcd here.)
I'm going to have go ahead and totally disagree with you on that one. Excellence of form, while one judge of a work's quality, does not inherently make that work innovative, inspirational or compelling.
Art, like every other craft, is not magic.... And it's not anything goes: slinging paint at a canvas doesn't automatically make you an insightful abstract painter. Like any other craft, only non-craftsmen and those pretending the craft believe these things.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't believe that's relevant to my point.
Although, this gives me another item for my list of "things to do if I suddenly become a god": have my prophet spout subtle logical fallacies and then laugh it up as the idiot humans get upset, and waste a bunch of time or do damage to themselves, and then finally figure it out and say, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't even make sense!"
I've been waiting so long for you to show yourself, Lord!
You're allowed to react to the meaning however you like, but the only meaning that's in the painting that belongs there is the meaning that the artist put there. Everything else is imagined meaning.
Yes, the meaning is imagined. The meaning I imagine is formed from my feeling and memories, not the artists. People don't conjure up "imaginings" for no reason. Thoughts about art are reactions to that art. The meaning you accepted from the artist is just as imagined as the one I created on my own.
People study the lives of authors to better understand what things mean in the context of their works.... I've gained some better understanding of the plays that I read in school because of the context that was there as a backdrop to the piece of art itself.
Yes, they do. I'm glad to hear that you enjoy learning, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to discourage your enjoyment of those things.
I do however, think it's naive to think that that's the only way to glean meaning from art.
When you watch a movie, who's meaning is the "correct" one? The director's? The actor's? The writer's?
"Who is the person trying to talk to me to tell me what they're trying to say? I should be able to put the words that I want to hear into their mouth."
That's nothing like what I said at all.
To continue the communication as art line: I can't imagine words in your mouth, but I can interpret my own meaning from the words that you choose to use and way you choose use them.
Perhaps you say something that I believe crosses some line of good taste and I'm offended. Are you suggesting that because you said it sarcastically that I don't have the right to be offended?
Or say a joke offends you, do I not have the right to laugh?
It seems to me that no one is better qualified to interpret a work of art than the artist himself. Maybe the art evokes some childhood memory for the artist, or one of a million other things that could muddle the meaning by externalizing it.
What if I don't care? Are you saying the meaning I get from the piece isn't valid? If you care about artist's childhoods that's fine with me, but I don't happen to think "This painting is about how my dad used to beat me." is very interesting. If a piece of art invokes fear, helplessness and loneliness then it speaks for itself. Contrariwise if it evokes no emotion for me, what would I care what it means to the artist?
To think that all meaning is in the person observing the art is just as pretentious as thinking that all the meaning is in the artist, but the artist is the creator of the piece; it's a reflection of the artist, at the very least. There would be no meaning there to discuss if the artist hadn't created it.
Yeah, it is a reflection of the artist. And their quality as an artist is defined by their ability to express meaning through their art, rather than about it.
In the case of these two pieces we're left to come up with our own interpretation, as long at that interpretation is arty goodness, and not smelly garbageness, because you know it's art.
On the contrary, I doubt that either person has the ability to limit your interpretation, which could easily include it being smelly garbageness.
Slashdot Mirror
there's still no good evidence of any of this wrking twards any good results...
They can't even find the cutthroats who made off with your O's!
The Land of the Free, where the allowable length of the grass in your yard is regulated. But as long as you don't have free public healthcare like we have here in the evil socialist countries, I guess it's okay.
I support public healthcare, but calling it "free" is disingenuous.
And yes, the grass thing is stupid.
Awesome. I thought I was the one who still played Shadowrun.
The only way to change the Constitution is to pass an amendment.
True. Since the neocon's haven't succeeded in passing any amendments we can safely assume that they're breaking the law.
Look, I'm not taking the position of the GOP in this matter. I just think that exaggerations are dangerous.
Are facts? The constitution requires that government agents acquire warrants before searching the person or property of a suspected criminal, and that said person be informed of the charges against them, that they have a speedy trial before a jury of their peers, and that cruel and unusual punishment not be levied against them. These are basic, inherent human rights, and nowhere does the constitution specify that they only apply to citizens (and it often implies otherwise).
If any violations of these things have happened, the current administration has broken the law. These are simple facts.
Lisp and Scheme might be better languages to learn from an academic standpoint, but from an "I get paid money for this" pov, javascript is a much more practical language.
Javascript and PHP have built in regex.
Meh. The only things you really to worry about with cross-browser javascript are transparency, window dimensions, and AJAX, all of which can be taken care of by using whichever of a dozen or so freely available libraries you prefer.
Note: I only know PHP and Ruby.
Learn javascript. It's by far the most valuable language on that list if you already know PHP and IMHO, the most fun regardless.
Pros:
Cons:
application/cu+chisel
The flaw in your argument is the idea that the problem with your internet service is that everyone else has better than you, rather than that yours isn't good enough.
If you downloaded 250GB in a month, 225GB would stuff you didn't want? You know you can get porn through bittorrent, right?
Dignity? Bah! Covering up my naughty bits just makes pants look like a prude.
Really? I thought it was the penguins. Those evil little bastards are planning to take over our desktops.
Watch out for those guys. They all dress like James Bond.
It's not the execution, it's the cake.
I didn't want him to think of me as a liar.
Ah. Well I'm pretty lenient with my definition of what is and isn't art, as well. I think if two people can honestly* debate it, it's probably art, but you're correct that I wasn't talking about that.
I'm still quite perplexed on why so many people seem so awed by its concept.
It's not the concept, it's the execution.
Bravo.
"It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital."
-Oscar Wilde
Code, for instance, can be a form of art;
Agreed.
if anything has explicit and exact objective meaning, it's code.
No, code defines an explicit and objective process, what that process (or the way it's specified) means is subjective. If you are correct then society has no need for art critics (a debatable point, but somebody keeps paying them), their jobs could easily be performed by machines.
Right; excellence is one of two defining factors of art. The other is the depth, as mentioned. (Incidentally, "innovative" is next to meaningless, and "inspirational or compelling" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, but these things are not necessary for art. If you don't find a work "inspirational or compelling", that doesn't make it not-art. There is a difference between "what is art" and "what I appreciate".)
Oddly, both of the criteria you've suggested as the only viable criteria for interpreting art actually have little or nothing to do with what it means, which makes it understandable that you need the artist explain it to you literally.
Typical bullshit from a pretender or non-artist.
I don't claim to be an artist. I use to be, in the sense that I used to enjoy producing art, never tried to make a career of it. I don't think that's relevant.
Art is the expression of the artist; the form of expression may be completely abstract, as with abstract visual art or most forms of music. It may be representational or allegorical or symbolic or many things, but it has specific meaning the artist is trying to convey. Art is communication between the artist and the observer: an artist without something to say isn't an artist.
An art without an observer is masturbation.
As with any communication, of course, the meaning is subject to interpretation, which can be right on or completely off. This does not however mean that meaning is entirely in the eye of the beholder---only that the beholder can be completely wrong. Art is also subject to analysis by third parties, which lends insight and detail to the work. Analysis, however, is also not meaning.
Analysis isn't meaning. Agreed.
Of course art means something to the artist, and of course you're right any good artist should be trying to say something. Your fallacy is in assuming that the artist's meaning is the "correct" one for everyone else. Your piece of art means to me whatever I think it means.
Quality of art is in its excellence of form and its depth. A poorly-scrawled stick figure is crap; a well-drawn stick figure that conveys multiple well-thought-out references may be pretty good art. (I'm sure you can come up with a few references to xkcd here.)
I'm going to have go ahead and totally disagree with you on that one. Excellence of form, while one judge of a work's quality, does not inherently make that work innovative, inspirational or compelling.
Art, like every other craft, is not magic. ... And it's not anything goes: slinging paint at a canvas doesn't automatically make you an insightful abstract painter. Like any other craft, only non-craftsmen and those pretending the craft believe these things.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't believe that's relevant to my point.
Although, this gives me another item for my list of "things to do if I suddenly become a god": have my prophet spout subtle logical fallacies and then laugh it up as the idiot humans get upset, and waste a bunch of time or do damage to themselves, and then finally figure it out and say, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't even make sense!"
I've been waiting so long for you to show yourself, Lord!
it is not always possible to determine where the water ends and the alcohol begins in a drink.
I like the cut of your jib, Slashdotter.
You're allowed to react to the meaning however you like, but the only meaning that's in the painting that belongs there is the meaning that the artist put there. Everything else is imagined meaning.
Yes, the meaning is imagined. The meaning I imagine is formed from my feeling and memories, not the artists. People don't conjure up "imaginings" for no reason. Thoughts about art are reactions to that art. The meaning you accepted from the artist is just as imagined as the one I created on my own.
People study the lives of authors to better understand what things mean in the context of their works. ... I've gained some better understanding of the plays that I read in school because of the context that was there as a backdrop to the piece of art itself.
Yes, they do. I'm glad to hear that you enjoy learning, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to discourage your enjoyment of those things.
I do however, think it's naive to think that that's the only way to glean meaning from art.
When you watch a movie, who's meaning is the "correct" one? The director's? The actor's? The writer's?
Artists can tell whomever they want what their art means, I certainly won't stop them.
Whether or not I like or feel an emotional connection to a piece of art has nothing to do with what the artist tells me it means.
"Who is the person trying to talk to me to tell me what they're trying to say? I should be able to put the words that I want to hear into their mouth."
That's nothing like what I said at all.
To continue the communication as art line: I can't imagine words in your mouth, but I can interpret my own meaning from the words that you choose to use and way you choose use them.
Perhaps you say something that I believe crosses some line of good taste and I'm offended. Are you suggesting that because you said it sarcastically that I don't have the right to be offended?
Or say a joke offends you, do I not have the right to laugh?
It seems to me that no one is better qualified to interpret a work of art than the artist himself. Maybe the art evokes some childhood memory for the artist, or one of a million other things that could muddle the meaning by externalizing it.
What if I don't care? Are you saying the meaning I get from the piece isn't valid? If you care about artist's childhoods that's fine with me, but I don't happen to think "This painting is about how my dad used to beat me." is very interesting. If a piece of art invokes fear, helplessness and loneliness then it speaks for itself. Contrariwise if it evokes no emotion for me, what would I care what it means to the artist?
To think that all meaning is in the person observing the art is just as pretentious as thinking that all the meaning is in the artist, but the artist is the creator of the piece; it's a reflection of the artist, at the very least. There would be no meaning there to discuss if the artist hadn't created it.
Yeah, it is a reflection of the artist. And their quality as an artist is defined by their ability to express meaning through their art, rather than about it.
In the case of these two pieces we're left to come up with our own interpretation, as long at that interpretation is arty goodness, and not smelly garbageness, because you know it's art.
On the contrary, I doubt that either person has the ability to limit your interpretation, which could easily include it being smelly garbageness.
That's the beauty of art.