How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 9:52 am 

How, and when did “Art,” art with a capital 'A,' become pure evil, and/or capable of representing the pinnacle of all things evil, instead of representing the pinnacle of all things good, and/or the definition of a human being's “soul?”

Because, we know, for a fact, that, at one point in time, art, became “Art,” Art with a capital 'A,' exactly because of Leonardo Da Vinci's ability to transform all things with the potential to be corrupted, and/or all things tending towards evil, into the very definition of the literally defined pinnacle antithesis, with his production of The Annunciation:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=19902

And we also know that, in addition to Leonardo transforming “all things with the potential to be corrupted,” into something which can't: The Annunciation, Leonardo also “simply communicated” that understanding, by having the, simple, scene being:

“The subject matter is drawn from Luke 1.26-39 and depicts the angel Gabriel, sent by God to announce to a virgin, Mary, that she would miraculously conceive and give birth to a son, to be named Jesus, and to be called 'the Son of God' whose reign would never end - The angel holds a Madonna lily, a symbol of Mary's virginity...” Wikipedia

Ok, so we know this all for a historical fact.

But then, we also know Leonardo communicated this:

“...Music can be corrupted by those who do not understand it...”

So, we can also know, factually, that, after Leonardo produced his The Annunciation, and which DID represent all things “virtuous,” and/or all things uniquely human, and such as: a soul – consciousness – virtue – goodness – compassion – love – peace – harmony – life – Heaven – eternal happiness, etc., art did immediately begin to become corrupted, by those who do not understand it.

And then, we can see that literal corruption, take a huge quantum leap at the beginning of the twentieth century, and begin to represent all things with the potential to be pure evil, and with the introduction of the “Moderns,” and/or: Picasso – Duchamp – Pollock, etc, and then – through the entire twentieth century, we can see that degradation continue to grow, until we get to this:

“The Holy Virgin Mary is a painting created by Chris Ofili in 1996. It was one of the works included in the Sensation - The subject of the work, and its execution, caused considerable controversy in New York, with Rudolph Giuliani – then Mayor of New York City – describing Ofili's work as 'sick.' In 1998, Ofili was the first black artist to be awarded the Turner Prize. The painting was sold for £2.9 million ($4.6 million) in June 2015 - On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high and 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including elephant dung (and) pornographic images...” Wikipedia

Yeah – The “Holy Virgin Mary (with) Elephant Dung,” and which is the pinnacle of pure evil, functioning in conjunction wit this:

“Piss Christ - depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's 'Awards in the Visual Arts,' which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects...”

Yeah: “The Holy Virgin Mary With Elephant Dung,” and/or Mankind LITERLLY, “throwing feces” upon the recognized Mother of God, functioning in conjunction with: “Piss Christ,” and/or Mankind urinating on the Son of God.

And, with “Art,” Art with a capital 'A,' now – at the beginning of the twentieth century, coming full circle, and – NOW, only representing, THIS:

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist..”

Only the function of Satan's minions.

And while the world can now know, for a fact, that we: The “people” of the United States Of America, the ones responsible for allowing it, and/or the ones who HAVE sold their souls, and/or the “silent majority,” of the United States of America, are going to “burn in hell.”

So, how did THAT ever happen?
Last edited by MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 11:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 12th, 2017, 10:11 am 

I can imagine straight away how the "artists" would explain these items. I don't think it is "art" in my mind at all in one sense, yet they are made for a purpose and have a message.

Certainly it seems they are made to provoke a strong reaction. It is a statement and in one case it may be both in honour of Chirst or a "piss take", meaning that the urine could be disgust at humanity for putting Christ on the cross in the first place and that we should be ashamed of how we treated a supposedly peaceful and loving individual. In the other it could be interpreted as a scathing review of the effect of Christianity on the African nation in the colonial period.

I have not seen either and if they are trying to open the viewer to these kind of ideas they seem pretty daft to me as it would make more sense to open a dialogue and discuss on these subjects rather than create something that is obviously likely to offend.

I am not Christian, but I see that the people who produced these items had a purposeful intention. I can imagine people with anti-Christian views may very well have promoted these "artists".

I have to admit it is hard for me to talk about "art" in the sense you've previously presented it. Meaning you express "art" in way so as not to include music or poetry? Or was you simply talking about painting specifically in the other post?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
MrMikeludo liked this post


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 10:17 am 

BadgerJelly » August 12th, 2017, 10:11 am wrote:I can imagine straight away how the "artists" would explain these items. I don't think it is "art" in my mind at all in one sense, yet they are made for a purpose and have a message.

Certainly it seems they are made to provoke a strong reaction. It is a statement and in one case it may be both in honour of Chirst or a "piss take", meaning that the urine could be disgust at humanity for putting Christ on the cross in the first place and that we should be ashamed of how we treated a supposedly peaceful and loving individual. In the other it could be interpreted as a scathing review of the effect of Christianity on the African nation in the colonial period.

I have not seen either and if they are trying to open the viewer to these kind of ideas they seem pretty daft to me as it would make more sense to open a dialogue and discuss on these subjects rather than create something that is obviously likely to offend.

I am not Christian, but I see that the people who produced these items had a purposeful intention. I can imagine people with anti-Christian views may very well have promoted these "artists".

I have to admit it is hard for me to talk about "art" in the sense you've previously presented it. Meaning you express "art" in way so as not to include music or poetry? Or was you simply talking about painting specifically in the other post?


BUT, the "Artist," Andres Serrano, SAID he "had no religious convictions," PRIOR to producing the "work:"

"Asked about the religious significance of the figure, Mr. Serrano shrugged. He'd never been particularly religious, he said: ''I just like the way it looks. And it goes with all the furniture.'' New York Times

SEE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/10/garde ... ister.html
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Eclogite on August 12th, 2017, 10:38 am 

MrMikeludo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:52 pm wrote:Because, we know, for a fact, that, at one point in time, art, became “Art,” Art with a capital 'A,' exactly because of Leonardo Da Vinci's ability to transform all things with the potential to be corrupted, and/or all things tending towards evil, into the every definition of the literally defined pinnacle antithesis, with his production of The Annunciation:
No, we do not know - as you later claim - that this is a historical fact. We know that it is one interpretation of historical fact.

And therein lies the flaw in your premise. You conflate opinion/interpretation with fact/reality. For me that pretty well closes down any avenues of further discussion. How can I discuss an opinion that you assert is a fact?
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about
Braininvat liked this post


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 10:45 am 

Eclogite » August 12th, 2017, 10:38 am wrote:
MrMikeludo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:52 pm wrote:Because, we know, for a fact, that, at one point in time, art, became “Art,” Art with a capital 'A,' exactly because of Leonardo Da Vinci's ability to transform all things with the potential to be corrupted, and/or all things tending towards evil, into the every definition of the literally defined pinnacle antithesis, with his production of The Annunciation:
No, we do not know - as you later claim - that this is a historical fact. We know that it is one interpretation of historical fact.

And therein lies the flaw in your premise. You conflate opinion/interpretation with fact/reality. For me that pretty well closes down any avenues of further discussion. How can I discuss an opinion that you assert is a fact?



No, sorry - "fact."

Which part, "specifically," do you believe is "opinion?"
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 12th, 2017, 10:59 am 

Mik -

If that is what the "artist" said then I would say he/she is merely playing the shock game in promoting themselves and getting in the headlines.

I guess you can see what I meant though? I would add that if the intent of the "artist" is not translated to the viewer as they meant then they are not "artists" merely terrible at expressing anything and riding in the wake of creative minds that draw meaning from their obscure "product".

In a contrary manner we can then also say that people who produce such possibly "rich" items that enable the viewers to be creative do in fact possess some inherent value. I think it is within this see-sawing of interpretation that many a fool or idiot can fall into high acclaim for producing an accidentally "rich" emotional item.

Get my gist? This is why I tried to engage with you about poetry because it is a medium that can be more readily shared online. There are some forms of "poetry" I have a hard time calling "poetry" because they linger in some particular areas that seem more like mysticism or what I would call "childish" ideas like writing poems that are visually presented to mimic the theme of the poem. I find them slightly amusing, but generally analogous to being like a piece of chewing gum being compared to a four course gourmet meal; they have their place in the gastric world but are not really about actual "consumption")
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 11:15 am 

BadgerJelly » August 12th, 2017, 10:59 am wrote:Mik -

If that is what the "artist" said then I would say he/she is merely playing the shock game in promoting themselves and getting in the headlines.

I guess you can see what I meant though? I would add that if the intent of the "artist" is not translated to the viewer as they meant then they are not "artists" merely terrible at expressing anything and riding in the wake of creative minds that draw meaning from their obscure "product".

In a contrary manner we can then also say that people who produce such possibly "rich" items that enable the viewers to be creative do in fact possess some inherent value. I think it is within this see-sawing of interpretation that many a fool or idiot can fall into high acclaim for producing an accidentally "rich" emotional item.

Get my gist? This is why I tried to engage with you about poetry because it is a medium that can be more readily shared online. There are some forms of "poetry" I have a hard time calling "poetry" because they linger in some particular areas that seem more like mysticism or what I would call "childish" ideas like writing poems that are visually presented to mimic the theme of the poem. I find them slightly amusing, but generally analogous to being like a piece of chewing gum being compared to a four course gourmet meal; they have their place in the gastric world but are not really about actual "consumption")


Yes I do get your gist, BadgerJelly.

And I agree, everything you "wrote" was "poetry," and, I enjoy poetry, sometimes, BUT I also "understand" that your, and/or anyone else's, "poetry," is, indeed, poetry, and NOT this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfYAMM3EjE

And THAT is the point I have been trying to make, all along:)
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Eclogite on August 12th, 2017, 11:55 am 

MrMikeludo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:45 pm wrote:Which part, "specifically," do you believe is "opinion?"
There are two or three, but this is the most important.

You stated "And we also know that, in addition to Leonardo transforming “all things with the potential to be corrupted,” into something which can't:"

That is very clearly an opinion. It is an interpretation of the significance and the nature of the work. It may be correct, but you have certainly not demonstrated that it is.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 12:02 pm 

Eclogite » August 12th, 2017, 11:55 am wrote:
MrMikeludo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:45 pm wrote:Which part, "specifically," do you believe is "opinion?"
There are two or three, but this is the most important.

You stated "And we also know that, in addition to Leonardo transforming “all things with the potential to be corrupted,” into something which can't:"

That is very clearly an opinion. It is an interpretation of the significance and the nature of the work. It may be correct, but you have certainly not demonstrated that it is.



NO, I am sorry, but: "science," "reality," "math," "Truth," can NOT be "corrupted," those concepts exist a priori, as Kant explained:

"Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space a priori - Time is the formal condition of a priori all phenomenon whatsoever..." Kant

ONLY the "humans" who "employ" those concepts CAN be "corrupted."
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 12th, 2017, 12:22 pm 

Mik -

People do like to shock. I know I do as you can probably tell. My excuse is I do it to feel out who or what someone is about, or to be more honest, to test myself and find out about myself.

I am sure there are pieces of "art" I find interesting you'd be repulsed by. Sometimes I "admire', if that is the right word, something for being ugly. Some things that are hard to look at are usually helpful in exploring difficult emotions in a controlled way, cathartic I guess.

I find your use of the term "corruption" quite broad. Again though this relates back to the intent and ability of the so called "artist". I think generally speaking all aspects of human activity are prone to "corruption", I believe this is the price we pay for striving and learning. I am not opposed to conflict, rather I am opposed to opposing conflict for, as Gilmore said, "cold comfort" ...

Not going to start spamming youtube vids but I think this catches a lot of my thoughts about "human nature" in general and its constant struggle both as a community and as the individual (of course the back story for the song is something else!) :

User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 1:34 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 12th, 2017, 12:22 pm wrote:Mik -

People do like to shock. I know I do as you can probably tell. My excuse is I do it to feel out who or what someone is about, or to be more honest, to test myself and find out about myself.

I am sure there are pieces of "art" I find interesting you'd be repulsed by. Sometimes I "admire', if that is the right word, something for being ugly. Some things that are hard to look at are usually helpful in exploring difficult emotions in a controlled way, cathartic I guess.

I find your use of the term "corruption" quite broad. Again though this relates back to the intent and ability of the so called "artist". I think generally speaking all aspects of human activity are prone to "corruption", I believe this is the price we pay for striving and learning. I am not opposed to conflict, rather I am opposed to opposing conflict for, as Gilmore said, "cold comfort" ...

Not going to start spamming youtube vids but I think this catches a lot of my thoughts about "human nature" in general and its constant struggle both as a community and as the individual (of course the back story for the song is something else!) :



Alright, so this enables me to make my PRIMARY point about, the “name” of my book, and series, being:”The Theft Of Art and The End Of Time.”

Because, THIS is the definition of corruption:

“Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery - the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.”

So, one of the concepts that I have no yet discussed, is the concept of, what I call, the “concept of societal equivalence,” and which is this: Imagine in the 1400's you had, a: carpenter – mason – blacksmith (NOT ferrier), alright, and, each of those “craftsman:” “art” - “i” - “SANS,” had spent, about, 5 years working as an apprentice, and – THEN, “graduated” into becoming a “skilled craftsman,” and – upon their transformation, earned the right to be called, a: “carpenter” - “mason” - “blacksmith,” and then imagine, AFTER that individual had spent YEARS “developing their craft,” they became capable of earning, about, the equivalent of $2000 a week working today, and for 40 hours a week as well.

Well, THAT is the “concept of societal equivalence,” being in that, ALL of those people have earned the right to be afforded the titles they have earned, in addition to the respect they have earned by working towards that end, IN ADDITION, to this:

“$400.00 a Day. The Cost of Hiring a Finish or Trim Carpenter” Joy Of Moldings . com

About $2000 a week.

Alright, so now, because we know ALL of those “skilled human beings,” who have “earned the right to be called craftsmen,” are ALL “on the same EARNED level,” we can also know that all of those human beings can live in a “well balanced socioeconomic/environmentally and civically balanced society,” and/or:

“Social harmony: People of all faith, nation, colour irrespective of all these differences living peacefully in mutual trust as a society is social harmony.”

Alright, so I think all sentient, rational, caring human beings can agree with this concept, right?

Ok, so another concept that I have no had the opportunity to discuss, is the intrinsic, inherent value that I recognize SHOULD exist in regards to all things, including all “non things,” that define us as human beings, and, of course, with our recognition of the fact that there should exist varying degrees of “appreciated craftsmanship capabilities” that can be effectually appreciated by all of those SAME sentient, appreciative, and caring human beings, of course, and, also of course, with the “most skilled,” and developed, of the craftsmen being duly rewarded for their dedication, skill, and hard work, of course.

Now of course, I told you I had a shop, well that shop was this:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Oh-Boy-L ... 2260107637

Located in a “art/antique” center river town, Lambertville, N.J., not far from New York City, and, wherein, I had ALL the ranges of art represented.

So, when I sold that “art,” of any and/or all kinds, because I understand the concept of societal equivalence, and the concept of “intrinsic value,” I would ALWAYS price the “art” while in accordance to that understanding.

So, IF I had a picture, like THIS:

http://www.reevesantiqueshouston.com/po ... ng-canvas/

And I DID, well, then I would say:”Yeah that 'picture (did NOT require much talent, and has very little 'intrinsic' value, so it) is worth about $500 – framed,” and, if I had a picture, like this:

http://artist.christies.com/James-Carro ... 11430.aspx

And which I DID, well, then I would say:”Yeah, that guy was an extraordinary 'craftsman,' he EARNED his right to be called a craftsman, and, the 'intrinsic' value of THAT 'art' HAS appreciated while in accordance to this:”

“Inflation calculator: 1913 - $2000, TO: 2016 - $48,000.”

And I would follow the “law of societal equivalence,” in “selling the art in my store.”

But, that's NOT what the lying, scum sucking pig con artists began to do at the beginning of the twentieth century, as they did this:

“Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery - the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.”

Because, what they: the lying scum sucking pig con artists, did was THIS:

“Jackson Pollock, rock'n'roll master – The freedom and harmony of his work make everything possible and demand comparison to the very greatest art - So let me be clear. I am not saying I 'like' Pollock. I am saying that I believe Jackson Pollock exemplifies some of the highest qualities of the greatest art. His achievement is absolute, self-evident, like the genius (of) Beethoven...” Jonathan Jones

They told the world that Jackson Pollock was “The pictorial equivalent of 'Beethoven,” and – THAT'S A LIE.

And they also told the world, THIS:

“Cubism was, and is, the most revolutionary and profoundly beautiful modern art movement. It was discovered – for once, it makes sense to speak of an artistic idea being 'discovered' like a scientific truth – by Picasso and Braque before the first world war. Their insight was complex. A painting does not have to show reality from a single point of view, as pictorial artists did from the 1400s to the late 19th century. Our eyes move about all the time, inside our restless bodies. So a cubist painting captures a series of perceptions all in one assaying of an object.” Jonathan Jones

They told the world that “Pablo Picasso's cubist pictures are the pictorial equivalent of the fourth dimension, Einstein's relativity, AND 'genius,' all rolled into one.”

And, THAT IS THE BIGGEST LIE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and/or this:

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist..”
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Braininvat on August 12th, 2017, 3:41 pm 

Because, what they: the lying scum sucking pig con artists, did was THIS:

“Jackson Pollock, rock'n'roll master – The freedom and harmony of his work make everything possible and demand comparison to the very greatest art - So let me be clear. I am not saying I 'like' Pollock. I am saying that I believe Jackson Pollock exemplifies some of the highest qualities of the greatest art. His achievement is absolute, self-evident, like the genius (of) Beethoven...” Jonathan Jones

They told the world that Jackson Pollock was “The pictorial equivalent of 'Beethoven,” and – THAT'S A LIE.


No, IT'S AN OPINION. You seem to still persist in being unable to distinguish between facts, counterfactuals, and opinions or interpretations. Again, this puts most of your postings in the category of Soapbox Rant. You have somehow induced Badger to listen to you. It might be of use to others if you use a posting to make ONE point and not feel it necessary to label those you disagree with in the art world as "lying scum sucking pig con artists." Our readers are not generally swayed by name-calling or overheated rhetoric like "...THAT'S THE BIGGEST LIE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD." (referring to the OPINION that Picasso's cubism tried to capture aspects of the 4th dimension and relativity) It just makes you look like a crank.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5842
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
BioWizardDragonFly liked this post


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 6:50 pm 

Braininvat » August 12th, 2017, 3:41 pm wrote:
Because, what they: the lying scum sucking pig con artists, did was THIS:

“Jackson Pollock, rock'n'roll master – The freedom and harmony of his work make everything possible and demand comparison to the very greatest art - So let me be clear. I am not saying I 'like' Pollock. I am saying that I believe Jackson Pollock exemplifies some of the highest qualities of the greatest art. His achievement is absolute, self-evident, like the genius (of) Beethoven...” Jonathan Jones

They told the world that Jackson Pollock was “The pictorial equivalent of 'Beethoven,” and – THAT'S A LIE.


No, IT'S AN OPINION. You seem to still persist in being unable to distinguish between facts, counterfactuals, and opinions or interpretations. Again, this puts most of your postings in the category of Soapbox Rant. You have somehow induced Badger to listen to you. It might be of use to others if you use a posting to make ONE point and not feel it necessary to label those you disagree with in the art world as "lying scum sucking pig con artists." Our readers are not generally swayed by name-calling or overheated rhetoric like "...THAT'S THE BIGGEST LIE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD." (referring to the OPINION that Picasso's cubism tried to capture aspects of the 4th dimension and relativity) It just makes you look like a crank.


Ok, so let me tell you something, Mr. Braininvat, every once in a while someone can come along and teach the world something that no one has ever taught the world before, maybe because they are a bit of a freak, or maybe because they worked harder at it than anyone else in the history of the world, or maybe a little of both.

Well, I am that person, and I did learn how to introduce, to the world, something that no one else in the history of the world has ever done before, and that something is the LITERAL definition of a mathematically verifiable “visual musical equivalent,” which I did develop the ability to produce, after having spent a literal lifetime consciously developing the ability to do exactly that.

So, I did spend a lifetime actually developing that ability, and then, after I produced them, I showed them to the people who said THIS:

“Movingly, Pollock once compared the necessary precision of his painting to the execution of compositions by two of history's most beloved composers. In Pollock's mind, an error made in a sonata by Brahms could conceivably go unnoticed, but an error in a work performed by Mozart would unquestionably disrupt the flow and beauty of the piece. Pollock's analogy was recounted by collector Ben Heller, who has written, 'He was like Mozart and knew that, most particularly with a Black Enamel Painting, where anything 'wrong' was there for all to see.” Sotheby's Auction Catalog

And THIS:

“William Rubin: 'Actually, Pollock's work was incredibly, highly controlled. And it took him years to perfect the technique'...'People might say:'Anyone can pour paint,' well that might be true. But, anyone can go up to a piano and push the note 'c,' and your 'c' will be as good as Rubinstein's or Horowitz's. And by the same token, if you spill a little paint, that's going to be as good as Pollock's for just that little spill. What makes Horowitz, or Rubinstein is the succession of accents, and the control and and interrelations of these accents as they come one after another. That is what we call the 'touch' of the pianist. But the (single) 'tone' is the same for you and for Pollock'...”

Yeah, I took my “literal, mathematically, and scientifically verifiable visual musical equivalents,” to the EXACT same people who said they were “looking for LITERAL visual musical equivalents,” and, then, AFTER I walked into their “community” - the people who made the public proclamation that they were ONLY “interested in the LITERAL visual equivalent of music,” well, then – AFTER I went politely, and “sheepishly,” into their "community," and introduced myself to their community, you know what they said to me?

Well, they said:”WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, YOU 'ILLITERATE,” yeah, they ridiculed me, and belittled me, and reprimanded me, and chastised me, and harassed me, and then they LAUGHED HARD AND LOUD, right IN MY FACE.

And, you want to know why? Well, it was because they thought I was a “dumb jock,” yeah, so they did all those things to me, and they also literally, yes – LITERALLY, even tried to “physically assail” me at times, yeah they did that.

You know who “they” were/are, well THESE guys:

“Adrian Searle – 'Someone should have warned you about tangling with Mike Ludicrous...”

And THIS is Adrian Searle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjDP6yuCR6k

So, AFTER I experienced their “bullying” for, about, 5 years, I did the equivalent of a scrawny geek, such as Adrian Searle, “intellectually working out,” and I taught myself all of the abstract understandings that I needed to access to become capable of defining all of the abilities that I had spent a lifetime developing, in regards to producing the literal visual musical equivalents.

Such as this fact:

“Art; A Scientist in His Attic Ponders, What Does Music Look Like: FOR centuries, composers have been trying to find a visual equivalent to music, to find a way to paint sound or to play colors. The list of those who have tried includes Scriabin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Messiaen and Robert Emmett Mueller - 'I was hunting for a visual equivalent to a single tone,' Mr. Mueller said. 'I thought, what if one hit something and started a band of color moving and then it disappeared and trailed off as a tone does in the ear?'...” The New York Times – Margo Nash – February 13, 2000

Defining “what” the literal, mathematically verifiable, visual equivalent of a “single tone” is, and which is a: “simultaneously relative, harmoniously proportioned, fundamental frequency modulation,” wherein, the “harmonic proportionality,” or periodicity, of displacement – versus time, repeats itself in a harmonic manner, and which simultaneously functions as an individual, and identifiable, vector, functioning within a vector/derivative field, with the vectors being magnitudes possessing both direction and quantity, and derivatives being, both, the points where the, harmoniously proportioned simultaneously relative, individual velocities, and/or: vectors/derivatives/notes fundamental frequency modulations, change direction, with respect towards time – WITHIN the perimetered central keynote theme, AND identifiable harmonic proportionalities, OF the perimetered central keynote theme, and, as Leonardo da Vinci did also explain, as well:

“I GIVE THE DEGREES OF THE OBJECTS SEEN BY THE EYE AS THE MUSICIAN DOES THE NOTES HEARD BY THE EAR. - Although the objects seen by the eye do, in fact, touch each other as they recede, I will nevertheless found my rule on spaces of 20 braccia each; as a musician does with notes, which, though they can be carried on one into the next, he divides into degrees from note to note calling them 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th; and has affixed a name to each degree in raising or lowering the voice.”

So, do you think, that – AFTER I learned “how” to define all those things, in an analytical way, I DID contact The New York Times, and/or THIS person:

"What music might look like as modern art: 'Visual Music' is a fine-tuned, highly diverting, deceptively radical exhibition about the relationship of music and modern art, lately arrived here at the Hirshhorn Museum - Musical harmony, as an expression of geometry, was thought to be useful to the study of art and architecture from the Renaissance on - But the notion that there was an essential separation among the sensual spheres persisted into the 19th century - Abstract painters in the early 20th century tried to emulate musical attributes, like rhythm, harmony and tonality, but music is temporal. It moves through time. And to suggest temporality or movement in two dimensions, via staggered lines, vortices, cones or other spatial device, doesn't suffice - No perfect way to make art into music has been devised..." MICHAEL KIMMELMAN The New York Times

And/or this person:

“Art v science – We need a visionary who can bridge the two cultures in the 21st century. Who cares if he died in 1519 - the other day I wrote about art and mathematics. The sometimes creative, sometimes antagonistic relationship between art and science fascinates me – and I am not alone - And yet, the results are so often frustrating when art and science meet - What we need is an artist who is also a scientist; or a scientist who thinks like an artist. And at last I can unveil that missing link of art and science! I'm talking – of course – about Leonardo da Vinci, whose mind straddles science and art and remakes them both, as better, bigger things. For Leonardo, art is science - this I know: he is an inspiration for this millennium and our technological civilization is right to adopt him as our hero, our contemporary." Jonathan Jones – 2010

Yeah, you can bet the mortgage on it.

And you know “what” Mr. Jonathan Jones did, AFTER I spent YEARS trying to, politely, explain that I could explain the "missing piece" to him, in a matter of fact, and polite, way, and such as this:

https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/10089838?page=9

Well, ol Mr Jones had me “REMOVED” from HIS newspaper, THREE TIMES – over the course of FOUR years, and – THEN, AFTER four years of being abused, belittled, ignored, and assailed, I – THEN, FINALLY, said this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUoSgxcfx0

To ol Mr. Jonathan Jones – the “scum sucking pig liar.”

You see, simple “cause and effect.”

Because, remember:

“Proofs are not abstract. There is no such thing as proving something abstractly – One can, of course, define a class of abstract entities and call them 'proof,' but those 'proofs' can not verify mathematical statements because no one can see them...” David Deutsch

There is no such thing as “proving something abstractly,” and ol Mr. Jonathan Jones PROVED that he IS a “SCUM SUCKING PIG LIAR.”

And you wanna know why, THEY ALL LIE so much?

Well, THIS is why:

“The romantic concept of genius is the foundation stone of the modern and postmodern concept of the 'fineness' of fine art. Without it the ability of the fine art institution to create its canon of 'great artists' and the capacity of the art market to sell faeces and urinals as precious objects would collapse...By the time of Picasso the romantic myth of genius became tool whereby dealers could 'explain' the strangeness of creative products such as Cubism. As soon as it came of age, in the early 20th century the avant-garde was commodified. The rise of the avant garde is inextricably intertwined with the maturation of the commercial gallery system: one cannot survive without the other. Only the mystique of genius casts a veil over the underlying commodity status...” artintelligence – Graham Coulter-Smith

And it isn't even a TINY bit difficult to understand EXACTLY who is “telling the truth,” them – or ME.

Because, the exact definition of “color,” IS:

“Color: one of the physical attributes of mass.”

YEAH – PURE “tangible form mass.”

And, of course, EVERY “scientist,” knows:

“The Trigonometric analysis of Musical Sounds – Galileo and Hooke demonstrated experimentally that each musical sound is characterized by a definite number of air vibrations per second – We see that a simple sound has a regularity or periodicity...” Morris Kline

That in order for there to exist EVEN “sound,” let alone “MUSIC,” and/or THIS:

"Beginning with the basic material – notes of definite pitch, we can know that musical works are built out of tensions between such notes. These tensions can only be set up in three dimensions – pitch, time, and volume; and the setting up of such tensions, and the colouring of them by the characterizing agents of tone-colour and texture, constitute the whole apparatus of musical expression.
Pitch is felt by everyone to be an 'up-or-down' dimension...(so) by the law of gravity, 'up' is an effort for man, 'down' a relaxation; To sing 'high' notes, or play them on wind, brass, or string instruments, demands a considerable effort; To tune a string 'upwards,' one screws 'up' its tension; scientists, talking of 'high' notes, speak of a 'high' number of vibrations per second...It is, of course, the tonal tensions existing in the particular series of ascending or descending notes, which express what kind of ascent or descent is involved...” The Language Of Music – Deryck

There must exist some type of medium through which the sound can be propagated, such as “air,” and/or “human three dimensional space,” through which the “sound waves” can be propagated, and the lying scum sucking pig con artists, that took over the “art world,” during the twentieth century, are so brazing, that they even admitted that they ELIMINTED AIR, and/or “three dimensional space,” FROM “art,” see:

“The Cubists strove to eliminate three-dimensional space and thus bring the image in the picture closer to the observer – Clement Greenberg said art should become more two dimensional – more 'flat,' and more abstract from every day living...”

Yeah, they eliminated “three dimensional space” from “within” their “art,” and created only a literal “vacuum,” wherein only “nothing” can possibly exist.

And you wanna know EXACTLY how we can “prove,” EXACTLY who the “LIARS,” are?

Well, this is how: WHERE - IS - THE - PROBLEM???

Do, you know EXACTLY what I mean by that?

What I mean by that, is this: If – IF, you are “saying,” in words, that you “have a sincere interest in seeing the visual musical equivalent of music,” and/or a sincere interest in the “pictorial equivalent of Einstein's relativity,” and/or a “sincere interest in the pictorial equivalent of the fourth dimension,” and/or a sincere interest in: ART – period, WHERE – IS – THE – PROBLEM.

In admitting that, hey, they: Picasso – Pollock etc, did NOT do it, but this guy: Michael Ludovici, did?

You see, no problem, UNLESS, your ONLY concern is this:

“The romantic concept of genius is the foundation stone of the modern and postmodern concept of the 'fineness' of fine art. Without it the ability of the fine art institution to create its canon of 'great artists' and the capacity of the art market to sell faeces and urinals as precious objects would collapse...” artintelligence – Graham Coulter-Smith

And only an interest in doing this, as well:

"Probing the Mind of the Con Artist: Dr. Frankel to deliver University Lecture on Ponzi schemes - Throughout her long career, legal scholar Tamar Frankel has taught and written about finance, security, and trusts. But in the decade of grand scammers Bernie Madoff and Scott Rothstein, Frankel turned her attention to the topic of another kind of trust, specifically, the human tendency to perpetrate, and fall victim to, Ponzi schemes - Ponzi schemes persist in defiance of the most basic common sense. Frankel wanted to understand why... A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence scheme and scam) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, in the classical sense of trust. Confidence tricks exploit typical human characteristics such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, opportunism, lust, credulity, irresponsibility, desperation, and naivety. As such, there is no consistent profile of a confidence trick victim; the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist."New York Times

And/or becoming a con artist.

A lying scum sucking pig con artist.

Right?

Just like this:

"Don't give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Eclogite on August 12th, 2017, 8:17 pm 

MrMikeludo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:02 pm wrote:NO, I am sorry, but: "science," "reality," "math," "Truth," can NOT be "corrupted," those concepts exist a priori, as Kant explained:

"Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space a priori - Time is the formal condition of a priori all phenomenon whatsoever..." Kant

ONLY the "humans" who "employ" those concepts CAN be "corrupted."
Argument One: your list of the uncorruptible does not include the art of Leonardo and therefore is irrelevant.

Argument Two: You think I can't argue with Kant? I can. Science, reality, math and truth can all be corrupted, especially when they hide within quotation marks.

Argument Three: You wish to play word games? I can out rhetoric any third rate philospher or second rate politician.

Challenge which ever you wish, or all three, or none.

Edit:
I just noticed this. You made these statements. "Well, I am that person, and I did learn how to introduce, to the world, something that no one else in the history of the world has ever done before, and that something is the LITERAL definition of a mathematically verifiable “visual musical equivalent,” which I did develop the ability to produce, after having spent a literal lifetime consciously developing the ability to do exactly that.
So, I did spend a lifetime actually developing that ability, . . . . .:"

You say you spent a literal lifetime developing this ability. Well, literally that means you had developed that ability, literally, at the end of your life. Otherwise you could only, literally, say that you had spent a large part of a lifetime developing the ability. Since you assert you spent a literal lifetime that would mean, literally, that you are now dead. Since I doubt you are posting from beyond the grave I can deduce you do not understand the meaning of literally. This explains a great deal about the confusion in the rest of your posts since this lexicographic blind spot likely extends to other words.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 8:46 pm 

Eclogite » August 12th, 2017, 8:17 pm wrote:
MrMikeludo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:02 pm wrote:NO, I am sorry, but: "science," "reality," "math," "Truth," can NOT be "corrupted," those concepts exist a priori, as Kant explained:

"Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space a priori - Time is the formal condition of a priori all phenomenon whatsoever..." Kant

ONLY the "humans" who "employ" those concepts CAN be "corrupted."
Argument One: your list of the uncorruptible does not include the art of Leonardo and therefore is irrelevant.

Argument Two: You think I can't argue with Kant? I can. Science, reality, math and truth can all be corrupted, especially when they hide within quotation marks.

Argument Three: You wish to play word games? I can out rhetoric any third rate philospher or second rate politician.

Challenge which ever you wish, or all three, or none.

Edit:
I just noticed this. You made these statements. "Well, I am that person, and I did learn how to introduce, to the world, something that no one else in the history of the world has ever done before, and that something is the LITERAL definition of a mathematically verifiable “visual musical equivalent,” which I did develop the ability to produce, after having spent a literal lifetime consciously developing the ability to do exactly that.
So, I did spend a lifetime actually developing that ability, . . . . .:"

You say you spent a literal lifetime developing this ability. Well, literally that means you had developed that ability, literally, at the end of your life. Otherwise you could only, literally, say that you had spent a large part of a lifetime developing the ability. Since you assert you spent a literal lifetime that would mean, literally, that you are now dead. Since I doubt you are posting from beyond the grave I can deduce you do not understand the meaning of literally. This explains a great deal about the confusion in the rest of your posts since this lexicographic blind spot likely extends to other words.


Eclogite:

" Argument One: your list of the uncorruptible does not include the art of Leonardo and therefore is irrelevant.”


Yes, it does, see:

“True sciences are those which have penetrated through the senses as a result of experience and thus silencing the tongues of disputants, not feeding investigators on dreams but always proceeding successively from primary truths and established principles, in a proper order towards their conclusion. This may be witnessed in principles of mathematics, that is to say, number and measure, termed arithmetic and geometry...Here no one hazards guesses as to whether two threes makes more or less than six. Here all guesswork remains destroyed in eternal silence, and which is not possible with the delusional sciences of the wholly cerebral kind.” Leonardo Da Vinci

And:

“ Two: You think I can't argue with Kant? I can. Science, reality, math and truth can all be corrupted, especially when they hide within quotation marks.”


You seem to be stuck on some kind of semantic roller coaster, which I never ride.

What your are proposing simply doesn't exist: If you think you're going to debate the validity, of: mass x acceleration = force, with a semi automatic rifle toting lunatic, bent on shooting everyone, you would, very quickly, be proven exactly wrong, sorry.

And:

“You wish to play word games? I can out rhetoric any third rate philospher or second rate politician.”


What the hell are you talking about, seriously – I do not have the faintest idea what, or who, you are referring to.

And:

You say you spent a literal lifetime developing this ability. Well, literally that means you had developed that ability, literally, at the end of your life. Otherwise you could only, literally, say that you had spent a large part of a lifetime developing the ability. Since you assert you spent a literal lifetime that would mean, literally, that you are now dead. Since I doubt you are posting from beyond the grave I can deduce you do not understand the meaning of literally. This explains a great deal about the confusion in the rest of your posts since this lexicographic blind spot likely extends to other words.


What is so difficult to understand?

Seriously?? What is so difficult about THAT to understand???

YES, I HAVE spent my "literal:"

"Literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."

Lifetime:

"Lifetime: the duration of a person's life."

Working on this.

Did I miss something, or did YOU get back on that roller coaster - where do YOU "see" the "word" "end" in that LITERAL definition?
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Braininvat on August 12th, 2017, 8:53 pm 

I am literally incapable of reading this latest tirade from the world's self-acknowledged Master of the Visual Musical Equivalent.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5842
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
MrMikeludo liked this post


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 12th, 2017, 8:56 pm 

Braininvat » August 12th, 2017, 8:53 pm wrote:I am literally incapable of reading this latest tirade from the world's self-acknowledged Master of the Visual Musical Equivalent.



I know:

“Proofs are not abstract. There is no such thing as proving something abstractly – One can, of course, define a class of abstract entities and call them 'proof,' but those 'proofs' can not verify mathematical statements because no one can see them...” David Deutsch
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Eclogite on August 13th, 2017, 12:30 am 

MrMikeludo » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:46 am wrote:Seriously?? What is so difficult about THAT to understand???

YES, I HAVE spent my "literal:"

"Literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."

Lifetime:

"Lifetime: the duration of a person's life."

Working on this.

Did I miss something, or did YOU get back on that roller coaster - where do YOU "see" the "word" "end" in that LITERAL definition?
Lifetime - the duration of a person's life. The duration runs from their birth (or more precisely, their conception) until their death. That's where the word "end" is. It's embedded in the word duration.

Had you said you had spent a lifetime developing the ability I would not have questioned the expression. It is a common usage of the term. However, you chose to qualify and narrow its meaning by describing it as a "literal" lifetime. That betrayed a carelessness of sentence construction that calls into question your logic. Your inability to recognise that confirms the suspicion that you are engaged in a rant.

It is interesting to note that when you get riled you drop the affectation.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 13th, 2017, 1:13 am 

Eco -

Drop it. It is plain enough to understand what was meant and it can LITERALLY be interpreted in two different ways. It would have helped to add on "up to this point", but I think we can assume he has not died unless you yourself (meaning literally "you"), were to believe it possible he is either dead or believes he has died.

As for the "fact" that is an issue. I am guessing he is referring to popular historical opinions that are deemed to be the best interpretation. Although this is opionion it is professional opinion maybe? I don't know because I am not really versed in the historical facts about Leonardo.

What appears to happen when you "rile" Mik is that he looks for another thread to bring into the discussion. I would rather stick to one thread and focus on his opinions/knowledge bit by bit. Something he, in my eyes, has diffculty doing.

Mik -

Why is it so important to us that Pollock or Picasso duped a small part of the public? Or rather, that a group of art critics duped some pretentious members of the public (I doubt the public at large really care for either of these "artists".)

I have been fascinated by etymology for some time. It is still a very contentious thing to assume what was meant by ancient Greeks compared to todays world. Are you looking to explore further the historical usage of the term "art"? There is most certainly a distinction we make today between "artisan" and "artist", is this what bothers you?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Eclogite on August 13th, 2017, 1:37 am 

There is nothing to drop. I have demonstrated that he, literally, does not understand the meaning of literal. That kinds of leaves him beached, in a littoral sense.


Now, as to Jackson Pollock, I've only seen three or four of his works in the splash, as it were. I like them. They are evocative and structured and pure and anything but corrupt.

In looking at Pollocks, I've never said bollocks.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 13th, 2017, 2:13 am 

I have never seen a Pollock. I do like abstract paintings though and find some do provoke some very particular emotions in me.

That German guy did some amazing stuff with dead bodies that I would call "art". There are a great number of artistic endeavors that present a great deal of different human experiences. Some I pay more attention to than others.

I do find some modern "art" to be completely obnoxious. Things like the unmade bed thingy I found to be ridiculous. I don't see how it is art to take an everyday object and place it in a gallery and justify it by spouting a load of existential crap. I get the possible attraction and use in exploring everyday objects and looking at the mundane in a fresh and new light, but I wouldn't consider placing it along side Degas or Monet and giving it the same kind of respect and consideration.

Maybe a lot of this pretention is due to anything being open to certain consideration and emotional involvement with people. I would hardly call taking a crap on the floor a work of art, but no doubt some would be imaginative enough to draw some profound reaction and emotional response from such a pile of crap. If I had trained my sphincter and honed the art of crapping and could crap something that resembled a miniature car then I would say I have the right to say I had crafted a piece of art.

By this I am agreeing with Mik in saying "art" has to be purposefully crafted to express something to others, be it abstract emotions, vague sensations or literal representations of landscapes or whatever subject matter.

I think I am going to have to type out the whole of Oscar Wilde's preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey. It covers a great deal in just over a page of text.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
BioWizard liked this post


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Braininvat on August 13th, 2017, 10:43 am 

Good grief, is this whole thread just about trying to convey that art should be representational? You can nail that idea in one sentence.

So Marcel Duchamp's urinal is okay, then?

BTW, since this is a philosophy forum, what is the definition of "pure evil" we are using here? I mean, I've never viewed crap that emerged from an untrained sphyncter as evil. Overrated by certain avant-garde aesthetes, perhaps, but not evil.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5842
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
BioWizard liked this post


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 13th, 2017, 11:13 am 

Eclogite:

Eclogite » August 13th, 2017, 12:30 am wrote:
MrMikeludo » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:46 am wrote:Seriously?? What is so difficult about THAT to understand???

YES, I HAVE spent my "literal:"

"Literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."

Lifetime:

"Lifetime: the duration of a person's life."

Working on this.

Did I miss something, or did YOU get back on that roller coaster - where do YOU "see" the "word" "end" in that LITERAL definition?
Lifetime - the duration of a person's life. The duration runs from their birth (or more precisely, their conception) until their death. That's where the word "end" is. It's embedded in the word duration.

Had you said you had spent a lifetime developing the ability I would not have questioned the expression. It is a common usage of the term. However, you chose to qualify and narrow its meaning by describing it as a "literal" lifetime. That betrayed a carelessness of sentence construction that calls into question your logic. Your inability to recognise that confirms the suspicion that you are engaged in a rant.

It is interesting to note that when you get riled you drop the affectation.


What the hell are you talking about Mr. Smarty Pants, see:

“Lifetime: A lifetime is the length of time that someone is alive.” Collins English Dictionary

You see, the affection never left: I AM alive today, and am, still, working on it, however, IF I were to stop working on it – TODAY, and die next week, well, then I would have NOT spent my “literal” lifetime “working on it.” - NAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhh:)

However I should warn you, I think it only fair: I know you, but you do not know me, no one does, because THIS is who I am:

“I have said all these things to yourselves
while still with you;
but the Advocate; the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father shall send in my name,
will teach you everything
and remind you of all I have said to you.” John 14: 25-26

And you want to know the reason I know “you,” well, it's because I have an older brother that is you, or, rather, I have an older brother that was/is a text book example of a twentieth century member of the intelligentsia; you know, very extensive formal education – Philosophy Major, English/Art minor college at Swarthmore College, Communications Degree, Psychology Degree, and so on, and so on, and so on, and – Well, it wouldn't be fair to kick HIS butt on a public forum, so here I am;)

And I was the ”dumb jock” my entire life. So, anyways, AFTER I spent some time learning – just as I was/am supposed to do (because it is my job:), about the “Fine Art” art community first had, and like waaaaaaayyy back in 1990's (early), my brother said to me one day:”Uh, Mike – you use the word 'literal' LITERALLY waaaaay too much,” and I said to him:”Yeah, I KNOW Jim.”

So, you wanna know why, Mr. Smarty Pants (you see, I CAN'T call my Big Brother (hint;) that in a public forum, and nobody knows your 'real' name, right), I used/use the word “literal” LITERALLY waaaaayyyy too much?

Well, it's because of this:

This was a real conversation I had with a regular contributor on The Guardian (UK) Newspaper, wherein I said to him:”Listen the problem is that Mr. Jonathan Jones uses all sorts of words to describe ALL sorts of artists that simply do NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAYS THEY DO. For instance, he describes Picasso's Cubism, as a “pictorial representation of Einstein's relativity – and/or, a 'function' of a multi perspective viewpoint picture, and/or a picture that is painted as if someone were experiencing a real quantum leap WITH THEIR BODY, and, as if they were 'at 4 different points while at ONE single point in space/time,' and – ERGO, the 'genius' label is applied to his two dimensional cubist pictures. AND, well, can YOU be at 4 different points while at any 1 point in space/time?”

And HIS response, was:”Yes, I can. It's great – you look at one Marie-Therese but you get to see eight breasts. It's magical.”

So, MY response to THAT, was:”Who are you Obi-Wan Kenobi, trying to pull the old Jedi mind trick? NO YOU CAN NOT.”

And HIS response, was:”What are you talking about, sure I can – just look at Marie-Terese, there it is...”

So MY response to him, was:”Listen dude, if someone paints a picture of themselves flapping their arms and flying to Planet Zircon, that does not mean that they can actually flap their arms and fly to Planet Zircon. There is no such thing as someone flapping their arms and flying. There is no such thing as a Planet Zircon. And there certainly is no such thing as a person flapping their arms and achieving escape velocity, so that they could travel to Planet Zircon. Similarly, there is no such thing as a person being at 4 different points while at any 1 point in space/time, no matter how much you want to believe it. It's ALL a fantasy, a childish fantasy, just like cubism – IT WAS ALL NOTHING BUT THE PRODUCT OF PABLO PICASSO'S CHILDISH IMAGINAION, and nothing more – NOT 'genius,' at all.”

And you wanna know what his response was THEN?

Well, THIS:”You're so literal minded it hurts. No wonder an appreciation of Modern Art is beyond you.”

Ain't that a kick in the pants?

You wanna know why – It's a kick in the pants? We, it's because that fellow, a fellow named: PhilipPhilip, is a “artist.”

Yeah, that's literally why it's a “kick in the pants:”

“Kick in the pants: something that makes you improve your behavior.”

Figuratively speaking, of course.

So, anyways, you wanna know exactly what I mean by all of that?

Well, it's this:

“One thing has become clear to scientists: memory is absolutely crucial to our consciousness. Says Janellen Huttenlocher, a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago: There's almost nothing you do, from perception to thinking, that doesn't draw continuously on your memory. It can't be otherwise, since there's really no such thing as the present - 'We do not have a memory system in the brain,' says James McGaugh, director of the Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine. 'We have memory systems, each playing a different role – All of these different systems are ultimately stored in the brain's cortex – When everything is going right, these different systems work together seamlessly - But you are never aware that your memory has been formed, bit by bit, like some invisible edifice inside your brain'...” Michael D. Lemonick Time

It's because human beings spend their LITERAL entire lifetimes: UP UNTIL THE DAY THEY DIE, and/or “judgment day,” learning everything subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, as well, that's why.

And, well, again – The greatest trick the devil EVER pulled was to convince the world he doesn't exist.

So, you wanna know exactly what I mean by THAT?

Well, it's THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=178s

You see, it's no “trick” to get someone to “willfully” “sell their soul to Satan,” such as Gertrude Stein, Picasso, and Duchamp did, but – the REAL “trick” - The GREATEST trick, is/was for Satan to get the majority of the world to sell their souls, and WITHOUT even knowing it, now that's a “trick,” LITERALLY:

“Satan is a master manipulator. Ever since the beginning of time he has sought to decieve and manipulate people into believe his lies. A believer who realises who his enemy is then can be well equipped to stand the attacks. A believer who does not know who his enemy is is at a disadvantage in an attack. To understand the truth of the enemy one must go back to the very beginning. To the garden of Eden. You know the story of Adam and Eve. This story is crucial for you to understand the truth about your enemy. In the garden at the beginning of time we understand that God made man and woman and placed them there in the garden to live life in his presence and glory in the things he made for them. Man and woman were at peace with God and God walked with them and gave them all they needed and wanted. They worked not, nor did they toil for a living. They were in serene bliss with no fear of God whatsoever and no desires of sin or evil of any kind. They were Gods creation made for him and worshiped him accordingly. They knew not evil but only good. Now we all know about the tree of knowledge of good and evil...” Satan Exposed - Robert William Lyte

Yeah, that's EXACTLY “why” they: The lying psychopathic con artists, that took control of art at the beginning of the twentieth century, use so many words...
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby Eclogite on August 13th, 2017, 12:31 pm 

MrMikeludo » Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:13 pm wrote:Eclogite:
<snip>
And you want to know the reason I know “you,”
<snip>
So, you wanna know why, Mr. Smarty Pants
<snip>
And you wanna know what his response was THEN?
<snip>
You wanna know why – It's a kick in the pants?
<snip>
So, you wanna know exactly what I mean by THAT?
No, No, No, No and No, in that order.

MrMikeludo » Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:13 pm wrote:Yeah, that's EXACTLY “why” they: The lying psychopathic con artists, that took control of art at the beginning of the twentieth century, use so many words
I did enjoy the fact you took 1,376 words to explains why "lying psychopathic con artists" use so many words. Thank you for that.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 13th, 2017, 12:40 pm 

Mik -

Eco has a point there :)

Anyway, I am interested in pursuing a dialogue about "art" in general here to start with. I think the issue you're having here in communicating your thoughts is you've not laid down the ground work. To us we are, at best plucking random bits from what you write.

The OP was at least more structured than the posts prior to it.

Are you at least interested in commenting on what I said about the possible distinction between the "artist" and the "artisan"? Or something along those lines? I am guessing you are not lying about having a good enough knowledge of art to maek this thread go somewhere more tangible before we venture off into the unknown?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 13th, 2017, 12:42 pm 

Eclogite » August 13th, 2017, 12:31 pm wrote:
MrMikeludo » Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:13 pm wrote:Eclogite:
<snip>
And you want to know the reason I know “you,”
<snip>
So, you wanna know why, Mr. Smarty Pants
<snip>
And you wanna know what his response was THEN?
<snip>
You wanna know why – It's a kick in the pants?
<snip>
So, you wanna know exactly what I mean by THAT?
No, No, No, No and No, in that order.

MrMikeludo » Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:13 pm wrote:Yeah, that's EXACTLY “why” they: The lying psychopathic con artists, that took control of art at the beginning of the twentieth century, use so many words
I did enjoy the fact you took 1,376 words to explains why "lying psychopathic con artists" use so many words. Thank you for that.


You wanna see something funny, ol Mr. Smarty Pants, well, check this out:

“Wood's Ludovici More Than Meets The Eye – If all you ever do is (simply) meet him, you'll never know him, those who are close to him will tell you – 'He rarely says anything,' said Coach (John) Sharp, 'but let's his running do the talking'...” Jim DeStafano Sports Editor

I happen to have had that in my bag (was showing someone what I looked like with hair, not a good thing:).

Ain't that a kick in the pants...
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 13th, 2017, 12:47 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 13th, 2017, 12:40 pm wrote:Mik -

Eco has a point there :)

Anyway, I am interested in pursuing a dialogue about "art" in general here to start with. I think the issue you're having here in communicating your thoughts is you've not laid down the ground work. To us we are, at best plucking random bits from what you write.

The OP was at least more structured than the posts prior to it.

Are you at least interested in commenting on what I said about the possible distinction between the "artist" and the "artisan"? Or something along those lines? I am guessing you are not lying about having a good enough knowledge of art to maek this thread go somewhere more tangible before we venture off into the unknown?


BadgerJelly:

Working on it, now - will eliminate ALL confusion, post in a short while.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 13th, 2017, 12:51 pm 

Braininvat » August 13th, 2017, 10:43 am wrote:Good grief, is this whole thread just about trying to convey that art should be representational? You can nail that idea in one sentence.

So Marcel Duchamp's urinal is okay, then?

BTW, since this is a philosophy forum, what is the definition of "pure evil" we are using here? I mean, I've never viewed crap that emerged from an untrained sphyncter as evil. Overrated by certain avant-garde aesthetes, perhaps, but not evil.


Braininvat:

In regards to "pure evil," simple, it's this:

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10: 28

In regards to rest, post in short while.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 13th, 2017, 2:19 pm 

Braininvat:
BadgerJelly:
Eclogite:
EVERYONE:

Okie dokie (my friends tell me they hate it when I say that – I think they don't get it), so, anyways, I know, because I looked, so – again, I know, that EVERYONE here has some kind of “degree,” or two, or three, so, I also know, that in order for you to have received, and/or earned, that degree, you all had to have gone to a “school,” of some kind, and you all also had to “pass a test,” of some kind as well, of course.

Alright so too, let me ask you all a very serious question: If any of you needed someone to perform neurosurgery on you, personally, would ANY of you want someone to cut your mind open, who had “failed the test,” of course not.

Now, the HISTORICAL fact is, that Leonardo Da Vinci FOUNDED THE SCHOOL, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens

But, BUT, the MOST important thing to understand, is that Leonardo da Vinci did NOT “make up the rules,” and – NO ONE, EVER “makes up the rules,” THESE RULES:

“Syntax can be defined as a set of principles governing the combination of discrete structural elements: Such as words or musical tones, into (logical) sequences. Linguistic and musical sequences are not created by haphazard juxtaposition of basic elements. Instead, combinatorial principles operate at multiple levels – a linear sequence of elements is perceived in terms of hierarchical relations...” Language, Music, Syntax and the Brain – Nature Neuroscience

The “universally applicable rules of reality,” which no “man” invents, we – mankind, only learn them, of course.

So, it's simple: You want to call yourself an “artist,” well, first, go to “school,” and then, take a “test,” and – then and ONLY then, if – and ONLY if, you “pass the test,” as I did, and become capable of "proving" it, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Qpz_bETjQ&t=3s

Well, then you get a “diploma,” and get to tell the world you are an “artist,” and, if you don't, well then, perhaps, call yourself an “ARTISAN,” and/or an “entertainer,” and/or a “court jester,” you know, become someone who is employed to “entertain” mankind, or something to that effect, right?

Or, perhaps, simply admit that you are a “con artist,” of course – right?

Because, I do sincerely believe, that it is a moral human being's duty, ALL human beings who call themselves HUMAN BEINGS, to expose ALL lying, psychopathic, con artists, Right?

And you wanna know how we can know this for a fact?

Well, I “asked” Braininvat, and he agreed, see:

And voting for a con artist who bilked Trump U. students out of millions of dollars is the way to go about that worthy goal? Voting for a guy who cheated Deutschebank out of 600 million he owed them? Voting for a guy who won't show his tax returns (as every other recent POTUS has done, without a peep of complaint)? Voting for a guy who lets Saudi billionaires pretend to rent rooms in his hotel (they make a reservation, cancel, but then don't ask for a refund of the big chunk of money they advanced) in a fraudulent pay-for-play influence scheme? Voting for a guy who has made a career cutting corners around, and loopholes through, any law he doesn't like? Voting for a guy who has openly expressed his dislike of certain Constitutional constraints, including 1st Amendment rights? Voting for a man who, by the Toronto Star's rather conservative tally, has told outright lies (defined as, deliberate and based upon assertions he knew to be false) 213 times? Voting for a man who attempted to coerce and politically influence the head of the government's independent law enforcement arm, failed, and then fired him? OK, I'll go easy, and not get into the whole Russia or Azerbaijan/Iran RG or other messes. My fingers are getting tired, anyway.

Your emotional kneejerk response to critics of Trump shows a woeful unawareness of what he and his minions are doing, of his crooked and shameful past, and his corrupt and mendacious tactics in trying to enrich and empower himself.

Trump appears to like the telephone lie - his most recent being his false claim (exposed by the Boy Scout executive offices) that the head of the Scouts had called him and told him his speech was the greatest speech ever delivered to their Jamboree. This is so ridiculous a lie, so easily checked on, that it causes more concern that the POTUS is suffering some form of mental illness, perhaps a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He seemed to be compelled to fabricate this lie when it was clear that his speech had, in fact, been considered inappropriate and embarassing and was widely poked fun at in the media

So, let's follow the logic here. Suppose that Trump is a really terrible president - dishonest, crooked, emotionally immature, self-contradicting, and dumber than a speedbump - Our Constitution specifically calls for a free press to act as a monitor and watchdog on government - This may relate to the fact that Left has strongly attached to heroic figures of nonviolent resistance, like Gandhi and the Berrigans and Martin Luther King.

I'm not sure that 'rightness' has to imply a purely subjective moral quality. It could as well mean (as when I use it) a pragmatic set of rules that foster cooperation, personal freedom and autonomy, the pursuit of happiness, and interpersonal peace. Every bit of evidence in all the cognitive and social sciences points toward the value of such rules in the optimal function of social groups for self-realization.

For me, this doesn't rest on fictions, but on how we humans are hardwired. I think many of don't realize, because we are so fortunate to live in modern democracies with the rule of law, how very much worse other systems focused on personal power and domination are for humans, in ways that are objectively measurable. And I think this cultural forgetfulness of darker times is precisely how chest-pounding feces-hurling apes like Trump can get elected...” Braininvat (Emphasis - me)

Who could ONLY, completely – and ABSOLUTELY, “condemn” THIS:

“The Holy Virgin Mary is a painting created by Chris Ofili in 1996. It was one of the works included in the Sensation - The subject of the work, and its execution, caused considerable controversy in New York, with Rudolph Giuliani – then Mayor of New York City – describing Ofili's work as 'sick.' In 1998, Ofili was the first black artist to be awarded the Turner Prize. The painting was sold for £2.9 million ($4.6 million) in June 2015 - On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high and 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including elephant dung (and) pornographic images...” Wikipedia

And this, as well:

“Piss Christ - depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's 'Awards in the Visual Arts,' which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects...”

You see, I ALWAYS do my homework, before I take a test;)
ps - I am going to make ONE brand new video tomorrow, to demonstrate - EXACTLY, and SIMPLY, "what" the simplest "definition" of "pictorial syntax," actually is.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: How did 'Art' become PURE "evil?"

Postby MrMikeludo on August 13th, 2017, 5:33 pm 

Hey you all, here's another clue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarthmore_College

Look close, but try not to be too much of a conformist:)

Ps - I actually am inviting you all to join in, and figure it out, instead of butting heads with me, and thinking I am just trying to preach, that's not what I'm trying to do, at all.

So, add that, clue above, with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCDLEMlKswA&t=4s

And I really am being sincere, and WILL award the "prize," of your choice, to anyone who can figure out the missing piece - and am going to be adding more prizes tomorrow (some I think you might like BadgerJelly). Plus, I am going to be adding some more chances to win the things from my shop, I do feel as if this is a better way of promoting my LOVE for ALL art, rather than simply trying to sell it at cost.

AND, I am going to be making the first prize a, relatively, easy one, to prove that the "winner" WILL actually receive the reward.
Michael
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Next

Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests