What is art?

[Chris Koziarz]

For a change mrzz, how about some interesting way to tell you to open up now:
Some of the questions Horsa raises, namely applied low energy nukes, can be viewed as fundamental as human civilisation itself. If, by responding to it, you find out how cold fusion be possible at large scale without radioactive byproducts, you'll be like a saviour of humanity. With a possible reward so high, you'll agree the challenge is irrefutable.
I'm also looking forward to said challenge but won't say anymore here as I agree new thread is needed. Who knows how to create it and where? Then post a link to the newly created thread here...

 

[mrzz]

For a change mrzz, how about some interesting way to tell you to open up now:
Some of the questions Horsa raises, namely applied low energy nukes, can be viewed as fundamental as human civilisation itself. If, by responding to it, you find out how cold fusion be possible at large scale without radioactive byproducts, you'll be like a saviour of humanity. With a possible reward so high, you'll agree the challenge is irrefutable.
I'm also looking forward to said challenge but won't say anymore here as I agree new thread is needed. Who knows how to create it and where? Then post a link to the newly created thread here...

Thanks, Chris! I actually started to answer a few Horsa's question on an already existing thread devoted to science questions. Anyway your topic is surely worth it is on thread. If I may suggest, go the "Odds and Ends" section and just use the "Post new thread" button in the top right corner of the page. I know very little about fusion but for sure we can have a good discussion. I am sure there are more physicists here on the board, people from computer science too. Mathematicians or logicians, however (I would guess you are a logician), I am not sure... engineers I am sure there are too (insert your favorite Sheldon Cooper joke here).

Our digressions took us far away, but they do gave us interesting aspects to the original discussion. I will carefully read back the first posts, where moslty you and Horsa made proper attempts to define art, and see if I can connect some of the dots.

 

[Horsa]

Thanks, Chris! I actually started to answer a few Horsa's question on an already existing thread devoted to science questions. Anyway your topic is surely worth it is on thread. If I may suggest, go the "Odds and Ends" section and just use the "Post new thread" button in the top right corner of the page. I know very little about fusion but for sure we can have a good discussion. I am sure there are more physicists here on the board, people from computer science too. Mathematicians or logicians, however (I would guess you are a logician), I am not sure... engineers I am sure there are too (insert your favorite Sheldon Cooper joke here).

Our digressions took us far away, but they do gave us interesting aspects to the original discussion. I will carefully read back the first posts, where moslty you and Horsa made proper attempts to define art, and see if I can connect some of the dots.

Thank you very much, @mrzz. I enjoyed reading both of your conversations & joining in at times. I see now some things that I originally thought were irrelevant weren't & I can see where they fit in now. Thank you very much for your participation. I've found your conversations interesting. I remember learning about nuclear fission/fusion at school but I left 20 years ago & never needed the information since so am a bit rusty. What about a general science thread instead? I guess I could discuss some things about animals then as well as other little bits I picked up. I think a lot of people could find it interesting. Please include me with this. I'd be very interested in browsing. I might even have a few questions.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Thanks, Chris! I actually started to answer a few Horsa's question on an already existing thread devoted to science questions. Anyway your topic is surely worth it is on thread. If I may suggest, go the "Odds and Ends" section and just use the "Post new thread" button in the top right corner of the page. I know very little about fusion but for sure we can have a good discussion. I am sure there are more physicists here on the board, people from computer science too. Mathematicians or logicians, however (I would guess you are a logician), I am not sure... engineers I am sure there are too (insert your favorite Sheldon Cooper joke here).

Our digressions took us far away, but they do gave us interesting aspects to the original discussion. I will carefully read back the first posts, where moslty you and Horsa made proper attempts to define art, and see if I can connect some of the dots.

Since you're curious I answer that I'm not logician (though I have a bit of interest in it), but rather computer scientist. Computer science is what I live from, specialising in image processing, recently looking for machine learning methods to solve the problems our parent company has given us.

 

[mrzz]

Since you're curious I answer that I'm not logician (though I have a bit of interest in it), but rather computer scientist. Computer science is what I live from, specialising in image processing, recently looking for machine learning methods to solve the problems our parent company has given us.

I recognize the phrase "Computer science is what I live from". I use a similar one regarding my current job, which is in the risk analysis field, but that is what I do, not what I am. when asked, I always proudly answer that I am a physicist. But you also said that you are a Computer Scientist, so I am a bit in doubt... anyway I can tell another multi-task (or rather multi-field, or multi-preferences) person when I see one...

 

[Horsa]

I recognize the phrase "Computer science is what I live from". I use a similar one regarding my current job, which is in the risk analysis field, but that is what I do, not what I am. when asked, I always proudly answer that I am a physicist. But you also said that you are a Computer Scientist, so I am a bit in doubt... anyway I can tell another multi-task (or rather multi-field, or multi-preferences) person when I see one...

Since everyone else has said what they do. It's only fair for me to share. I'm in between jobs at the moment. I've been a retail assistant who has also managed shops & canteens. I've also worked in offices & libraries. I had to leave my last job to care for my parents but Mother is better now so I don't have to care for them anymore. Like I said, I'm the average person. I'm considering my options at the moment.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I recognize the phrase "Computer science is what I live from". I use a similar one regarding my current job, which is in the risk analysis field, but that is what I do, not what I am. when asked, I always proudly answer that I am a physicist. But you also said that you are a Computer Scientist, so I am a bit in doubt... anyway I can tell another multi-task (or rather multi-field, or multi-preferences) person when I see one...

Note that the two things in questions (what one is and what one does for living) are not necessarily exclusive, both can be the same. In other words, and in my case, my current job is well related to my uni degree. It may mean that I'm lucky, given your initial doubt about it. I may even say I'm doubly lucky because the private company I'm doing my research for, pays good money (above national average), which would not be the case if I hanged at the uni. I guess in your part of the world, your job in the risk analysis may be offering more money than any uni position, even a solid, tenured prof.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I can tell another multi-task (or rather multi-field, or multi-preferences) person when I see one...

You're not far from truth here, because I hold interest in everything related to climate science, from physics through chemistry, stats, climate modeling (related to my official expertise), up to and including cognitive science, to understand why some deny what I like. But I learned all of that informally and I didn't bother about any credits for it.

 

[Horsa]

I went to the Hepworth Gallery today. Most of the art is abstract there but I do like some pieces & I do appreciate some of the abstract art. I like Henry Moore's charcoal drawings of miners & other realistic pieces. He came from Castleford which up until the 80's was a mining town. I like Barbara Hepworth's polished bronze sculpture, marble sculptures as well as her more realistic pieces. It made me realise that some abstract artists can actually create realistic art too.

 

[mrzz]

There is a lot of good pieces of abstract art. Just don't read the so-called experts talking about them...

 

[Chris Koziarz]

There is a lot of good pieces of abstract art. Just don't read the so-called experts talking about them...

Interesting point, mrzz.
In science, the experts are judged by their uni credentials, number of publications in the field and references by others. So I have a decent understanding how much to believe in what a given scientist says.
But in case of art experts, the "veracity" of their opinion is not easily measured, except maybe their status among colleagues/artists, which is very elusive and subjective.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting point, mrzz.
In science, the experts are judged by their uni credentials, number of publications in the field and references by others. So I have a decent understanding how much to believe in what a given scientist says.
But in case of art experts, the "veracity" of their opinion is not easily measured, except maybe their status among colleagues/artists, which is very elusive and subjective.

I agree with you and Mrzz. Some of the most BS writing is about abstract art. Also "conceptual art." But those forms of art, themselves, can be very beautiful and valid, just hard to write about. And still, there are some writers that get it totally right. In a way, you have to feel for these critics...they're trying to describe all of those angels on the head of a pin.

 

[Horsa]

There is a lot of good pieces of abstract art. Just don't read the so-called experts talking about them...

I judge art by what I see
& how aesthetically pleasing it is to me.
Except of course for realistic art.
Then I judge it for how realistic it is. When looking at art I don't like to have to think & be so smart.
If I want to be made to think I listen to music or read a book.
If I'm looking at art I judge it by the look.

 

[mrzz]

I judge art by what I see
& how aesthetically pleasing it is to me.
Except of course for realistic art.
Then I judge it for how realistic it is. When looking at art I don't like to have to think & be so smart.
If I want to be made to think I listen to music or read a book.
If I'm looking at art I judge it by the look.

Ha, just too good! Congrats, Horsa!

Just remembered the classic Bo Diddley rendition of Willie Dixon's masterpiece:

 

[mrzz]

In a way, you have to feel for these critics...they're trying to describe all of those angels on the head of a pin.

I feel for a very selected few. (@Horsa, Horsa! this is for you: "I few for a very selected feel.") As you said, some guys indeed can say interesting things about it, but my quarrel with the majority is not that I don't like their style (actually, I really don't), is that I don't think they're honest to begin with.

I am not much a traditionalist for art itself, but I am for art history/psychology/theory. When you read someone like Gombrich, like Hauser, like Wölfflin (ok, just listed all my favorites), these guys are simply... how can I put it, profound. They tackle the questions, they use their knowledge when it is really needed (in other words, they don't just try to look smart), and they come up with interesting, profound, and to the point ideas about art.

Then I read this people writing 100 pages about why the square is something important in modern society, and within it 10 pages interpreting a specific painting which contains an yellow geometrical figure of four sides... the painting itself I can like it or not, it is not the point. The point is that they don't seem to really get what abstract is. The more they write, the farther away from the point they are...

P.S. What in the world took you so long to show up here, Moxie?

 

[Horsa]

Ha, just too good! Congrats, Horsa!

Just remembered the classic Bo Diddley rendition of Willie Dixon's masterpiece:

Thank you very much, Mrzz. It's just how my response to your comment spontaneously came out. "Thank you for the music."

 

[Horsa]

I feel for a very selected few. (@Horsa, Horsa! this is for you: "I few for a very selected feel.") As you said, some guys indeed can say interesting things about it, but my quarrel with the majority is not that I don't like their style (actually, I really don't), is that I don't think they're honest to begin with.

I am not much a traditionalist for art itself, but I am for art history/psychology/theory. When you read someone like Gombrich, like Hauser, like Wölfflin (ok, just listed all my favorites), these guys are simply... how can I put it, profound. They tackle the questions, they use their knowledge when it is really needed (in other words, they don't just try to look smart), and they come up with interesting, profound, and to the point ideas about art.

Then I read this people writing 100 pages about why the square is something important in modern society, and within it 10 pages interpreting a specific painting which contains an yellow geometrical figure of four sides... the painting itself I can like it or not, it is not the point. The point is that they don't seem to really get what abstract is. The more they write, the farther away from the point they are...

P.S. What in the world took you so long to show up here, Moxie?

Why do you feel for me, Mrzz? I actually think I've got a good, eclectic taste in art & appreciate art & art history. I'm also starting to appreciate abstract art more. We've all got different tastes & we're allowed to have them. I like a lot of art from the Lascaux cave paintings to some modern art. I like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, Raphael, Caravaggio, Stubbs, Constable, Landseer etc. I've not heard of the art historians you mentioned but I'll have a look at what they have to say. I'll read anything once. For now though, I'm busy doing other things & reading other things.

 

[Horsa]

I'm going to be nice to you & share a link with information & a few pictures of Barbara Hepworth's work here as I know she was a lady who lived local to me but I'm not sure how familiar you are with her. http://barbarahepworth.org.uk/sculptures/ I could also share 1 about Henry Moore for the same reason if you'd like.

 

[mrzz]

Why do you feel for me, Mrzz?

I don't. It was just the word-play I figured you would like, as I inverted it on the bracketed comment. "I few for the selected feel".

 

[Horsa]

I don't. It was just the word-play I figured you would like, as I inverted it on the bracketed comment. "I few for the selected feel".

Haha! I get you. I noticed that but thought you'd made a typographical error. I do like the word-play. Thank you very much. I guess if I wanted to read it differently I guess I could have read it to mean you feel for the selected few pieces of abstract art in which case I'd have said I agree. How many people read the same thing in different ways & how many different ways the same thing can be read just shows how people think especially if the same person reads the same thing in different ways at different times.