Tnspieler1012

*I'm totally spamming this thread like I'm some kind of authority on random shit* I'm convinced its practically a genetic trait. maybe it boils down to left brain/right brain or whatever, but whether someone grows up loving science or writing or music seems largely based on what your parents are inclined towards. I guess a lot of it may have to do with the way you're raised too. on a vaguely-related note, I hated this arrogant prick. (the interview from 4:00 onward) [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTolIgmVn04]YouTube- Final Round & Close of 2007 National Spelling Bee[/ame]

:beatnik:

nice mix fitz...err...heat. David gray esp.

win

Arts, like music, usually include two sides. You need to understand the rules of composition, how to play the piano etc., but then you need personal expression and creativity. The way i see it, math is purely logical...it's either right or wrong, there's can't be any variation. The reason I was never fond of math is because, yes, its extremely important and useful, but there's nothing particularly human about it. The answers exist independent of whether or not I figure it out, humans merely discover the answers, but as far as i see, there's no room for individual expression or creativity in a black and white, purely logical subject. Of course, logic is the soul of reason, you can't dismiss math or you'd end up an idiot. I just direct it towards things that interest me more, like philosophical reasoning. Kant for example, reduced everything to complicated math, but i care more about the result than I did in chemistry. Both subjects are vital.

*wishes he could sketch*

I would disagree. At least, not in the way one understands arts like literature, film, music and poetry.

yeah...not to go intellectual on you again, but I think the main difference betwen math/science people and linguistics/humanities people is that math/science people generally like said subjects because they enjoy the certainty and stability of building on concrete, factual information, while stuff like literature and philosophy seem abstract because they have so many unresolvable variables. while... Humanities people see math and science as abstract because algebraic equations don't seem all that relevant to them personally, and they enjoy philosophy and art because it addresses questions that seem most important to them, like the nature of human life and how to approach it... Neither is fundamentally better than the other, its just the impression I've gotten from talking to people with different majors.

:(

The Seventh Seal: 7.9/10

I hear ya, even I get annoyed at seeing stuff like that selling for thousands, but then again, it usually is more about the fame and influence of the artist than the composition itself.

ooh! ooh! me too! In fact, we should all be poured together in a giant urn, and become a sandbox for her grandkids.

1. AAlmost nothing annoys me more than people who hate on modern or minimalist art. You get the same lines over and over "what?!?! I could draw that!!!" So many people are under the impression that for art to be good, it must be difficult. They see painting as no different than any other profession like being an athlete or a lawyer, and get infuriated when they see unimpressive drawings put on a pedestal. And they're so blinded by this contempt for simplicity that they forget why art is made in the first place. Art is not a competition, it's expression. You don't go to the Tate Modern to approve of the amount of hardwork that went into each display, you go there to experience and be personally affected by what these artists have made, and I've been more impacted standing in front of a painting with only two colors than I have been by most portrait galleries I've been to. rant over. :P the distinction between this and minimalist art though, comes down to authorial intent. The purpose, or intent of, say, a brian eno ambient piece is much more modest than that of a symphony. They're apples and oranges, and are meant to be different things, and affect the audience in different ways. One might say the only direct way of judging art is by how well it furfills the artist's intent for it. Amelia Bedelia is meant to be nothing more than a children's book, a kooning art display may simply try to create a childish curiousity in the viewer, while something by Amanda Ros may try to be a great, serious novel, and fail miserably.

Of course, I view art as neither fully objective or subjective. Everyone has the right to judge, and say what they believe is crap or brilliant. And just because you can't mathematically determine which of two books is qualitatively better doesn't mean you can't rationally argue about art. We all have reasons why we like some musicians or authors more than others, and most of us agree that some criterion are objectively better than others. So if a radiohead fan is arguing with a katy perry fan, to just say 'to each his own' wouldn't be acceptable. But I think what keeps universal standards being put in place is the fact that not all artists are trying to accomplish the same thing. :edit: damn, I love these discussions, but I have to leave for an hour or so.... let me just say in response to space cadet, color-field/expressionist art is the shizz-niz. I particularly dig barnett newman and clyfford still.

yes, it's technically literature. It might be easier to separate fiction from non-fiction, as obviously something as objective as a science text book based on facts is a lot easier to compare than say, poetry or a novel. But non-fiction can also be somewhat subjective, like a biography.

you don't, because that would imply that one can objectively measure the quality of art, to quote mr. keeting : "we're not laying pipe! we're talking about poetry."

I thought that was what you were insinuation with this thread, but I reject the elitist distinction the same way I reject the distinction between noise and music. Or people deciding which paintings deserve to be called art.

lulz

yeah, I mean, books are objects that house text, and literature is the art of writing and text. So literature encompasses books as well as writings that may be in a form other than books...

I've never really thought that there's a difference.

you're really into the fed today I see.

I don't doubt it, and I'll listen to it when I get back at my dorm. I just saw his name mentioned, and so, like any any ol' snoot, I thought I'd share my opinion.

I don't like Glenn Gould, he's so hyper and plays everything too fast. His bach and mozart pieces are great, but hearing him play (what should be) a soft beethoven sonata is just plain annoying.

dear creator of my mixtape, I can't find a single computer that will open my file through rapidshare, please upload the tracks again using mediafire or some other format.

this thread makes me sad.