| yksehtniycul
|
don't play with me 'cause you're playing with fire |
Oh you just went there 
You're mearly choosing to adopt an easy purview of the human condition. Specifically existential humanism. Which is a great principal by which to articulate ground rules for a maturing society. But its by no means the bedrock of existence itself. If you attempt to appraise everything in terms of the individual, of course your notions of common-sense will differ. But you're playing with symbols, not concepts. The concepts themselves are patterns both macroscopic and micro which repeat and propogate themselves throughout the natural universe (however you wanna define that)
Small caveat, you're needlessly shifting the argument here away from "bad/wrong" to "evil" or mixing the concepts. Frankly evil is much easier to delineate than bad, as it is an absolute modality. Bad/wrong on the otherhand are purely situational in most realms of thought, however within the realm of atistic merit this is in most practical instances of debate not the case, so we're in the clear.
Notice how you've gone from questions of taste to some very broad philosophical dilemmas (which I was attempting to avoid)
editted: Also notice, to say, "Wow I really like/dislike this music.", is a radically different statement than "This music is bad/unlistenible." Of course you can disagree with this observation, but then you're just mincing symbols again I think, which gets us nowhere.
PS: So what does a Mickey emote really mean then? 
« Last Edit: March 16, 2008, 09:11:35 PM by yksehtniycul »
|
Logged yksehtniycul has 2094 Posts (+0/-0 Karma) |
|
|
| DevilRy
|
Being the most important can't be seen in the eyes |
PS: So what does a Mickey emote really mean then?
Mickey/Mikey... harhar. Jeewhiz you're thick sometimes. 
Oh you just went there
Look who's talking, Mister-"this thread is rife for philosophical discussion." Although I think you meant "ripe," since there really isn't much in the philosophical bent in the whole board.
Let's pick apart your points here, shall we?
You're mearly choosing to adopt an easy purview of the human condition. Specifically existential humanism. Which is a great principal by which to articulate ground rules for a maturing society. But its by no means the bedrock of existence itself. If you attempt to appraise everything in terms of the individual, of course your notions of common-sense will differ. But you're playing with symbols, not concepts. The concepts themselves are patterns both macroscopic and micro which repeat and propogate themselves throughout the natural universe (however you wanna define that)
I can't tell if this is supposed to be Pavlovian or some weird, didactic version of New Age-ism but... If you're trying to say that art/music can be judged good or bad (and applicable to the whole) based on how the art in question is constructed, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but patterns themselves have only so much meaning as each individual puts into them; Art, by definition, IS existential. Though patterns can repeat and are necessarily mathematical and can appear the same to multiple individuals, that has nothing to do with the emotional responses a particular piece of music can induce and/or memories that are triggered. Concepts can be experienced communally but each response is different in everyone and categorizing music as listenable/unlistenable really only applies to yourself. Even if you're going for "intellectual understanding," it's still your own personal response. Own up to it. You can't pass it off to consensus unless you're against an "intellectual understanding," as you put it and for quantifying all of humanity's emotional responses (which is impossible and completely pointless).
Small caveat, you're needlessly shifting the argument here away from "bad/wrong" to "evil" or mixing the concepts. Frankly evil is much easier to delineate than bad, as it is an absolute modality. Bad/wrong on the otherhand are purely situational in most realms of thought, however within the realm of atistic merit this is in most practical instances of debate not the case, so we're in the clear.
My small caveat: as I've put it before, "There are absolutely no absolutes," or if you prefer the less facetious version: "The only absolute is that there is no absolute." Really you're just splitting semantic hairs. You're the one who mentions evil first, my posts are in response.
Notice how you've gone from questions of taste to some very broad philosophical dilemmas (which I was attempting to avoid)
editted: Also notice, to say, "Wow I really like/dislike this music.", is a radically different statement than "This music is bad/unlistenible." Of course you can disagree with this observation, but then you're just mincing symbols again I think, which gets us nowhere.
Exactly as you maneuvered it. I don't exactly see why laying the blame solely on me gets you anywhere since it obviously takes two to tango, as it were. I'm well aware of the differences between saying you like/dislike something and saying its good/bad. Originally I didn't make the distinction by mentioning I think before my first post, but I didn't exactly predict getting into a philosophical debate about the nature of art and music in general, though obviously you did somehow... I wonder why? :program:
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 10:30:30 AM by DevilRy »
|
Logged DevilRy has 435 Posts (+23/-0 Karma) |
|
|
| yksehtniycul
|
don't play with me 'cause you're playing with fire |
Mickey/Mikey... harhar. Jeewhiz you're thick sometimes.
For the record, that was my original guess, but you denied it, so I pushed on. For the record is my condescension emote Robin :program:
|
Logged yksehtniycul has 2094 Posts (+0/-0 Karma) |
|
|
| yksehtniycul
|
don't play with me 'cause you're playing with fire |
Statements such as:
First of all, IT SUCKS Always end in philosophical debate where I'm from. Even if I have to play Devil's Advocate.
There I've picked at your first and last reposts now.
I'll have to try the creamy filling later I suppose :)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 06:25:47 PM by yksehtniycul »
|
Logged yksehtniycul has 2094 Posts (+0/-0 Karma) |
|
|
| yksehtniycul
|
don't play with me 'cause you're playing with fire |
I can't tell if this is supposed to be Pavlovian or some weird, didactic version of New Age-ism but... If you're trying to say that art/music can be judged good or bad (and applicable to the whole) based on how the art in question is constructed, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but patterns themselves have only so much meaning as each individual puts into them; Art, by definition, IS existential. Though patterns can repeat and are necessarily mathematical and can appear the same to multiple individuals, that has nothing to do with the emotional responses a particular piece of music can induce and/or memories that are triggered. Concepts can be experienced communally but each response is different in everyone and categorizing music as listenable/unlistenable really only applies to yourself. Even if you're going for "intellectual understanding," it's still your own personal response. Own up to it. You can't pass it off to consensus unless you're against an "intellectual understanding," as you put it and for quantifying all of humanity's emotional responses (which is impossible and completely pointless).
There are both of these aspects to any form of expression. You're just refusing to admit the latter. Like existentialist, denying all meaning and existence itself. Which is precisely why existentialism as an -ism is not terribly popular you know.
I work with computers and numbers. I can program a computer to produce consistantly good or bad art. Its that simple. Sentimentality has nothing to do with such appraisal. Only sentimentality is subjective (by definition) ...the remainder of what art is, is purely objective.
You can see beauty in a cat, even though your not a tomcat. Most evolution selects based on purely objective/measurable qualifiers of beauty. Good music transcends time and the culture that produced it.
People all struggle with genetic and environmental predispositions. But ultimately as people mature, their minds begin to think more and more alike (optimally) -- That doesn't mean their personality disappears, it just means gaining access to an ever broader worldview and emotional maturity. Thats not to say a tragically mad man can't find a horribly produced piece of music or random sampling of caustic noise pleasurable, but it is a perversion of the senses only that could lead to such a state. Such is the face of true perversion, and don't kid yourself, the world is littered with it. This is why people dispise the music industry etcetera, and most people involved in producing movies and games really have no idea what they're doing, and our culture is suffering for it.
editted: Now that it springs to mind, I've half a mind to imagine some of the reason we're collectively wallowing in a sort of commercial dark age for art could have something to do with generations or art students being taught exclusively to these basic guidelines.
PS: Was the Mass Destruction song made for P3? Or taken from some jpop catalogue? Btw, has "mass destruction" ever been used outside of genocidal war circles? Maybe that is why it's particularly hilarious!
How's that for a trilogy :lurk:
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 07:55:52 PM by yksehtniycul »
|
Logged yksehtniycul has 2094 Posts (+0/-0 Karma) |
|
|
|
|
| DevilRy
|
Being the most important can't be seen in the eyes |
You're drawing the wrong conclusions as usual. Why is it that I all of a sudden become an existential-ist when all I'm saying is that a concept is existential in and of itself?
Also, punching numbers into a keyboard is hardly as broad as the spectrum of human experience as a whole. You're working within a closed system with set limitations and expectations, all artificial in nature.
Even if "good" music could transcend time and culture, the qualities of which that would typify "good" music wouldn't, especially so if the culture creating them doesn't survive. How many people of today still play the huehuetl and teponaztli instruments of the Aztec empire?
"Good" and "bad" change with time and tide. You can hold things to what's been a standard that's been true for oh, maybe the last hundred years or so, or you look at it from a broader perspective and make your own judgments and own up to them.
|
Logged DevilRy has 435 Posts (+23/-0 Karma) |
|
|
| yksehtniycul
|
don't play with me 'cause you're playing with fire |
I didn't characterize anyone as an adherent of existentialism technically. Though you shouldn't describe something as "existential", as that is more or less an unnecessary political statement -- to which subjective is perfectly a suitable alternative right?
The whole point of good vs. bad, is it is one or the other regardless of whether who or what gets it. That's the whole premise behind the critic, even if they're grounded in a culture.
The time and place where a piece of art is exhibited can't change it's merit, though it can certainly change its reception radically.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 09:18:30 PM by yksehtniycul »
|
Logged yksehtniycul has 2094 Posts (+0/-0 Karma) |
|
|
|
