BF3s Book Club

2011-03-04 06:32:07

#751

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

where did i say anything was more or less valid than anything else? i said glenn beck had poor prose style... and he does.

i also said sci-fi was in a lull at the moment and nothing new was happening. i also acknowledged that this happens to every genre and artform.

you guys are impossible

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 06:38:57

#752

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Uzique wrote:
of course not, but it stands for itself-- and it stands for SOMETHING. the author hasn't created 'nonsense', you PERCEIVE it as nonsense because of your lack of comprehension and background-knowledge; the onus is on you, therefore, to truly comprehend the full intention of the piece of art. joyce is often quoted as saying that his works "will have professors arguing for centuries"-- it's arrogant and egotistical, but high-modernism never had any pretentions about its high-minded and erudite nature. it certainly isn't a bad aspect or a criticism of the book that the average person cannot understand it... there's a very good cultural argument to state that some art and culture does need to be exclusive, in the epistemological sense. the entire notion that art should be literal and referential and accessible and understandable to everyone is absolute nonsense. total tosh. does the average person really understand a picasso? how many people discard modern abstract art as 'nonsense', or called rothko 'rubbish', because they didn't understand the aesthetic point or intent of the piece? ulysses, similarly, is not a 'rubbish' book because it infuriates you with its density and complexity. you just don't get it. that's fine. move on.
Just who were you ranting at here, Uzique?

I didn't refer to it as "nonsense" or "rubbish." Nor did I argue that all books should be "literal and referential and accessible and understandable to everyone..."

However, if an author is living on ramen noodles and ketchup because he's made his "art" incomprehensible to all but a handful of people who can be arsed to sit around and devolve it for weeks on end to determine its root meaning...well, it's his own damn fault. You deem others UNABLE to do what you do. That's egotistical (shocking). We're not unable...just unwilling. We have more important things to do with our time, tbh. But to each his own, I suppose.
joyce made a shit ton of money and bought his entire family out of poverty and lived in paris with the world's artistic elite

where exactly does this notion come from that to make good art, you have to be dirt poor?

I didn't say that. Nowhere did I say that.

JFC. Do you make those kind of logical leaps in your "analysis" in school? Because if you do, I honestly don't see how you pass a single course.

I was making an example of someone who makes what a small group consider to be "high art" but because it's so obtuse, it doesn't sell beyond that small group. I intentionally did not generalize.

Uzique wrote:
i actually disagree. that's like saying anyone could easily work with high-level science or maths if they wanted to and were so inclined to spend their time studying it. the analytic and philosophical ideas and arguments that you have to grapple with at the top-level of arts study is a SPECIALISED field. it's not just something people do because they have too much time and money and enjoy playing around with fun little books. it's actually egotistical of you to think that you could comprehend and engage with texts on the same level as somebody that has studied the discipline for years... at a mere whim, 'if you did so fancy'. every branch of human knowledge is so far developed and specialised nowadays that i really think it would be difficult for anyone to simply turn their mind to something else and decipher it with ease-- as if they're some sort of unread polymath. sure you could take 5 years of art courses and probably be up to scratch in background knowledge, reading and analytical skills...

but i do simply disagree. show somebody some heidegger or some cavell and tell them to go read and 'understand' it, then apply that to joyce's ulysses... yeah, okay. maybe give them 2-3 years to get their heads around everything required.

You're simply wrong. It's a matter of time, education, and training. For anyone. It's nothing special. Nor is high-level science or math. True, there are a few savants out there in any field, but for the vast majority of humans, success in any field of academic endeavor is just a matter of time and effort. Academics just like to think they're special because it's what they've chosen to do...just like many other people in other career fields like to make themselves feel special. Newsflash: nothing special there.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-03-04 06:42:05

#753

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Arguing about which art form or example of art is more valid than the next is a waste of time.
This.

Because you are arguing a subjective topic.

Precisely. If I want to say that Joyce is rubbish and Beck is the best writer to ever live then who is going to prove me wrong? It's my own opinion and what some 'elitist' says doesn't mean a fig to me.

What Uzique fails to understand is that every piece of art has an intended audience. If the piece nails the mark and is beloved by its target audience then it is a success. If it fails to hit its mark among its audience then it is a failure. What happens outside of that target audience is irrelevant.

If I write a book intended to be a commercial success and it fails, it's a failure. It doesn't matter if academics pick it up and love it, it's still a failure because the intent was to sell a lot of copies. If I write a book that is intended to be artsy and it is shunned by the artsy types and instead sells to a wide audience, that book is also a failure because of intent.

Point is, just because one piece of art is beloved or despised inside of one target audience doesn't make it universally good or bad. Joyce wrote his books with people who devote their lives to reading books in mind. So in that regard he's a wonderful success. He hit his mark. But only people within that mark should give a fuck. Hitting people over the head because they 'don't get it' is retarded. You're good at reading Uzique, you want a pat on the back? That's like being really, really good at breathing.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-03-04 06:46:50)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-03-04 07:12:38

#754

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

no. a vast majority of art is not made to pander or target an audience. i completely disagree and so do MANY MANY other people.

don't round up a post of utter conjecture with 'point is...', ffs. it's typical galt. talk to yourself for 3 paragraphs then act as if you've concluded a debate with anyone but your own interior monologue.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-03-04 07:12:53)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 07:29:17

#755

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

FEOS wrote:
You're simply wrong. It's a matter of time, education, and training. For anyone. It's nothing special. Nor is high-level science or math. True, there are a few savants out there in any field, but for the vast majority of humans, success in any field of academic endeavor is just a matter of time and effort. Academics just like to think they're special because it's what they've chosen to do...just like many other people in other career fields like to make themselves feel special. Newsflash: nothing special there.

oh and sure - this is essentially what i was trying to say in my "art takes specialisation, too!" post. i got the implication from your post re: literature and arts that you view it as a subject that is inaccessible merely only because you haven't been bothered to try and access it (not that there is any skill or discipline needed in the process of accessing). i was only arguing that art does take the same training and dedication that maths or science would-- not that there's anything inherently 'too difficult' about it for some. of course there's a degree in which certain human minds and types of intelligence are more adept at 'x' than 'y': the scientific rationalist or the logician is better suited to the hard, concrete subjects than the abstract and philosophical, for instance. but yes, i'm not arguing that intellectual 'talent' is anything other than years of cultivation and continued specialisation. i don't think i am godmode talented or a marvelous talent because i can read and decipher ulysses-- i should bloody be able to after spending most of my life reading the classics and the theory behind it! what i am arguing against is people that come in with the view that 'a book is a book' or that 'x' author is just as talented as 'y' author, with no qualification or technical understanding. a subjective opinion is one thing, but a qualifying statement is another. i can have an opinion on matters of science but they are grounded in little-to-nothing and are of no consequence; people should probably curb their temerity when it comes to passing similar judgements on books. instead they're dismissive of the 'academy' or whatever you want to call it, and assert that all critical opinion on books is tosh, because "it's just subjective!". that completely dismisses in one stroke everything i have said about art and the study of being a specialized field in itself. sure, there are no concretes or any absolutes - it's not suited to the scientific mind - but that doesn't automatically mean that every debate and discourse in the arts is intellectual nonsense for people with too much time, just because there isn't an 'a' or 'b' answer.

i hope that made it a little clearer. my patience is so thin on the matter after arguing about it for months on end with people like dilbert. i don't even bother trying to explain in any detail or with any lucidity anymore.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 07:30:34

#756

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5495|Cleveland, Ohio

i never knew books could make people so angry

2011-03-04 07:31:55

#757

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

who is angry? exasperated and tired of repeating myself, maybe. head against a brick wall, perhaps. angry? no. i'm on my home ground.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 07:51:43

#758

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

https://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb139/winterkiss42/uzique.jpg

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-03-04 07:56:46

#759

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6726

JohnG@lt wrote:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 … uzique.jpg

You drew that yourself.

Wow.

2011-03-04 07:58:19

#760

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 … uzique.jpg
You drew that yourself.

Wow.

Had the idea while in the shower

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-03-04 07:58:51

#761

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5495|Cleveland, Ohio

i think its clever

2011-03-04 07:59:51

#762

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5957

because one day we will crash onto a deserted island?

2011-03-04 07:59:54

#763

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

rofl. just rofl. yeah the only transferable skills an arts student has is that he can 'read'. hahaha.

galt im sorry you're engaged to a vapid and empty-headed woman, and im sorry that i've humiliated you and called you out for not knowing your abc's on certain political and historical matters (which have nothing to do with the act of reading fiction!!!!!!)... but really now. put down the axe. you've grinded it into non-existence.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 08:00:59

#764

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Uzique wrote:
rofl. just rofl. yeah the only transferable skills an arts student has is that he can 'read'. hahaha.

galt im sorry you're engaged to a vapid and empty-headed woman, and im sorry that i've humiliated you and called you out for not knowing your abc's on certain political and historical matters (which have nothing to do with the act of reading fiction!!!!!!)... but really now. put down the axe. you've grinded it into non-existence.

Lawl.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-03-04 08:01:12

#765

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

by the way what does the musician do if he doesn't tell stories? i'm confused. and what is a mechanic going to do on a desert island? how will a doctor be of any use without medicine or instruments? it couldn't have been a long shower, you didn't think this through...

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 08:01:42

#766

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6726

Just how would a mechanic help on the island if there aren't any machines?

Also, the carpenter only has one tree to work with.

And there are not musical instruments of the musician to play.

So really only the doctor and prostitute would be of any use.

2011-03-04 08:02:26

#767

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Uzique wrote:
by the way what does the musician do if he doesn't tell stories? i'm confused. and what is a mechanic going to do on a desert island? how will a doctor be of any use without medicine or instruments? it couldn't have been a long shower, you didn't think this through...

The musician can make a pipe from your bones and entertain the lads. The doctor can make some herbal remedy he finds in the ocean, and the mechanic can chop down that palm tree and build them a nice house with the carpenter.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-03-04 08:02:46

#768

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5495|Cleveland, Ohio

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Just how would a mechanic help on the island if there aren't any machines?

Also, the carpenter only has one tree to work with.

And there are not musical instruments of the musician to play.

So really only the doctor and prostitute would be of any use.

why do you come to this section?

2011-03-04 08:02:49

#769

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Just how would a mechanic help on the island if there aren't any machines?

Also, the carpenter only has one tree to work with.

And there are not musical instruments of the musician to play.

So really only the doctor and prostitute would be of any use.

Quit being so literal.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-03-04 08:03:11

#770

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6726

11 Bravo wrote:
Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Just how would a mechanic help on the island if there aren't any machines?

Also, the carpenter only has one tree to work with.

And there are not musical instruments of the musician to play.

So really only the doctor and prostitute would be of any use.
why do you come to this section?

why do you come to this website?

2011-03-04 08:03:24

#771

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

the doctor wouldn't even be of any use, though. what's he going to do, diagnose an illness and prescribe... um? improvise first-aid with, uhhhm?

to be honest if i was trapped on a desert island, i'd want a story-teller. at least i'd be entertained and prevented from going insane.

narratives are important for human existence: we try to build coherent teleological narratives out of everything.

it's one of our primary ways of making sense of and structuring the world, and of organizing and archiving the human experience.

i bet the carpenter would be a real interesting fella to talk to, though. tell me again about erecting timber frames!!!!!

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 08:04:05

#772

jord: Member; +2,382|6936|The North, beyond the wall.

A chef would've been a better example of someone useful in that situation.

Or floppys mother, to ya know, beat on for procreating...

2011-03-04 08:04:42

#773

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

https://vigorouslylazy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/infinite-jest.jpg

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-03-04 08:04:49

#774

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

jord wrote:
A chef would've been a better example of someone useful in that situation.

Or floppys mother, to ya know, beat on for procreating...

This is true. If I make a version 2.0 (I won't), I will include both of them and replace the mechanic

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-03-04 08:05:32)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-03-04 08:05:29

#775

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

swap out the reader for 'philosopher' and see if you can still maintain the spurious argument.

(omg philosophers are sooo useless)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

jord wrote:

Board footer