Just realized why I like the name limbojim so much. It evokes memories of 60s Saturday morning Bomba the Jungle Boy/Tarzan movie reruns on Chicago TV.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
Well said, Jim.

Thank you, indeed.

Psychophant, I don't see anything at all about my building a "straw man" out of my dislike for psychiatry.

I think you may have a link to and/or at least a penchant for psychiatry because of the content of your posts in the past. ( forgive me if I'm wrong, it's the impression you've given me, if no one else) Also because of your chosen board name, which suggests some connection, however nebulous.

Subconscious is not a trigger word for me.

I never said you were a psychiatrist, an analyst, a psychologist, a councilor or any other professional "head shrinker" type. Yet you do bandy about the jargon and "show a clear tendency to value your opinion or certain information sources highly...". You give me at least, the impression of trying to speak from a position of authority.

Quote: " A piece will be the same objectively, whether it is lost or found. But subjectively, and art is all about the subjective, it will not be the same."
Hmmm. I beg to differ here. ( oh, please, please let me differ.) Art is not all about the subjective, not any more than anything else is all about the subjective.

Our ability to have this discussion is predicated on the very much objective meanings of the words we use. Although I must admit, words are slippery little buggers. (it's part of their charm)

As for "objective truth" concerning Venezuelan policy during WWII and water driven cars, look into Anthony C. Sutton's excellent work "History of Standard Oil".

As for your "light research" and your claim to "look behind the curtain", (Wiki help us) evidently you didn't look very far.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Just realized why I like the name limbojim so much. It evokes memories of 60s Saturday morning Bomba the Jungle Boy/Tarzan movie reruns on Chicago TV.

Heh.

I got an unusual e-mail a short while back from someone who calls himself "Limbojim". He seemed to want to know how I'd got the name, and what my intentions were in using it.

In response to his e-mail and Lester's post about googling his name, I tried googling Limbojim, and found a boat load of photos by this other person, who is apparently a professional photographer and goes by that name professionally.

He actually joined the board in order to get my e-mail addy, (not surprising I guess) in order to what? Hopefully, just to satisfy himself that I'm not some kind of threat to his artistic endeavors.

At any rate it was kind of an odd "encounter". I will continue to post pictures from time to time, and have no intention of changing my Wigber moniker, however much he might want me to.
(and this I don't get anyway, whether or not he actually wants me to change my name, his intentions were not clearly stated)

In a nutshell, friends gave me that name in the 1970's as a result of my tendency at that time to get so long winded in my story telling, that they would frequently find themselves lost in the story. "In limbo" as it were.

I can do a very good Tarzan yell. The rock bottom simplest form of yodeling.

trademark the name before him, then sue.

quote:

suggests some connection, however nebulous.

Watch it thar, podner! Nebulous is getting pert near too close to numinous. (see: miniaturization/mispronunciation)

quote:

Quote: " A piece will be the same objectively, whether it is lost or found. But subjectively, and art is all about the subjective, it will not be the same."
Hmmm. I beg to differ here. ( oh, please, please let me differ.) Art is not all about the subjective, not any more than anything else is all about the subjective.

Our ability to have this discussion is predicated on the very much objective meanings of the words we use. Although I must admit, words are slippery little buggers. (it's part of their charm)

May I suggest the expression 'consensually mediated reality'? CMR?

Today: in our center ring, two homonyms fight it out for their respective meanings!

My email is pastamstergeneral@yahoo.com. I am very proud of it. Originally, it was coined solely for the purpose of sending a chainmail letter roughly like this:

Hello:

THis letter represents the very essential fabric of reality. Should you not send it to (x) people in (x) time, the very existence on which we depend will halt.

However, reality is democratic. If you do not like reality as it is, don't send.

SIncerely,

pastmastergeneral

P.S. Tarzan a la Lester Zombie:

"...he made it his own, doing an impressive Tarzan yodel on his guitar with a whammy bar, wa-wa, and one of those early analog mouth vocoder things like the one Frampton used to tell his groupies "I wanna fuck you" in that wretchedly overplayed song. The effect was somewhere between Robocop and Godzilla's singing debut, yet throughly recognizable as a Tarzan yell."

P.S.S. That's Art.

quote:

Originally posted by limbojim: As for your "light research" and your claim to "look behind the curtain", (Wiki help us) evidently you didn't look very far.

The rectilinear propogation of light suggests something travels in a straight line until moved by another force or deflected by another object.

Some opinions seem to be of like ilk.

And so, when we look behind the curtain, some of us see what we want to see and some see the potentiality for what might actually be there.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
My email is pastamstergeneral@yahoo.com.

Is that spelled the way you actually have it on your address? If so, it's nonsensical, duder.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
My email is pastamstergeneral@yahoo.com.

Is that spelled the way you actually have it on your address? If so, it's nonsensical, duder.

Nope. It's pastmastergeneral. I had the tendon for my right thumb die a year ago. They took one of two tendons that my forefinger has and rewired it to my thumb. SO my already bad typing is now atrocious. I have dyslexia of the right hand. and bad aim all around.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:

quote:

Originally posted by limbojim: As for your "light research" and your claim to "look behind the curtain", (Wiki help us) evidently you didn't look very far.

The rectilinear propogation of light suggests something travels in a straight line until moved by another force or deflected by another object.

Some opinions seem to be of like ilk.

And so, when we look behind the curtain, some of us see what we want to see and some see the potentiality for what might actually be there.

Big words! Big words!

I meant this Venezuela mention. Good to have helped you find about Standard Oil...

So, besides disliking my jargon (subjective and objective appear in my literature, art and philosophy readings, and I prefer to use a precise wording, maybe because this is not my native language), and my attitude, I see no real arguments. A few personal opinions about psychiatry which I still do not see what had to do with anything, but not much about art.

quote:

Subjective
adj: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" [ant: objective](philosophy) of a mental act; occurring entirely within the mind [syn: immanent] [ant: transeunt]

Objective
adj: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective]

If art is not subjective, there should be something measurable or observable by all observers, no matter what their culture or education, to differentiate art from not art, or to say one has "more" art than something else.

I do not see anything like that, but maybe you can show me the error of my ways.

Now, if you can tell me where did I not look enough, that would make it a complete lesson.

As for what I do for a living, it is all here in the board...

I remember the Venezuela postings well. I thought that I explained myself clearly in my follow up posts.

I don't think that the Venezuelan leadership during WWII is in any way absolved from being guilty of sending oil to Germany at that time.

They knew where it was going. I never blamed the people of V. for that.

As to your jargon, there are no words in and of themselves that I dislike. They (words) are just tools. Sometimes very precise tools. And usually the more precise the better.

I understand the difference between objective and subjective just fine.

I did not say you are a psychiatrist. Although you seem to enjoy using the language of psychiatry. (in this thread and in others)

Art. Now there's something. It can be either the one or the other, (subjective/objective) or it can be more one than the other. Almost all of it is both, as is the rest of the world.

What I had a problem with was you saying that art is subjective, period. It can be and often is so much more.

I said that you are of a scientific mind. Am I wrong? You related your dislike for words like "numinous" and "miracle", and then started tossing around judgments and insults based on words that you don't like. In fact I think you said that you hate those words.

There is no law about art, measurable by all observers, written in stone etc. The only authority that I recognize when it comes to art is the artist. If the artist says this piece of work is about this this and this, then I as an observer must decide if I believe the artist or not. I may think that the artist is pulling my leg or even lying, but that doesn't make it true.

The art is about whatever the artist meant it to be about when he/she made it.
To the extent that any of us is capable of understanding that meaning, we succeed in understanding the art.

How do you make your sheep or avatar ram roll around like that? (here's hoping that I'm not the only one seeing it)

it's a series of animations. From a game, I believe.

My fave:

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
it's a series of animations. From a game, I believe.

My fave:

haha mine too.

quote:

Originally posted by limbojim:
I understand the difference between objective and subjective just fine.
[...]
Art. Now there's something. It can be either the one or the other, (subjective/objective) or it can be more one than the other. Almost all of it is both, as is the rest of the world.
[...]
There is no law about art, measurable by all observers, written in stone etc. The only authority that I recognize when it comes to art is the artist. If the artist says this piece of work is about this this and this, then I as an observer must decide if I believe the artist or not. I may think that the artist is pulling my leg or even lying, but that doesn't make it true.

The art is about whatever the artist meant it to be about when he/she made it.
To the extent that any of us is capable of understanding that meaning, we succeed in understanding the art.

Maybe you should reread the definition of subjective, as I do not see anything objective when you talk about art. If it all relies on the artist, you are far more subjective than I am, as I allow every one their own bias, while you use the bias of just one person. You just deny any art which is not made with that intention, which will mean for instance considering as non-art most religious buildings made before the XVIIth century, most painters before the Renaissance, and many afterwards, a sizable portion of classical music, and most of the beautiful things man has made.

Now, just to avoid doing it again, can you quote an example in this discussion where I insulted anything, besides hating the words "miracle" and "numinous", which I still contend are used when you do not know a better explanation (and after all, that is their meaning, as KL showed), so if you use them you just say that you do not have an explanation, which does not mean there is not one.

It is a screenmate, from the last century.

I wonder what you are actually discussing? What is art? What is good art? What is going on in 'the art world' - or something completely different?

It's a depressing fact that there are huge interests conspiring to keep the making and evalution of art a mystery. If art were popularily understood as a job or a hobby, as Psychophant puts it, people would be less inclined to pay huge sums for conceptual work.
However, this doesn't mean conceptual work is worthless. For some very important artists, art has been and still is something more comparable to basic research - a scholarly endevour, exploring the edges of knowledge. John Cage's 4'33" comes to mind. Or Malewich's religiously inspired experiments with abstraction.

Have some artists capitalized on the general public's inability to tell the difference between a monkey's painting and the real stuff? - YES, of course. Just as the food-industry capitalizes on the general public's inability to taste the difference between a piece of rare beef and a whole-ground old cow.

Does this mean that it is impossible to discuss and evaluate art (or beef)? Of course not!

I think Psychophants emphasis on the difference between the artist's perspective and the viewer's is very interesting, but needs to be qualified. The professional artist would necessarily see his work in an artistic context - his work will relate to other works methodolocially, aestetically, socially, politically.. If I paint a blue monochrome, I will have to think about Yves Klein, Malewich, (and Hegel, actually) as I do it, and at least with my self argue why it is still relevant and why I am doing it, particularily: what I am learning from doing it.

From the perspective of the viewer, different questions arise: one may like the blue monochrome, because it is decorative, another because it intellectually satifying as meta-art, another again will be interested in my ranking on the international artists list, and thus the market value and collectioners potential of the piece. All of these questions and more of those will only partially coincide with my own. Unless I'm a crook, like the above-mentioned food fabricators.

This doens't mean one perspective is more right than the other. They are just different - and from both perspectives there is a whole scale with different degrees of objectivity/subjectivity which constantly interact.

The art-establishment will be naturally biased towards a high degree of professionalism and thus more 'reasoned' choices, which offends some people who fancy art as someting emotional and expressive. But no one forces anyone to see or buy establishment art.

Art is 100% subjective.

No platinum-iridium rod for these territories, people.

Like Lithos I still think that those choices are subjective. Objective would be: how long have I worked on this piece, how much does it weigh, how much has it costed me to make it, how much have I made from it, how many people have seen it...

But all those values you mention are subjective, at least from my understanding of the word.

quote:

From the perspective of the viewer, different questions arise: one may like the blue monochrome, because it is decorative, another because it intellectually satifying as meta-art, another again will be interested in my ranking on the international artists list, and thus the market value and collectioners potential of the piece. All of these questions and more of those will only partially coincide with my own.

In a wide sense, any subjective value applied to an object or an idea will be an expression of art, taken widely. The emotion in a poem, self-recognition in a novel, tears before a photograph. What makes an image artistic? It is not the paper, the color or the brand of the machine that made it. It is a label that we, as an observer, assign it. The author may try to assign it, as once it is made, he/she becomes an observer too, but if others do not agree, it will be labeled a failure. It will still be art, however. Just failed art.

Only a few people have people made art deliberately, till recent times. Most of the time they just made something useful that they could enjoy making, and probably look back fondly. Art and artistic labels were applied after the fact, by those that found themselves sufficiently moved.