Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Discards]

(Nested quote removed.)

Is that a joke? I agreed with what you said.

Oh. I apologize. I'm just not used to being acknowledged, ever, by anyone. So...

(Nested quote removed.)

I can barely draw stick figures.

I guess that makes me the winner by default. Who's next! Alias! You want some! You want to have a little "philosophy forum's got talent" show down?

-- Updated February 28th, 2013, 7:43 pm to add the following --

Oh SNAP! you just said that didn't you? You compared me to Dali? Melting clocks? That's "original"? That's "talent"? A guy draws a melting clock? You call that original? You must actually be a real art critic! Whatchyou got Alias? Whatchyou got!

[Alias]

I'm not about to line up old sculptures to photograph for your scorn. Anyway, I do not claim to be an exceptional artist: modest talent, small success, not recent. That one of my short serial lives.

If all you know about Dali is clocks, you might take another look. arthistory.about.com/library/weekly/bl_ ... ma_rev.htm I mentioned him for being both unconventional and a superb craftsman. You can compare yourself to Monet, if you prefer, or Caravaggio. The point is, not every dedicated artist will or can ever become a great one. The limits, both physical and mental, are in us from conception.

[Discards]

I'm not about to line up old sculptures to photograph for your scorn. Anyway, I do not claim to be an exceptional artist: modest talent, small success, not recent. That one of my short serial lives.

If all you know about Dali is clocks, you might take another look. arthistory.about.com/library/weekly/bl_ ... ma_rev.htm I mentioned him for being both unconventional and a superb craftsman. You can compare yourself to Monet, if you prefer, or Caravaggio. The point is, not every dedicated artist will or can ever become a great one. The limits, both physical and mental, are in us from conception.

No. I kid. Dali is very good. I like his color schemes. I think he's a very talented realist. Some of his works create a disturbing effect. I was, however, creating sketches of similar style, content, and realist influence when I was seventeen. I can tell you with certainty that the inspiration for his "innovative" subject matter is pure boredom and lack of enthusiasm. I can almost guarantee you that he was bored with his entire career. His work is "controversial" and that is a very high accolade for any artist - but especially so when the artist was merely painting for "the joy of painting". (A little joke for you).

Anyhow. Where Picasso left off, I am merely departing. Talk about "practice"! Do you think cubism arose so that the artist could appreciate his subject matter from every angle or was it a more convenient way to slap his subject matter in the face?

Cubism sucks for a good reason. It's the same reason that your sculpture is probably pretty good (and I say that in all honesty).

"Scorn" - he says. Phuh. I would never scorn your artwork! I'm not that way.

[Rombomb]

(Nested quote removed.)


Oh. I apologize.

No apology necessary. Misunderstandings are common.

I'm just not used to being acknowledged, ever, by anyone. So...

What you told me is very uncommon knowledge. You know it, most people don't.

Why wouldn't people acknowledge your knowledge? Maybe they are wrong. Or maybe they know you're right but are jealous of you.

[Discards]

(Nested quote removed.)

No apology necessary. Misunderstandings are common. (Nested quote removed.)

What you told me is very uncommon knowledge. You know it, most people don't.

Why wouldn't people acknowledge your knowledge? Maybe they are wrong. Or maybe they know you're right but are jealous of you.

I don't know I really doubt anyone is jealous of me. But, you know, if I'm right about certain things, what are people going to say? I usually leave little left to talk about. It's problematic. I should maybe say less I guess. Leave more to the imagination. Be somewhat more dishonest on an intellectual level.

This is my artwork..

Better than Dali. "Persephone"
image.jpg (214.02 KiB) Viewed 1923 times

...whatda you think? Whatda you think Alias! (I'm shouting cause I don't know if he still can hear me).

[Alias]

I do not share your assessment. It looks vaguely Fauve, perhaps derivative of Matisse, Gaugin or Dufy, minus their genius - and, of course, that boat sailed over a century ago. If you're under 16, it's quite good.

Tip: If (if - it's certainly not a requirement) you're interested in getting the eyes more symmetrical and on the same level, try turning the board upside-down, for better access with your own dominant hand and eye.

[Discards]

I do not share your assessment. It looks vaguely Fauve, perhaps derivative of Matisse, Gaugin or Dufy, minus their genius - and, of course, that boat sailed over a century ago. If you're under 16, it's quite good.

Tip: If (if - it's certainly not a requirement) you're interested in getting the eyes more symmetrical and on the same level, try turning the board upside-down, for better access with your own dominant hand and eye.

So, am I getting his right? If a 15 year old reproduces something vaguely fauve - derivitive of Mattise, Gaugin, or Dufy - without the genius, on a one hundred year since gone ship - it's good. But, if the child is older than this, then it is not good.

When I was seventeen, as I said, I was producing works of art similar to the style and technique of Salvador Dali. In fact, this and also I had a better grasp of depth, form, perspective and realism. Re: Dali's incapable attempt to tilt the head of his grotesque man beast (of what is am otherwise marvellous work of art - none the less, how hard is it to draw a tilted head in perspective?)

Your attention to detail apparently comes second to your scathing remarks.

I am happy with the placement of the eyes. If you look hard enough you'll notice the pupils are level. I have to say, not many know this, but you should as an instructor - there is the fact that in the female form the right features develop in slightly greater proportion to the left features. And the opposite is the case for men.

Your observation here is a question of whether Persephone is raising her left eyebrow or if the painter has misplaced her face here and there. In the end she is not a "Mona" anything! Thank Goodness. Her name is "Persephone" and she would not be mistaken by any other.

So, get out one of the old pieces, dust it off just a bit, and give me an example of your self proclaimed "modest talent". Otherwise, - poop. Poop on you.

[Alias]

Nothing personal. Leave final judgment to a panel of impartial art experts.

[Discards]

None taken.

The guy with poor attention to detail is qualified to make scathing remarks [however "impersonal" they may be - (no pun intended)]. But the man with the forked tongue is yellow bellied and doesn't have the nerve to subject his work to another person's opinion (in this case my opinion)? That is the case, it seems.

[Alias]

Possibly. However, only one did any bragging or asked for an opinion.

[Rombomb]

No apology necessary. Misunderstandings are common. (Nested quote removed.)

What you told me is very uncommon knowledge. You know it, most people don't.

Why wouldn't people acknowledge your knowledge? Maybe they are wrong. Or maybe they know you're right but are jealous of you.

I don't know I really doubt anyone is jealous of me. But, you know, if I'm right about certain things, what are people going to say? I usually leave little left to talk about. It's problematic. I should maybe say less I guess. Leave more to the imagination. Be somewhat more dishonest on an intellectual level.

No. Don't appease evil!

This is my artwork..

image.jpg

I like it.

Check out my mom's artwork:

here and here and here

-- Updated March 2nd, 2013, 10:41 pm to add the following --

The machine won't ask this in the words of my preference: What, pray, is "theory-laden" when it's at home?

That is a metaphor for something, but I don't know what. Explain?

In general, I do not agree to theory-laden jargon.

You don't agree with the word or the idea?

To clarify: I'll explain why I believe the theory that *all human thoughts/emotions/behaviors are theory-laden* -- and what the theory is and what it implies about reality.


_What's the problem with the current theories of human thoughts/emotions/behaviors?_

Previous theories are flawed because they fail to explain reality. Those theories all share the idea that some parts of the human brain are hardwired (namely the from the part of the brain that is responsible for the mind, e.g. language ability). There are cases in recent history that refute this brain-is-hard-wired theory. For example, there was a girl who lost her language ability because of permanent brain damage to the part of the her brain that did language, and then she relearned language in another part of her brain. This implies that the brain (at least the part that relearned language) is not hardwired. The failure of the brain-is-hardwired theory in explaining this is its refutation. -- This is a problem which was solved by the theory that says that the brain is not hardwired.

Another problem with previous theories is that they all assume that much of human thought/emotion/behavior is due to genes -- meaning that genes encode the hardwiring of the brain. But this doesn't work since most of these human attributes were created after memetic evolution started replacing genetic evolution. By that I mean that as soon as humans started living longer lives because of technology, their otherwise-unfit genes didn't die as much as before because the natural selective pressures were changed/alleviated by the technology. Memetic evolution started as far as 2.3 million years ago when early humans started using stone tools. We started the cooking meme 250,000 years ago. We started using symbols to represent concepts 50,000 years ago -- which is when civilization started -- which is also when genetic evolution mostly stopped.


_What is the theory?_

All human thoughts/emotions/behaviors are theory-laden, which means caused by our ideas.

In the case of emotions, it is always interpretation first, then emotion. The interpretation causes the emotion. The interpretation depends on the ideas of the person. Many of those ideas are memes learned from other people. Some of them are unique to that person.

Note that no two people have the exact same set of ideas, which means that everyone is unique -- one consequence of which is that different people will do the same things for different reasons, and that different people will do the different things for the same reasons.

Note also that memes (aka ideas) are shared by lots of people, which means that many people share the same emotions and emotional habits.

The same is true for thoughts and behaviors/actions. Interpretation first, then thought. Interpretation first, then behavior.


To clarify, the interpretation part is largely subconscious. By the time you are aware of a thought, your subconscious has already done a lot of work and has produced a thought and served up to your conscious.

[Discards]

Possibly. However, only one did any bragging or asked for an opinion.

Perhaps it is bragging when I claim to be better that Pablo. But consider all of it as a playful, good intentioned attempt to draw you into posting an image of your work. I want to know what you sculpt! I want to know if its clay, wood, or stone. I would like to infer things about your spatial awareness and your represtational abilities. For the record, you drew me into an immediate war of words. So I backed up my claim with a real image. Yes Picasso and Dali are better than me. 70 percent of artists who make a living off of art are better than me. You don't care for the opinion of a mediocre 31 year old cartoonist and my critique means nothing to you. So be it. Give me this victory at the very least. Admit that this comes as news to you. A woman's features are more developed on their right and the opposite is true if men.

Rombomb. Your mother's work is very good. I liked it. It is the kind of work that grabs your attention. The colours are absorbing and well blended. The orange/yellow sky in the one painting, I especially like. Oranges, magenta and desert colours are the most pleasant colours to me.

Regarding evil - something's are best left unsaid.

[Alias]

I want to know what you sculpt!

I don't, anymore; not in this century, and most of my work was sold years ago. I used clay - stoneware and porcelain, (cone 6-9, if you want technical detail, because it makes durable ware, then applied mostly cone 07 glazes. Going from high to low temperature firing, rather the other way around, is tricky, but you get a more and brighter colours.) I made functional and decorative vessels, humorous figurines, planters, tabletop fountains and bookends; a few large pieces in plaster, wood and mixed media. Participated in a couple of group shows in small-town art galleries and the local studio tour. No big deal - never once compared myself to Rodin or Moore and never made enough money to live on. If you can, more power to you.

" The machine won't ask this in the words of my preference: What, pray, is "theory-laden" when it's at home?"

That is a metaphor for something, but I don't know what. Explain?

Sorry. This site is exceptionally sensitive to vulgar language. I refer to the automatic censor function as "the machine" and look for creative detours around the interdicted words. On a working-class board, that question would have been a simpler version of: "What the reproductive intimacy does theory-laden mean?"

I won't engage that exposition. Reason 1. It appears to lag some three or four years behind neurological science. Reason 2. I don't feel that reality needs so much formulating. Reason 3. This statement is rather simplistic,

In the case of emotions, it is always interpretation first, then emotion.

Summary: as stated earlier, I suspect (I could be wrong) that you're trying to fit too much into too small a philosophical vessel.

[Discards]

(Nested quote removed.)


I don't, anymore; not in this century, and most of my work was sold years ago. I used clay - stoneware and porcelain, (cone 6-9, if you want technical detail, because it makes durable ware, then applied mostly cone 07 glazes. Going from high to low temperature firing, rather the other way around, is tricky, but you get a more and brighter colours.) I made functional and decorative vessels, humorous figurines, planters, tabletop fountains and bookends; a few large pieces in plaster, wood and mixed media. Participated in a couple of group shows in small-town art galleries and the local studio tour. No big deal - never once compared myself to Rodin or Moore and never made enough money to live on. If you can, more power to you.

Ah. How big was your kiln? My mother began working on preset clay bowls because she could produce quite a few in a short period of time and the common consumer in our demographic was far more likely to part with a 150 or 200 dollars, than what her water colours were selling for. We lived in low income housing and she somehow managed to hide a fairly large kiln in the car port shed. I was worried it would light everything on fire.

I've had to do a few "cone checks" in my day. The firings take hours, she would need to be somewhere, and she would say, you know, at twelve o clock take this thing out of here, look inside and if that thing is bent over turn the heat down to here. Kind of didn't appreciate having the success of her work depend on me. The house never burnt down. But she's managed to keep the kiln a secret from the cooperative housing people for now 15 years, I guess it is. The house has yet to burn to the ground, despite the fact that the kiln is tightly placed in a tinder dry car port shed.

She never got into throwing clay. I just don't think she is that "hands on". So, some galleries would agree to show her work and others wouldn't.

I for one could attempt to make a living. I don't believe that there were ever periods of art or that one persons art ever fits in to a period of artwork. The boat never sails on style IMO. I mean there's a thousand people with a thousand conflicting answers to the question: what is art nouveau?

So. I just think my art is a form of stylized realism. People I know like it. I could improve on my style. Master it. But I like my job. It's seasonal work. So maybe next winter I'll start where I stopped.

Anyhow. If that was the closest thing I will get to a description of your art - so be it. As you can see I did not scorn you. I could have accused you of doing crafts - as many are of the opinion that working with clay is a craft. But, yeah I know where the line in the sand is over that one. So. Thank you. Thank you for sharing a description of your art with me. It was delightful talking with you. Have a beautiful day - you know the weather isn't going to stay like this forever you know!

[Alias]

Nothing wrong with craft. My thrown ware was never as good a professional potter's - all respect due. I'd put the bulk of my work during that period toward the fine-art end of the craft spectrum, simply because every piece was original and hand-made - no patterns, molds, templates or stencils - and much of it was free-standing sculpture. I had two electric kilns, 18" and 24" max. inside measurement; the only way to make larger pieces was to combine 2 or more elements, and that can be challenging. There used to be asbestos jackets for kilns to reduce wasted heat, as well as fire hazard, and there should always be a fire-brick or other protective shield between it and a wall. I don't believe it's the medium that determines the classification of art and craft - or what would happen to wood? this autocww2.colorado.edu/~toldy2/E64Conten ... rving.html is not a kitchen cabinet.

Spring is near. Go, sketch.