Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 162
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,081
    Thanks
    1,529
    Thanked 5,190 Times in 1,728 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity Kendall View Post
    here we go the nastiness begins. hey im Kev the chatboard alpha male! grow up?
    Huh? Overreact much?

    Fact: you were garbling it up.

    Fact: you were bluffing. You don't have any of the knowledge you pretend to be summarising. It is painfully bad to read you attempting to BS your way through the topic.

    Fact: I really don't know why you bother.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks
    6,453
    Thanked 4,523 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Hey Smilechild is there any chance you could dial back the relentless spite just once?
    whatever's wrong with you, its not my fault.

    "Fact: you were garbling it up."

    "There's a logic to how the various value-charged words bandied about in these conversations held meaning within the context of aesthetic philosophy. Agreeing with that logic is not a belief in the same sense that one might believe in an ideology. This is like saying that Maxwell's equations are opinions. The modernist attempt to transcend the logics of aesthetics only changed how most people understand the words used. Not their referents. This linguistic revolution allowed created objects to be called by names that were previously understood to be inapplicable"

    Im sure thats clear as crystal to everyone except slow readers like me, but what does it actually mean? That was all I was trying to get out of you in the first place before you began your customary hatred-filled dispiriting mockery schtick.
    Last edited by Velocity Kendall; May 10th, 2012 at 12:28 AM.
    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah

  4. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    OC,CA
    Posts
    765
    Thanks
    427
    Thanked 377 Times in 152 Posts
    Girls, settle down, you're BOTH pretty.
    'Cuz life is full of your regrets, and I should be one...

  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PuppyKitten For This Useful Post:


  6. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,885
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,154 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity Kendall View Post
    "There's a logic to how the various value-charged words bandied about in these conversations held meaning within the context of aesthetic philosophy. Agreeing with that logic is not a belief in the same sense that one might believe in an ideology. This is like saying that Maxwell's equations are opinions. The modernist attempt to transcend the logics of aesthetics only changed how most people understand the words used. Not their referents. This linguistic revolution allowed created objects to be called by names that were previously understood to be inapplicable"

    Im sure thats clear as crystal to everyone except slow readers like me, but what does it actually mean? That was all I was trying to get out of you in the first place before you began your customary hatred-filled dispiriting mockery schtick.
    The're multiple analogies going on. One where the example of language is used to describe the relationship of aesthetics with art. Then the Maxwell one. The latter is not as important as the former. Think about how we put together words as being aesthetic. And there's a certain causality or pattern or normative behavior we use to put together those words into language. Things like alphabets and grammar. That's not an opinion, that's how it is. Modernists tried to go beyond all the logic of our "languages" But the patterns still arise, it's just that people have changed how they understand words, the parts that are being assembled logically. The change in understanding allowed for words to take on new meanings that previously weren't true.

    I don't think Kev is hard to understand, I just think when you're agitated at someone it's hard to hear what they're saying.
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  7. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks
    6,453
    Thanked 4,523 Times in 2,458 Posts
    "The're multiple analogies going on. One where the example of language is used to describe the relationship of aesthetics with art. Then the Maxwell one. The latter is not as important as the former. Think about how we put together words as being aesthetic. And there's a certain causality or pattern or normative behavior we use to put together those words into language. Things like alphabets and grammar. "

    Modernists tried to go beyond all the logic of our "languages" But the patterns still arise, it's just that people have changed how they understand words, the parts that are being assembled logically. The change in understanding allowed for words to take on new meanings that previously weren't true.

    im not sure I follow. or, I dont follow how I was being so stupid earlier. what youre saying still sounds like the you think value judgements we make as clever apes, be they in language or art, which are the result of the arbitrary circumstances of our biological and social evolution, are in some way deep and universal in the same way Maxwells laws of physics are. which is extremely anthrocentric idea, and one i think is wrong.

    "The modernist attempt to transcend the logics of aesthetics only changed how most people understand the words used. Not their referents. This linguistic revolution allowed created objects to be called by names that were previously understood to be inapplicable. But a rose is still a rose. The phenomenology of the art experience has not been altered one jot."

    So this is saying the modernists wanted to somehow change the way we look at art, but they failed because their ideas just got incorporated into an expanded language, their work got hung in galleries and the basic way we experience art is unchanged? or something else?

    "I don't think Kev is hard to understand, I just think when you're agitated at someone it's hard to hear what they're saying."

    i find its more the other way around, youll note i wasnt agitated at all when i asked the original question. as in this discussion he always starts with the ugly "I really dont know why you bother" spiel like hes the king of Concept Art Org and can bully whoever he likes. again I feel he's sorely mistaken.
    if someone chatboard windbag repeatedly said "hey S.ketch, i really dont know why you even bother sharing your thoughts on this forum", how would you take it?
    dollars to donuts there'll be yet more snide nastiness to follow...
    Last edited by Velocity Kendall; May 10th, 2012 at 02:30 AM.
    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah

  8. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,885
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,154 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Maxwell's equations represent one of the most elegant and concise ways to state the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism
    Aesthetic philosophy represent one of the most elegant and concise ways to state the fundamentals of art and beauty
    Which one is opinion?

    Edit: Velocity, your first draft was much better.

    im not sure I follow. it all still sounds like the youre saying value judgements we make as clever apes, be they in language or art, which are the result of the arbitrary circumstances of our biological and social evolution, are in some way deep and universal in the same way Maxwells laws of physics are. which is extremely anthropogenic idea, and one i think is wrong.
    That's because you're focusing too much on the literal. Aesthetics are not literal, universal laws that will apply to some evolved tree bark on another planet thousands of years from now. And that's not the point. The point is that they both describe the basics of something. The things they describe form pattern behavior. Don't get too caught up in physics being fact and art being that weird socially-created thing that crazy great apes do. (Great apes also do science and space travel and do math too, so don't count us out just yet)

    "hey sketch, i really dont know why you even bother sharing your thoughts on this forum,
    I wouldn't get mad because someone thousands of miles away doesn't like me. That kind of thing can be inferred to be representative of ego. Ego halts progress. Let go of the self and focus on learning. If you can't do that, then that means you're just here to be selfish. As a matter of fact, if I were a clever person, I would provoke such a response purposefully to openly show this behavior. Of course, if that person were particularly slow on the uptake, they may would mistake it for sincere hatred. Or maybe I would actually hate them. Who knows.
    Last edited by s.ketch; May 10th, 2012 at 02:29 AM.
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  9. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks
    6,453
    Thanked 4,523 Times in 2,458 Posts
    "Edit: Velocity, your first draft was much better. "

    Ah i chopped it around.

    "Which one is opinion?"

    beauty

    "As a matter of fact, if I were a clever person, I would provoke such a response"

    thats not being clever, thats being a bully. thats exactly the sort of rationalisation Ive seen Kev use before for his little put downs.
    being deeply unpleasant to 'expose selfishness' is a moebius strip of dickishness.
    although thats some impressive verbal gymnastics to take an unprovoked attack and turn it to imply
    the person on the end of the abuse is being selfish and slow on the uptake (lemme guess, thats the set up to the old guilty conscience bit right?)

    focus on learning.

    trust me, thats one thing i do take a lot more seriously than some dick on another continent trying to browbeat me. check my sketchbook or my work with my TAD gang, im really intent on making a go of being a designer and learning new stuff and passing what i do know on, fo reals.

    That's because you're focusing too much on the literal. Aesthetics are not literal, universal laws that will apply to some evolved tree bark on another planet thousands of years from now. And that's not the point. The point is that they both describe the basics of something.

    this bit is really interesting...
    im dubious though that something as complex as art can be reduced to such minimal terms in the same way electromagnetism can be though.

    "The point is that they both describe the basics of something"

    hmm that makes sense. how does this affect the definition of art re the modernists?
    apart from the backhander thanks for taking the time to go over that with me.
    Last edited by Velocity Kendall; May 10th, 2012 at 03:18 AM.
    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah

  10. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    3,765
    Thanks
    2,128
    Thanked 1,005 Times in 655 Posts
    Could this be...? CA returning to it's glorious, melodramatic self???

  11. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,081
    Thanks
    1,529
    Thanked 5,190 Times in 1,728 Posts
    S.Ketch... you've got it about 85%. The real issue is that there are many logics, predicate logic, computational logic, propositional logic, relational logic, etc, each of which, while imperfect, has its own iron clad rule set and purview which are not arbitrary. The relationship of logics to languages, is one of the long term projects in the sciences and it has been fairly clear for some time that mathematization is possible. (Which is how computers work, how search engines work... particularly the natural language search engines currently being developed.)

    Art itself has a finite set of base components and ways of meaning when related through nonlinear grammar. Art is a language, it has long been said, and wisely.

    Self awareness is painful. But a lack of self-awareness is even worse, where the self rejects the reality of the self, reactively lashing out at those who hold up the mirror to them. This results in hair trigger defense mechanisms and exaggerated responses.

    The Hysterical Reaction Lexicon so far (for those keeping score at home):
    Nasty! Alpha Man?! Grow up! Dick! Bully! Relentless Spite! Hatred-filled Mockery Schtick! Ugly! Windbag! Snide Nastiness! Unpleasantness! Abusive! Browbeater!

    Funny stuff. All because you tried to bluff and I caught you out. Maybe if you considered the morality of bluffing, instead of the morality of the calling out, you'd get some perspective on the situation. Then you'd stop bluffing, quieting the ego, and start learning, as S.ketch smartly pointed out.

    Epistemology is really quite simple. All one needs to do is analyze, and without shame, accept the true extent of one's knowledge. This will prevent one from tripping into the bluff-criticism-hyperreaction cycle illustrated here.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara

  12. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,925
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,272 Times in 737 Posts
    Speaking of Mr Lichtenstein, someone likes him:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18016495

    27.8 million pounds. Nearly $45 meellion. I'll have two please, in green, to compliment my face turning scarlet, prior to going all 'Scanners'...

  13. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,543
    Thanks
    2,307
    Thanked 2,122 Times in 871 Posts

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to OldJake666 For This Useful Post:


  15. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks
    6,453
    Thanked 4,523 Times in 2,458 Posts
    "where the self rejects the reality of the self, reactively lashing out at those who hold up the mirror to them. This results in hair trigger defense mechanisms and exaggerated responses.
    "

    Ha there it is, predictable as clockwork. You werent being a bully, you were holding up a mirror. Of course you were.
    You didnt catch me out Kev, replay the dialogue: i asked you a reasonable question and you reactively lashed out with your typically dismissive unpleasantries.
    you caught yourself out.

    "The relationship of logics to languages, is one of the long term projects in the sciences and it has been fairly clear for some time that mathematization is possible. (Which is how computers work, how search engines work... particularly the natural language search engines currently being developed.)"

    interesting example, but I think a poor one.. Computers run on computational logic. natural languages, as anyone studying English as a foreign language will appreciate, are without much rhyme or reason. Theyve grown organically over millenia, with no hard and fast rules. They require extensive contextual knowledge of the real world to parse.

    Its been anything but clear that natural languages can be easily mathematised into logical rulesets.
    In fact creating a computer that can understand natural languages, and building rulesets that allow translation between languages, is a spectacularly hard problem, and hence a "long term project" that is only slowly starting become possible using statisical analysis giant datasets and text corpa that are companies like googles stock in trade.

    As Wiki says, "Some of the earliest-used algorithms, such as decision trees, produced systems of hard if-then rules similar to the systems of hand-written rules that were then common. Increasingly, however, research has focused on statistical models, which make soft, probabilistic decisions based on attaching real-valued weights to each input feature. Such models have the advantage that they can express the relative certainty of many different possible answers rather than only one"

    Like I said originally before you kicked off, this makes me dubious that any set of logic can be applied reliably to something as complex as art, particularly for use deciding what is and isnt art, which seemed to be where the disussion between you and Bill was heading.
    However if you can set aside the need to put me down every single time you say anything, id be genuinely interested to learn from you.
    Last edited by Velocity Kendall; May 10th, 2012 at 03:11 PM.
    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah

  16. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Yeah, I stopped participating because it was heading in the what is and isn't art direction. I admire kev because he can sum up his, and others', thoughts well but I still can't buy into an aesthetic logic as definition. But then again I don't have to. I'm perfectly happy in my bliss of ignorance. As long as I can paint one of the five or six best legless, farting warthogs in the world I'll be happy.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  18. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    OC,CA
    Posts
    765
    Thanks
    427
    Thanked 377 Times in 152 Posts
    Bill, your legless, farting warthogs would certainly be in the top three.
    'Cuz life is full of your regrets, and I should be one...

  19. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,081
    Thanks
    1,529
    Thanked 5,190 Times in 1,728 Posts
    Velocity,

    Below is your blithe summary of the entire history of aesthetic thought:

    aesthetics are value judgments of clever monkey brains, not laws.
    You don't know why this is BS, because you have no idea what you are talking about. You have a thousand pages of heavy, heavy reading in front of you, not behind you, if you actually want to talk about this topic sensibly. But you made this assertion anyway, and then got torqued when I was bothered by it. This is why you are the dick. Because you don't even know when you're bluffing. If this wasn't such a common feature among net denizens, I would think you were insane.

    Here's something I wrote:
    The relationship of logics to languages, is one of the long term projects in the sciences and it has been fairly clear for some time that mathematization is possible.
    I've emphasized a word in there which you didn't bother to comprehend properly. Note it.

    Here's you again:

    As Wiki says, "Some of the earliest-used algorithms, such as decision trees, produced systems of hard if-then rules similar to the systems of hand-written rules that were then common. Increasingly, however, research has focused on statistical models, which make soft, probabilistic decisions based on attaching real-valued weights to each input feature. Such models have the advantage that they can express the relative certainty of many different possible answers rather than only one"

    Like I said originally before you kicked off, this makes me dubious that any set of logic can be applied reliably to something as complex as art, particularly for use deciding what is and isnt art, which seemed to be where the disussion between you and Bill was heading.
    Again, you are conflating the questions. In fact you are conflating about four different things I said, and conglomerating them so they're all distorted. This is impossible to deal with for the purposes of instructing you. I'll try to parse out just one of your confusions: Instead of discussing the mathematization of language into logical forms (which is not really my point, anyhow, it was just an aside to hint at the possibilities for scientifically observing the logic of communication), you google searched and found out a little something about the computerization of language, which is a subset of the overall logic-language problem which has its own issues to do with the architecture of computers.

    Quick-scavenging google, and bringing back an a la carte collection of facts about computer interpretation of language is no substitute for simply having a clear understanding of the question. You won't learn to clarify your thoughts by going gaga for google at the drop of reference.

    Also, I don't expect you to make an off the cuff dissertation on Frege, Boole, and Peirce that would knock my socks off. I do expect you, however, to know that it would be irritating for you to try at your current state of knowledge.

    It also would be instructive for you to reflect on how languages do have rules. And then it would be instructive for you to research the necessary relationship of rules and logics.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Art: Creatures design I did for "the Suffering" video Game
    By Ben_Olson in forum Finished Art
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: July 21st, 2009, 01:34 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 11th, 2006, 04:35 PM
  3. "the video game market is broken"
    By Recursive_End in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 20th, 2006, 12:58 PM
  4. "Into the Pixel" E3 2005 video game art submissions.
    By Blake Thornbyrd in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 24th, 2005, 03:46 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast