Comments on: I … don’t understand.

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:31:52 +0000

“But later modernism began to require that artists and intellectuals not only describe the present and the past but predict the future. And that’s caused a lot of problems.”

sorry

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:55:15 +0000

The arts are always conservative, in the sense that they are trying to describe the present, to understand it, but also in the sense that they describe it regardless: What we would call ‘good’ art from the past describes the past in ways that make the maker interesting; What we call bad art describes the past in ways that make the maker seem like a fool. But art is always historicized.

Manet was only ahead of his time in his honesty. He described his age as it was, not as others wanted it to be. His originality was the result not the cause. But later modernism began to requite tht artists and intellectuals not only describe the present and the post but predict the future. And that’s caused a lot of problems

By: k boyle

k boyle — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:05:02 +0000

It is a common error in reading Plato’s dialogues to mistake the views expressed by any single character for the views of the author. But surely it is deliberately misleading to claim that Plato said “Somewhere there’s a perfect table in the sky.”

In fact, the person who said that was the unnamed second stranger in Plato’s dialogue “The Philosopher”. This claim is made in an argument against Socrates’ more nuanced views about the forms.

By: ben wolfson

ben wolfson — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:35:33 +0000

As recently as a few hundred years ago, no one wanted to be original. To be original was to admit that since you couldn’t do a thing the right way, you could only do it your own way.

By: a different chris

a different chris — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:55:08 +0000

>You don’t concentrate on the ideas, but on the craft, and the ideas make themselves apparent.

I always, once long ago when I had a bit of musical talent, liked to listen to popular songs* that weren’t pure guitar-based and try to determine, before hunting down an album cover, if the primary songwriter was a guitarist or a keyboard player.

I had a very high hit rate. Chicago was a group where you could see the difference in thought brought on by the instrument the main composer doodled out the tune on.

*Popular songs to me then meant stuff you heard on the radio attributed to, say, “a bunch of middle class British kids” in opposition to like Frank Sinatra who was just the singer in front of some hired hands that were just the band playing something that was written by a third absent party and arrainged by a fourth person.

By: bi

bi — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:14:59 +0000

I think CJC is talking about the Platonic ideals of the bad teacher and bad grade school and the bad university. Or something. I guess I’ll never know, because nobody ever bothers to name the “teacher” and the “schools” and the “universities” they’re supposedly discussing.

But I don’t recall my History classes or tests or exams asking me for my ‘opinion’ on things. Here’s one question I still remember: “Write short notes on Alfonso d’Albuquerque.”

By: Jonathan Goldberg

Jonathan Goldberg — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:40:40 +0000

The Telegraph piece is drivel, not worth the effort of analysis. CT’s standards are virtually always much higher than this.

By: bi

bi — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:20:46 +0000

And among all the types of poetry, the epigram is probably the most anti-democracy, anti-individualist, anti-American of them all. It thus follows that the epigram form of poetry should be charged with high treason.

By: bi

bi — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:15:55 +0000

The tension between craft and individualism? I guess you can say that poetry is a lot more fascist than novel writing.

By: CJC

CJC — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:00:15 +0000

“It’s not easy to persuade people with cliched lies like this.”

Is it a lie that universities are running remedial classes in grammar and mathematics?

‘Technique’ has very clearly been de-emphasised relative to a naive concept of ‘creativity’ – but how can there be any creativity without technique?

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:06:04 +0000

Italics, Seth, Italics.

“That sounds like Degas’ conversation with Mallarmé.”
All art is imitation

By: Daniel Nexon

Daniel Nexon — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:54:30 +0000

Context, Seth, context.

By: nick s

nick s — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:47:39 +0000

There are pieces that end up in Pseud’s Corner, and pieces whose apparent intent is to end up in Pseud’s Corner. This is the Platonic ideal of a Pseud’s Corner piece.

“How many of you want to be poets” [half the class would raise their hands]

“How many of you want to write poetry?” [two or three hands would raise].

That sounds like Degas’ conversation with Mallarmé.

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:31:52 +0000

“All art is imitation.”
No.

Art is that which convinces.
or
Art is something made out of something else.

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:29:44 +0000

The Guardian? Daniel D stole my damn job.
And nobody here has ever accused me of being a Platonist;

I never said the article wasn’t silly, but the comments on creativity were pretty good. It would’ve been nice if someone here thought about just when and where the author went of the rails. That would be an interesting discussion.

Describe the tension betwen craft and individual expression;
the tension between ideals of craft and science.
How does craft stand opposed to notions of individualism?
etc.

that’s the fun stuff.