Printable View
Stlukesguild -- I tried hard to figure out a way to tell you that my last post was not directed at you personally. The fact that you chose to misinterpret me tips me off that you're one of those Internet people who loves pissing contests -- which I don't. So this will be the last time I respond to you.
For me, this lyrics by John Lennon are literature too:
I- Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.
II- Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.
repeat I
III- No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
That is you can't you know tune in but it's all right.
That is I think it's not too bad.
repeat I
IV- Always no sometimes think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream.
I think I know I mean "Yes," but it's all wrong.
That is I think I disagree.
repeat I
slobone- The fact that you chose to misinterpret me tips me off that you're one of those Internet people who loves pissing contests -- which I don't.
Ah... a "pissing contest" is it? Let's make a brief review:
Someone (not even myself) posts a comment about the literary merits of Puccini's librettos:
JBI-Puccini's libretti all seem to be mediocre at best (he had a love of taking popular pulp fiction and turning it into an opera)
You offered a contrary opinion: "I think Puccini's librettos are among the greatest ever written (he usually employed whole teams of writers to do them, and he was very demanding.) You can't beat his operas for tightness of pacing, for capturing a character or an emotion in just a few words."
While musing upon the topic at hand I offered my own opinion... in line with that of the first poster: "Puccini's librettos taken on their own are among the absolute worst... often based upon the latest trashy popular novels. It is the music which raises these to such a level. Certainly the words are part of the experience... but the music raises them well above what they offer on their own."
For this audacious act I earned the following comment:
slobone- I can see from your comments about Puccini that you don't know much about him.
To this you added another posting begining: "Stlukesguild, I'm not picking on you personally, but I wanted to add a couple more thoughts on Puccini..." followed by a a series of arguments intended as proof of your opinion... and one might presume evidence of my own ignorance about the topic at hand. Fine with me. Well and good. The primary reason I engage in such internet forums is for the dialog... even when such leads to disagreement. Such disagreements, after all, can force me to think about my position... to clarify my thoughts... perhaps even to rethink or re-evaluate my position in light of strong arguments contrary to my own initial thoughts.
I then offered a post in which I countered your arguments... not once suggesting that I underestimate you or your knowledge of Puccini... to which I earned the final response branding me as one of "those types" who likes to engage in internet "pissing contests". So no one may question your opinions? So anyone else's competency or knowledge may be freely questioned... but if they dare to counter these comments they may be easily dismissed as "one of those internet people... etc..."? Obviously I have the wrong idea as to why we are here and as to what educated discussion and debate is all about.:rolleyes: Then you announce in closing... taking the obvious high road, no doubt... "this will be the last time I respond to you."
Ah! me! I'm deeply wounded!:rolleyes:
For me, this lyrics by John Lennon are literature too:
I- Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.
II- Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.
repeat I... etc...
Can you honestly read this and find it to be a well written poem without the benefit of music? Honestly? Personally I still like the Beatles in spite of the fact that I tend to listen far more to classical music... but this in no way is a good "poem".
How do you define a good poem?
What is good and what is bad?
What is literature?
And more: What is art?
Would Salvador Dali's pictures be seen as art if his pictures were made at the same period of Leonardo Da Vinci?
Would exist Picasso out off his own historic context?
What is classical music?
That's why I love eastern culture, western culture is full of labels!
Eastern culture isn't full of labels? Have you read any Eastern poetry? the 5 line Tankas of Japan usually contain at least one allusion. All their aesthetic labeling seems to be rooted in classical texts, to the point that if you check their references in poetry (meaning where their sense of metaphor comes from), everything seems to be emulating this 6 line excerpt from a poem I believe called "The Bride"(I haven't read my anthologies of Chinese verse in a while), which set the president for the entire Chinese aesthetic code, and the subsequent Japanese code.
Eastern poetry, whether Arabian, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Persian, or Japanese (or anything else in between) has the same labels as Western poetry. Each country has developed its own forms, the same way English, and French, and the West in general have. Each culture has created also, its own canon. Labels exist there too, genres exist there too, and classical reverence exists their too. Memorizing poems is part of the Japanese school program, where kids are supposed to have memorized I think it is 100 of the major canonical works. Poetry was written in closed forms there too, and with aesthetic expectations there too.
Salvador Dali also, as you try to presume, would not have drawn the same thing in the period of Leonardo Da Vinci. He was subject to influences, the same way Leonardo would not have painted the same way if he lived in the Medieval times, and the Medieval painter would not have painted the same way, had he lived in Antiquity.
The period is essential to the art work, and what comes before or after.
Classical music is rooted in that concept, in the sense that it is a selection of the best written in a specific time period (Bach, Handel etc. - Baroque, Haydn, Mozart etc. - Classical, Beethoven, Wagner etc - Romantic). What classical music is, essentially, is a selection of the greatest pieces written spanning from the renaissance to the almost present.
By the way, the East as well has a classical music Canon, with the same labeling.
You ask what is good and bad? Nothing, I don't believe in that as a judge of literature, to quote Oscar Wilde:
That being said, one may find beautiful things in beautiful music. One can at the same time find mediocre lyrics with beautiful music, and mediocre music with beautiful lyrics.Quote:
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.
Your argument, that you seem to be pasting in every post, in every thread, that taste is relative, and not objective is true enough. Some of us have good taste, some of us have bad taste. That doesn't mean the quality of art, however, is subjective, merely that some readers (listeners?) do not have the insight/desire/strength to acknowledge beauty when they are presented with it, and merely replace "taste" with personal ideology, or idiosyncratic preference.
I was not talking about eastern poetry, but eastern philosophy.
Literature is not the only source of knowledge I know.
I don't know if you read philosophy, but maybe if you knew more about eastern philosophy, you would understand my ironic commentary.
For the eastern philosophers, to nominate something is ignorance. If someone want to know something, must discard labels. The philosophers did not have even a name for god.
You only gave the answers I already know. But sometimes I pretend unknownledge to make a "Socratic Irony". That makes you confess:
"Some of us have good taste, some of us have bad taste"
- And you want to make me belive that kind of thinking is not a belief in superiority?
"That doesn't mean the quality of art, however, is subjective"
- That is the point, quality is a totally subjective concept. It depends of the time (in history) and space (in geographical postition).
That's why Picasso could not be seen as a great painter if he was born in Ancient Greece, for example. The taste, the quality, was totally different from the XX century.
That's why a modernist poet could not be seen as a great writer if he was born in Medieval Times, for example. The taste, the quality, was totally different from the XX century.
The concept of art is always changing from period to period.
Some survive (Dante, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Leonardo) and they were great (still are) but that does not mean Beethoven is a influence to hip hop "musicians", or Shakespeare is the basis of modern literature.
So, opera or rock, Shakespeare or Machado, Dali or Da Vinci...each art has his own value (even the art you do not consider art because of your personal taste).
Maybe, there are people here that think hip hop is a poor art. But not for the ghetto people. For them, hip hop is most important than Mozart. Who am I (and who are you) to say the opposite?
Psst... in case no one has told you as of yet art has always been "elitist". Artists struggle for superiority... to create better and better works... to garner attention and an audience. Arguments that all art is subjective on the basis of the fact that "good art"... or even art itself cannot be qualitatively defined have been bandied about for generations... if not longer. It is simply weak argument. Art cannot be defined because artists are continually redefining what art is. That does not mean that there is no good nor bad in art or that one cannot discern such. Of course each work must be judged upon its own merits... by the standards and goals that are central to that work. It would be unfair to judge a medieval work of art by the standards of naturalistic, anatomically-correct drawing as established during the Renaissance. It would be equally unfair to fault an artist such as Rembrandt for his conservative use of color in contrast to Matisse for the simple fact that the intentions were different... as were the standards... the established means. To present "Strawberry Fields Forever" for consideration as a lyrical poem is to present it as something it was never intended to be. As a song it's quite nice. As a poem... it's rather lame. The same would hold true of "Yesterday". As a popular song it's quite good... but we don't really want to place the string quartet up against a quartet by Beethoven or Brahms, do we? The comparison would be laughable.
Eastern culture is not full of labels? That's why you like Eastern culture? My first thought is to point out that we live in Western culture and must deal with the culture we live in. But then again... there's long been a Western fascination with all things Eastern. It's just an extension of Romanticism and the illusory quest for the "natural" man in his or her primal state. It led to some great art as Western artists confronted the "exoticism" or "newness" of the East... but it also led to some weak misinterpretations and idealization of the "other". Eastern culture avoids labels and standards and measures of good and bad? Perhaps such is true of a few individual philosophers... but c'mon... Eastern thought and art is just as based in values and standards as anything in the West.
Recently, I have been studying Islamic and Japanese painting. It is fascinating to recognize stylistic elements that would have been completely incomprehensible to Western culture of the same time-frame... but this is not due to the fact that there were no standards/values, etc... In many ways their training of artists were as rigorous... and less open to individualism... than anything to be found in the West.
quality is a totally subjective concept. It depends of the time (in history) and space (in geographical postition). That's why Picasso could not be seen as a great painter if he was born in Ancient Greece, for example. The taste, the quality, was totally different from the XX century.
What you fail to recognize is that Picasso would not have painted as he did had he been born in another era/culture. His influences would have been different. His artistic precedents would not have been the same. His training would have been far different. His expectations and his own knowledge of what was acceptable and what he might attempt as an artist would have been vastly different. Artists always speak in the vocabulary of their own time because that is the time and place they live in... that does not mean that the strongest art of a given time or place will not maintain relevance outside of this context, nor that one cannot compare works of art of quite different intentions.
Maybe, there are people here that think hip hop is a poor art. But not for the ghetto people. For them, hip hop is most important than Mozart. Who am I (and who are you) to say the opposite?
Come on! That's just pure hippy-dippy intellectual mush. All art is subjective... and as such there is no way to judge or compare art? If I simply smear some crap on an old broken piece of masonite and proclaim it to be art... well who is anyone to claim otherwise? And who is anyone to suggest that my art is not on the same level as the works of Rembrandt, Michelangelo, or Hokusai? Of course as there is no good nor bad... what is the use of even attempting to improve? What is the use of these discussions? Its all relevant, after all. There's no need to develop one's eye... or one's ear... or one's literary understanding... taste (?) because there are no standards... every opinion is of the same value. Indeed, I cannot fathom for the life of me why any artist (and we're all artists, right?) would even take the time to master language or color or harmony or any such thing... because its all subjective... relevant... and as such, irrelevant. No matter where one is... no matter what one does... someone is bound to like it... if only the artist him/herself... and that is all that matters... that is all that is needed to prove the equal merit of all art.
I'm sorry... art is NOT DEMOCRATIC and NOT EGALITARIAN... it is "elitist". It is based upon standards and value judgments by its very nature. The very finite nature of our lives makes such judgments necessary. I have long admired Walter Pater's Conclusion to his marvelous book, The Renaissance. This brief bit of musing on art and life has long seemed to me to perfectly sum up why I spend my time with the arts... and why judgments regarding art are necessary:
"Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or
intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive for us,--for
that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is
the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated,
dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to be seen in them by
the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point,
and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital
forces unite in their purest energy?
To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy,
is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is
to form habits: for, after all, habit is relative to a stereotyped world,
and meantime it is only the roughness of the eye that makes any two
persons, things, situations, seem alike. While all melts under our feet,
we may well catch at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to
knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a
moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and
curious odours, or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's
friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in
those about us, and in the brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing
of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep
before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of
its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see
and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we
see and touch...
One of the most beautiful passages in the writings of Rousseau is that in
the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in
him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had always clung
about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal
disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the
interval that remained; and he was not biased by anything in his
previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement,
which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well!
we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve--les hommes sont tous
condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness,
some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this
world," in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that
interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time.
Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and
sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested
or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is
passion--that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied
consciousness. Of this wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty,
the love of art for art's sake, has most; for art comes to you professing
frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they
pass, and simply for those moments' sake."
I am telling you Brasil, you mix the subjective experice that Art provide, with the impossibility of Objetive observantion of Art. There is whole history of Aesthetic Theories and Criticism which you must be aware before attempting to define anything art is.
It is not because in the XX century the perception have been changed when defining "what is beauty" that we have no internal and coherent notions to arrive such definition.
And you must consider that the words have meaning, what Stlukesguild have been telling you about Beatles is not that there is no quality in their lyrics, but this quality exist because it is a music. If was only for literature sake, you are reducing Lennon to a bad poet.
We do not need to call everyone a great poet (you can, it is obviously a great compliment), but a great musician is as well.
Plus, Eastern Philosophy and culture is not a bag where 5000 years, several different cultures, have developed in whole. They are too different Hindus didn't the same as the Arabians.
And really, save Democracy for social fight. For knowledge and culture, selection will happens. Memory itself is selective.
"Eastern Philosophy: Hindus didn't the same as the Arabians. "
I agree.
But my point was about chinese ancient philosophy, and a little of Hindu.
"Memory itself is selective."
I totally agree!
That's just one point that makes our conscience subjective. Even philosophy and science can be subjective (I am not being contradictory, the context here is different).
So, at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.
The best philosopher for me is the greek Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".
I am not tell that for you, but for all (includin myself).
Socrates, maybe, had a contact with the eastern philosophies. It is possible? I don't know, just maybe, but the fact is: it seems.
Returning to the point: at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.
I will respect and consider everybody's oppinion but not necessary agree with all, because of one main point: everybody' view (oppinion) here is very categorical.
Being categorical is the same of prejudice (in this case). Everybody try to make his own point of view the only truth, considering that as if knowing something.
It is not our conscience that guide us to our oppinions, but our feelings. Our conscience just try to explain for us the reason why we choose something.
I am disapointed with the forum, and with my self cause I've been polemic for making people think about their own conceptions, thinkings, values, etc.
It has not worked. The more I've tried to make people think in another point of view, more people have caught on to their own values, being categorical.
If sometimes a passed the limities, sorry.
I am disapointed with the forum, and with my self cause I've been polemic for making people think about their own conceptions, thinkings, values, etc.
It has not worked. The more I've tried to make people think in another point of view, more people have caught on to their own values, being categorical.
You are disappointed... why? Because you have not been successful at converting others over to your point of view? You suggest you just offer another point of view, but perhaps some of us have been exposed to that point of view more times than you can imagine. I must say that from my experiences with JBI here I would never underestimate what he/she? has or has not read. My own reading experience is not so limited itself, and to this I add an experience with art, art criticism, and art theory... a great deal of which has centered on your expressed notions that all is relative/subjective. The argument is quite old... and tired by now... and in the visual arts it probably pre-dates Duchamp who at least threw it out there with a sense of humor and irony.
Ha! Shows what you know. Time for a little history lesson. As you can see in this rare archival Disney footage, Beethoven was sporting a funky beat as early as the 1930's:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8XnO...eature=related
As everyone knows, this soundtrack gained wild popularity in the '70's when it was showcased in Saturday Night Fever, and it couldn't be long until we started getting a little hip hop mixed in to this euphonious blend of classical disco:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fM8l...eature=related
And of course Kanye's gotta get a piece of that in a video decidedly less kid friendly than the first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jumo...eature=related
So you see how wrong you are to exclude a consideration of Beethoven from the history of hip hop? :D
OK, now I'm going to be a little more serious. As St. Luke's and other regulars know, I agree with the pith of his opinion that all art is not equal and that some is better than others. The problem I sometimes have with these "elitism" vs. "relativism" discussions is that taking the elitist side can be so quickly misinterpreted as a closed minded socially elitist stance that wants to make everyone listen to nothing but Bach. I think there has to be a more nuanced series of questions rather than simply the one question people tend to focus on in such discussions: "is it art?" When people ask if something is art, they're really asking a whole load of different questions: What kind of art is it? What level of art is it? How seriously should it be taken? Is it worth listening to/reading/viewing at all? What kind of use does it have? What kind of value does it have? What kind of experiences does it offer?Quote:
Maybe, there are people here that think hip hop is a poor art. But not for the ghetto people. For them, hip hop is most important than Mozart. Who am I (and who are you) to say the opposite?
I completely understand the social value of the relativist idea that any creative output can be considered a kind of art, because it prevents art from becoming an exclusionary and stagnant monolith of canonical works. I agree with you that both Hip Hop artists and Beethoven should be considered art. This does not, however mean that they are the same kind of art or have the same value, or rather the same kind of value. There are many different kinds of value. There's the value of entertainment in the moment, nostalgic value, historical value, the value of representing a certain culture, transcendental value etc. There are also different uses for art. Music, for example can be used for (among many other things): dancing, religious meditation, other kinds of spiritual expression, goofing off with friends at a party, comfort in times of sorrow, karaoke, opening communication with those different from ourselves, something to fill in the space while you put someone on hold and (to get back to the subject of this thread) as a piece of other art forms such as film or opera. If you're judging the value of a piece of musical art by its use for a dance mix at a party, I'll readily concede that hip hop is better hands down than Beethoven in that context. If you're judging it by your own nostalgic personal associations, the most valuable song is going to be different for everyone, since the guy who danced with his wife for the first time to Vanilla Ice may find that the most nostalgically valuable piece he can think of, while someone else may have fallen in love at a concert of Gregorian chant. If you're looking for something that represents modern urban street life, Beethoven again loses out. If you're judging the value of a piece of art in terms of its ability to transcend time and culture and to offer something that will still be unique and satisfying on the thousandth time you experience it (part of what St. Luke's and others mean when they talk about "great art"), I think Beethoven's got it over most hip hop artists I've heard (though I'm no expert in the genre and may well have missed something mind blowing).
A final point: one problem, of course, with the above comparison is that Beethoven is one artist, whereas "hip hop" is an entire genre of music. While, as I said above, I haven't yet run across a hip hop artist who I think has the lasting quality that Beethoven has, I wouldn't for a minute say that it is impossible that something as good as Beethoven could emerge in some way from the hip hop genre. I posted the youtube clips above in a spirit of levity, but they also are a good representation of something I think is wonderful and exciting about youtube, which is the way it functions as a leveling place where all art is equal. The openness of a forum that allows people to play around with combining things as different as Mickey Mouse, Beethoven, Kanye West etc. is an active demonstration of the sort of open minded experimentation that has always been the basis for the production of great art. So, while I wouldn't agree with the claim that any of the clips I posted above has any lasting value as transcendent works of art, I would still say that they are invaluable in terms of their use as the type of artistic experimentation that the production of such art is based on (and invaluable as well, of course, as humorous entertainment for bored lit net browsers ;))
Petrarch... you are surely wasting your time with this Literature thing. You should be surely applying your skills as a diplomat somewhere... perhaps the Middle east?:nod:
Even chinese philosophy is rooted in different views, but that is the point of using specific words - You are communicating with others, if you do not specify and put all in a bag, stuff completely different, what you are saying will always sound strange to those who are well informed about the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
In the end it is all quite simple, we may have philosophical systems or products that represent the subjective side, and one for objective, but entire universes like Philosophy or Art, they are always both. It depends the aspect you are analysing.Quote:
"Memory itself is selective."
I totally agree!
That's just one point that makes our conscience subjective. Even philosophy and science can be subjective (I am not being contradictory, the context here is different).
So, at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.
I may be mistaken, but Socrates system is a bit more complex and that was just a part of it, the instigation for futher investigation, the non-acceptance of "truths", specially those accepted already as real without proper verification or capacity to be explained. The context of Socrates is more important that his quote.Quote:
The best philosopher for me is the greek Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".
I am not tell that for you, but for all (includin myself).
I do not think there is much doubt, considering Socrates is pretty much what Plato saw of him and Plato had pitagorean influence and Pitagoras seems to have oriental influence...Quote:
Socratesybe, had a contact with the eastern philosophies. It is possible? I don't know, just maybe, but the fact is: it seems.
I think, was it was pointed, your judgment of other's vallues and experience are out of place. Some of us maybe categorical because it is a style of discuss, but some just because they have a vast experience in those fields and you sometimes seems to lack it, but already conclusions that you wish to be accepted. Also, you seem to think that certain about something is a negative thing, this roots you relativism and in the end relativism is dangerous because it only grows strength if you accept all can be equally false. As a admirer of Plato, you should consider how relativism is a danger and there is possibility to be "sure" about something.Quote:
Returning to the point: at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.
I will respect and consider everybody's oppinion but not necessary agree with all, because of one main point: everybody' view (oppinion) here is very categorical.
See, that is not true.Being categorical is nothing but assuming a discuss of authority and some people are authorities. They have studied for years, they have mistakes but much of what they produced is accepted or tested for years, with a big experience behind it. Not everyone have the same amount of knowledge and I think you said you are a teacher, a Teacher must be categorical to teach.Quote:
Being categorical is the same of prejudice (in this case). Everybody try to make his own point of view the only truth, considering that as if knowing something.
That have been asnwered because you overvallue yourself a lot here. We all here have experiences and knowledge to be respected.Quote:
I am disapointed with the forum, and with my self cause I've been polemic for making people think about their own conceptions, thinkings, values, etc.
It has not worked. The more I've tried to make people think in another point of view, more people have caught on to their own values, being categorical.
I think you have good intentions, but must be more careful of how you use your words.
:lol: Surely great progress could be made if we just got Olmert and Abbas to loosen up and boogie down to "A Fifth of Beethoven." :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Surely great progress could be made if we just got Olmert and Abbas to loosen up and boogie down to "."
I don't know... I mean I actually like what the Jacques Loussier Trio does with Bach and Vivaldi, but A Fifth of Beethoven just makes me want to hurt somebody.:crash: :smash: :sick: :brow:
Even when Mickey Mouse is dancing to it? :lol:(See my first link in original post above if you haven't already.) See, this is a practical case in point as to why we need to carefully define what music has universal and transcendent qualities to put to use in peacemaking. Wanting to hurt somebody not being the goal of diplomacy, I'll have to stick with nothing but Mozart when I'm appointed Middle East ambassador. :DQuote:
I don't know... I mean I actually like what the Jacques Loussier Trio does with Bach and Vivaldi, but A Fifth of Beethoven just makes me want to hurt somebody.
For anyone
I respect all point of view here, but I do not agree with everyone.
It is important each one have your own point of view. It shows how relative is the human being.
I've learned a lot with all of you and I hope my posts arouse the interest about other cultures (specially Brazilian, cause it is still unknown)
I will not have the time to reply here every post. I will leave the forum for a while and maybe, when I get the time, I come back. I must reduce my participation for keep myself studing and working.
Perhaps once in a week I can participate.
For JCamilo
Some values like "human's life value" or "the mutual respect" or "love your neighbor as you love yourself"... etc.... are not relative. Those kind of values are perfect, they must remain for ever.
But the values about art, about styles, about what is good literature, which writer is best... are abstract and relative values. Thouse kind of values can be studied, but it is impossible to separate the person who study and the object of study. It is the consciousness that tends to give meaning.
Even in science and more on art.
That is what Phenomenology says.
This short of ethics, are ethics. So whatQuote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
No sense. If you ask an artists that is trying to draw a human with realistic approch and for no perspective reason his human figure looks like Frida's portraits, you know about someone who does not domain the technique he proposed to use - Techniques analyse are not subjective. And that would made his work a bad work.Quote:
But the values about art, about styles, about what is good literature, which writer is best...
Aesthetical vallues may change with societies, but it is not about comparing which one is better (this would be "my son is prettier than others") but which one had domain over it or not.
For those reason, One can safelly say that Dante is much better than Dan Brown, and no group or 558 fans of Dan Brown will be able to change a notion, a status, a influece build in 600 years and that one critic like Umberto Eco, can show you the reasons of why.
Even in science and more on art.Quote:
are abstract and relative values. Thouse kind of values can be studied, but it is impossible to separate the person who study and the object of study. It is the consciousness that tends to give meaning.
That is what Phenomenology says.[/QUOTE]
And still I want to see you coming to Biologist and use "It is all relative, that dude thinks never happened evolution. Since *insert here your list of reasons about relativism*, he may be write. It is impossible to tell. Good luck on that.
O Guarani (Overture):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UMkLchCMN...eature=related
For anyone in this forum
I have posted in this very forum some images about Brazilian art:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...559#post583559
There are paintings (from Brazilian Romanticism, Modernism and other styles), examples of Baroque sculpture and futuristic architecture.