/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 15361
2,3 MB, 640 × 360, 1:35
Do you want to discuss and formulate the basic points and their extrapolations of Terry Davis' Theology?
>>
No. 15383 Kontra
I already told you before that just expecting others to feed you interesting stuff is not a good way to foster discussions. Make some points, question something, I dunno.

Like Terry said: you only get out what you put in. Well that was the gist of it anyway. Maybe my wording was off.
>>
No. 15387
What I want to know is if TempleOS is actually truly a better, superior and virtuous one than all these heathen operating systems. Because as it stands, all current non-debian operating systems are as haram as the Social Security mark of the beast system. Actually probably Debian too.
>>
No. 15389
>>15387
I won't ascribe any qualitative judgement on the OS (I don't believe in utility), but it is indeed virtuous in that it was designed in accordance to principles/aesthetics/virtues, rather than out of expediency.

That's one of the categorical differences between men's creations that distinguish art from tools. And I believe that TempleOS is, indeed, art.

It's what I've always wondered about, programming as art: having the structure of the program itself represent an aesthetic, to quote a video below, where some guy talks about an inefficient, but interesting AI for NES he wrote:
https://youtu.be/xOCurBYI_gY?t=4m40s
>>
No. 15391
>>15389
Programming as an art could really only be appreciated by programmers. Having to explain the work so that everyone will understand it will without a doubt reduce its impactfulness. Code’s existence is tied to functioning. It needs to do something or it’s not really code. I guess you could see it as a building, a temple if you will. Only the engineers and architects can make sense of the foundation, support structure, materials... all the little details and routes taken that lead to beauty. The common observer will only see the finished temple serving its purpose. Sure they can appreciate the apparent aesthetics but not what enables it and why it is the way it is.

As such I consider programming as the same as art for artists. It has all the reasons to be considered art but only very few can truly appreciate it.
>>
No. 15392
268 kB, 600 × 448
1,6 MB, 1280 × 1770
80 kB, 512 × 645
>>15391
In a way, I believe that all art is for artists.
Or at least people who understand art (including the technical details) to a degree necessary to understand it. It's related to post modernism in a way: art that is about art itself.

Can someone who doesn't have extensive understanding of the English language, and language in general, appreciate Finnegan's Wake? Not a chance, I'd say.

What can one take away from non-representational art, if one hasn't experienced the mental process of deconstructing sight into visual symbols on a 2D surface? Not much, I'd say.

It's not that art has to be inaccessible, it's that it is not concerned with accessibility, only with what it has to say, and what it is.

The distinction between entertainment media and art is that one is there to please you (provide a service, in a way), and the other is simply there. And whether you can take something away from the experience is ultimately up to you, the observer. It doesn't have to compromise itself to to be approachable, as it is inert.

Art is like nature, or reality in that sense: it simply exists, it's not there for your benefit or amusement, and whether you can take something away from it, or make it meaningful, lies on you. And that's what's so important about the fact that humans are even capable of creating art, creating something that has no utility, is not a tool: it is a way to expand reality and the experience of being human, by, in a very real sense, creating MORE of reality. More things to be experienced.

It's the Divine Touch, if you will, the power of Creation that we inherited from God.
>>
No. 15395
>>15392
>Can someone who doesn't have extensive understanding of the English language, and language in general, appreciate Finnegan's Wake? Not a chance, I'd say.
Even people who know English typically can't appreciate it. That screencap just looks like some pretentious dick got off his meds, or took too many of them, and thought it would be like, deep, man, if he just typed random nonsense.

>The distinction between entertainment media and art is that one is there to please you (provide a service, in a way), and the other is simply there.
All art is designed to please someone, even if it's only the person who made it. Very few people have actually enjoyed Finnigan's Wake; I imagine the person to gain by far the most enjoyment from it was Joyce himself. There is no fundamental distinction between making art for the masses, art for other artists, or art for yourself alone. Or rather, the only distinction is in the target audience.

There's expertly crafted works of depth and meaning that were meant to be released to the masses (and had great success with them), and there's utter trash that was made only for other artists.

>Art is like nature, or reality in that sense: it simply exists, it's not there for your benefit or amusement, and whether you can take something away from it, or make it meaningful, lies on you.
Is it really a great achievement if a work of art is like a clod of dirt? I can respect making something as a pure artistic expression without any regard for the opinions of others, but that is a ridiculously narrow definition of art (and ultimately, there is at least one conscious observer for whom that work of art did create some benefit or amusement). To an extent, I can admire Joyce for just going balls out and writing something without any regard for readability or coherence. But I also wouldn't feel anything if every copy of Finnigan's Wake vanished from existence.

>And that's what's so important about the fact that humans are even capable of creating art, creating something that has no utility, is not a tool... It's the Divine Touch, if you will, the power of Creation that we inherited from God.
How is something less a divine creation if it has some utility? God made nearly everything with some utility. The most beautiful mountain also serves to collect precipitation across many years, and then ensure a steady distribution of it back to mankind in the form of mountain springs and streams that eventually form into great rivers (which are each themselves objects both of beauty and utility).
>>
No. 15396
>>15392
excellent post. i second every sentence.
>>
No. 15404
>>15392
I wouldn't so much agree on that all art is for artists. Throughout the ages artists have suffered to apply their skills in ways that would get some point across, attract attention, recieve praise from the masses. As much as we would like to elevate art to the highest of standards we have to remember that the people creating it are indeed just people. People with needs for the basics in life which are not free. Art has been and is only so far from entertainment. Of course it habits a wide spectrum and therefore making any generalized statements on it makes little sense.

Indeed, like you said art by definition does not have to be concerned with accessability. I would still argue that it often does. Artists have a tendency to stick to mediums that are easily accessible and thus can be observed with little effort. What I really wanted to emphasize with my last post was that programming as an art is not accessible at all. If we only observe the products algorithms I'd say the most common forms for the output to manifest are those of which are already used for art; graphic, literary and audio. This is fine and would be very accessible indeed, but in its essence probably does not really focus on in the programming aspect. If programming as art is indeed the structures and beauty in creating the functions or otherwise the act of coding it creates a high barrier of entry to being able to appreciate it. The temple analogy would have been more accurate if the engineers and architects had to almost physically survey the structures. Drilling holes in to walls and seeing what's inside and peeling off structure layer by layer and mapping it all in their mind or to a record of sorts.

All that being said I think we always benefit from having additional mediums for art. Doesn't really matter what it is. Maybe the type of art that you describe has a higher chance of existing in ways that are rather obscure and hard to approach. I base this claim only on the fact that art that does not reach for the mass appeal could be considered as more 'pure'.
>>
No. 15406
>>15392
Hmm, I remember that you posited that art, unlike escapism, aims to tell the truth about the world, but now, if I understand you correctly, you claim that art creates the world in itself, or at least creates a part of the world which doesn't necessary intersect the rest of it. How do you reconcile these two notions?
>>
No. 15407
49 kB, 850 × 400
It's always fascinating how most of the stuff he said was nonsensical stuff about glow in the dark CIA niggers and things like that but inbetween he always managed to say some normal, sometimes even smart sounding things. Many used him as clown for their entertainment but i actually found him interesting and kinda liked him. rip.
>>
No. 15408
>>15395
>All art is designed to please someone, even if it's only the person who made it.
Not necessarily. There is plenty of art that can disturb, upset, instill fear, disgust, etc. It's not the goal of art to please or cause enjoyment. Art CAN be enjoyed, but only because of what that particular piece of art is, rather than what art, in itself, is. Art, like anything else in life, can evoke all sorts of experiences, pleasant or not, and that's the point.
>Is it really a great achievement if a work of art is like a clod of dirt?
Nothing wrong with appreciating a clod of dirt. Like any creation of God, even a clod of dirt is an infinite fractal of detail that can be examined forever. Novels can be written about a clod of dirt.
>How is something less a divine creation if it has some utility? God made nearly everything with some utility. The most beautiful mountain also serves to collect precipitation across many years, and then ensure a steady distribution of it back to mankind
I think you misunderstood my point. It's not that things that have utility can't be art, or that art can't have utility. After all, you can burn a painting and extract heat from it. Rather, art is not defined by its utility. A river, as a thing in itself, is simply a river. A river, as a source of water, is a utility. AS A UTILITY, a river has no categorical distinction from a faucet. But as a thing in itself, a river is completely different from a faucet. The very notion of utility is anthropocentric. Utility for whom? And for what purpose? Those questions only make sense if you assume that the river was put there with humans in mind. In reality, the river is simply there.

What I should elaborate on is "art for artists" isn't meant some kind of elitarian class divide, but rather an approach to experiencing art. Ideally, an observer would put as much effort into understanding art as the artist did to create it, and appreciate it on the same level: as simply art, rather than a commodity, a tool, or something to put into a fireplace to extract heat from it. You can't read a book without opening it. And you can't expect to experience art without putting something in.

>>15406
>you claim that art creates the world in itself, or at least creates a part of the world which doesn't necessary intersect the rest of it
Hm, no, rather, I posit that art creates more of reality itself, expanding it. Whereas escapism hides from reality, escaping it (duh). You could say that art is the act of confronting reality/truth, while escapism is stagnation in the expected/comfortable/familiar. After all, escapism wouldn't be alluring if the experience was uncomfortable, and both creating and experiencing art are uncomfortable in the sense that they entail venturing outside the boundaries of the known.
>>
No. 15414
>>15408
>Art, like anything else in life, can evoke all sorts of experiences, pleasant or not, and that's the point.
Perhaps pleasure isn't the right word. People seek out experiences even if they know they will not be pleasurable in the same way as eating a slice of delicious cake. A better word would be satisfying. Even if I seek out something that disturbs me, at some deeper level I had an urge that I satisfied by viewing it.
More generally, art is something that you go into voluntarily, and, if its good art, come out having felt that the experience was worth your time, regardless of the exact emotions you felt.

>Novels can be written about a clod of dirt.
Technically, yes, but not a novel anyone would want to read or write, except as an exercise in creative writing about the absurd. In which case, the subject matter is not really the clod of dirt itself.

>Rather, art is not defined by its utility.
I agree with this. But the way you talk about entertainment versus art seems to imply that something is lessened by being entertaining. Art isn't defined by its utility, but a part of that means that having a utility doesn't degrade its value as art.

And if we look at art as something that leaves one feeling satisfied in some way after experiencing it, then all art has utility. That makes all human art fundamentally different to a river, in fact. Nobody would make art if they didn't think it was worth their time (I would actually use this as the definition of art as opposed to "mere" entertainment), and so all art is to some extent a utilitarian good for, at the very least, the person who made it.

>Hm, no, rather, I posit that art creates more of reality itself, expanding it. Whereas escapism hides from reality, escaping it (duh).
Again, I think you're being overly reductive with your dichotomies. But I think we have different understandings of what constitutes worthwhile art. It looks like you view it as primarily a mystical experience. I judge art based on its ability to have an impact on the person experiencing it. Anything that can leave a lasting impression, generally because of the ability to convey or inspire deep and nuanced emotion, is worthwhile. This includes not just transcendental pure art, but also a lot of escapist art (which I think is also a good medium for examining reality, as it lets you isolate specific aspects of it for examination and elaboration).
>>
No. 15417
>>15414
As I said, I'm not trying to make a qualitative judgement, but a categorical one. To answer the question of what is "art" (or "artness"), rather than "which things can be called "art"".
Both entertainment and art can be "good", and there can be art in entertainment, and art can also be entertaining. There can also be art within escape.

But the thing is that the reasons for which an element in a piece is art are completely different reasons for which certain elements of it are entertainment. So now we can have a categorical distinction to talk about both art and entertainment, without smearing everything into vague terms, which all mean "media". So if an object has entertainment value, artistic value and utility, we don't have to put it in a blanket category of "art" (which avoids questions like "are video games art" or "is spoon carving art").

It's my autistic attempt at formulating a rigorous definition of "artness", because I am not a fan of diluting words until they lose all meaning in an attempt to create a definition that covers all possible ground.

I'd say the most rigorous definition of art I could formulate is "a physical representation of a symbol", and how good of an art it is would depend on how well it represents the intended symbol. Which is a pretty degenerate definition of art, it's the best I can think of.
>>
No. 15420
>>15417
>attempt at formulating a rigorous definition of "artness"
you did very well, i could not word it better myself. there's nothing autistic about reasoning. you'd be a good philosopher or mathematician (if you aren't one).
fun fact: in german music is generally put into two categories: u-musik ("unterhaltungsmusik", meaning music for entertainment e.g. pop music, dance music and so on) and e-musik ("ernste musik" meaning "serious music". this is basically all intentional work with sound that doesn't serve any direct purpose. it encompasses classical styles as well as concrete music, math music and all sorts experimental sound manipulations. likewise we differ between "gebrauchsgrafik " ("utility graphics") and "bildende kunst" ("building art") in visual arts.

>art is physical representation of a symbol
art does not need to be physical, it is usually created non-physically first (as an idea) and eventually transformed into physicality, if desired. however, a piece of art might manifest itself in physicality (incoherently) first and then transcend into a non-physical idea.
>>
No. 15429
So his theology goes something like this:
-there is God

-the world is not determined by a destiny, but it is perpetually determined by Chance, imagine it as if it calls for a random number for everything. It is a mixed system of causality and chance. Destiny can be thought as God's plan

-God can control Chance, but Him can also leave it (I really don't know exactly how it was, if the source of all Chance was God, or if Him could "sit back" and let Chance run on itself). Although generally God would not intervene (or give a purposeful result, if God is all chance)

-One can comunicate with God through this randomness. One will only get meaning out of the randomness if a thing is done for God. I don't remember Terry explicitly stating it it, but doing works of beauty is a way to honor Him. Not only communicate, but as He controls chance, He can perform Miracles.

-There is Perfect Justice

-God wants His creation to Glory

Those are the most basic points. Terry said other things too.

-He said that the world is in need of a righteous purge, a culling

-That at the top of the Hierarchy, and to prevent injustice, there is God, and he controls the King. The King is only so because of his Piety, and absolute obedience of God. An unpious King can't exist.

I might be forgetting things, but this is what I remember.
>>
No. 15432
>>15429
What is perfect justice anyways? In regards to population cullings etc. that Terry talked about his idea of how those would pan out didn't sound that just to me. Of course he had a certain disposition towards to some races, but in addition to that he had very weird qualifiers. For example I recall him saying something like if a country doesn't make it in to the world news every two weeks then they're to be removed. It's not clear if the public would be made aware of that rule. If they would, one can only imagine the implications. In any case holding "world news" in any value in when it comes to justice is dubious at best. I'm not sure if this was his personal opinion or came from 'God'.

>God wants His creation to Glory
What's the meaning of this as well? I have no ideas at the moment really.
>>
No. 15436
>>15432
It didn't come from God it came from being a schizophrenic retarded American. That is pure 100% American.
>>
No. 15437
>>15436
Dumb amerisapseg dont derail
>>
No. 15444
>>15437
It's not a derail. The question was asked about this retarded idea of killing everyone from a country not in the news once every couple of weeks. The origin of this is pure American stupidity and media worship. Fact is Terry himself never had remotely a consistent ideology, because you know he was a schizophrenic. Most of the sensible things he seemed to think had more to do with being Catholic or being a computer programmer.
>>
No. 15456
507 kB, 282 × 504, 0:00
>>15420
>you'd be a good philosopher or mathematician (if you aren't one).
Heh, I'd like to imagine that I'd do well as a philosopher in ancient greece or something, but that's more because ancient philosophy is about the level at which my expertise ends. The modern philosophical frontier in the subject of the mind as related to neuroscience and the mind body problem are beyond my level of intelligence. Hell, I'm struggling to figure out dialectics, even.

Besides, I feel that in order to be a philosopher / mathematician, one has to have an academic career in the field, which is impossible for me because >academia on the kazakhstan. So I'll have to be content with writing down my ramblings into a personal diary.

Also, interesting thought I had regarding language that I had while writing yesterday's posts. I am becoming acutely aware of the fact that I am limited by my language. The English language played a trick on me that I noticed while formulating my argument regarding the nature of art: there is a difference in meaning between "What is art" and "What art is", that can slip under one's awareness.

The question "What is art" and the statement "This is art" concerns itself with listing a set of objects that are art. It is a linguistic definition, a way by which we define words. So, when we ask "What is a sun" or "what is a rock", we simply point to the sun or the rock, and establish an understanding of the intended meaning.

But the answer to the question of "What art is", and the statement "Art is this", are categorically different to the above. Those are concerned with the logical definition: formulating a concept of the word in question. Pointing at a rock to explain what "rock" is only makes sense if both parties have a CONCEPTUAL understanding of "rockness". In fact, such an explanation only serves as a translation, not a definition: it establishes that the sequence of letters / sounds that are written as "rock" pertain to (or reference) the concept of rock. In order to discover the IDEA that those words are referencing, we need to formulate a logical definition of "rockness". After all, if someone who has never seen a rock is given a rock, and the word "rock", the only information they can extract is that the object is referenced by the name "rock", and absolutely nothing about what the object IS, conceptually.

I hope I'm making sense.

This discovery has made me question just how much my metaphysical world is being limited by language, limiting me to "seeing" only the concepts which I know words for. It is a strong argument for learning more languages, both natural and artificial.
>>
No. 15955
Bump interesting discussion.