[bravesfan007]

Wait, I believe I know some people from Slidell, well one guy. Last name of Weinz from Berlin. His family does hard wood flooring or something like that.

[Leboman]

Originally Posted by Nate

First, your avatar is scary as hell. Oh. My.

Second, did you ever tell me the name of that church? It's possible I see it everyday on my way to / from work. Heh.

Third, there are about five nice houses for sale on our street.

1- Is it better now?

2- Christian Church at Slidell

3-

[Nate]

On postmodernism:

In the last chapter of a book I finished that was about human nature, the author mentioned an argument from an art critic, Adam Gopnik of the New Yorker:

"The political messages of most postmodern pieces are utterly banal, like 'racism is bad', but they are stated so obliquely that viewers are made to feel morally superior for being able to figure them out."

Pretty much.

I can look out of my office window right now and see a large postmodern "sculpture" in the quad: A giant yellow pill with hair entitled "Yellowcake":

Well, you just have to see for yourself:



[It's even more surreal covered in snow.]

The message is, obviously [well, it's not obvious if you're looking at the piece, but obvious if you read the placard], that nuclear war should be avoided.

This is, no doubt, a very timely message.

But is it really art? Where is the postmodernist who will not only challenge our ability to interpret art, but give us decent treasure to find at the end of it?

Why should I bother putting my time and effort into pondering a piece of uninterpretable art [oooh, what does the hair mean? ooooh, why the gigantic mechanical bull style trailer as a pedestal? oooh] for that payoff?

Is there a postmodernist that doesn't obliquely state the obvious? Is obliquely stating the obvious a justifiable goal for art? Jeffrey, where are you?

[Nate]

This just in:

Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi" sounds like Ronnie Martin wrote it.

That little falling melody in the verse is note-for-note from him.

[Leboman]

I see that piece of "art" and I see a statement against health care...specifically the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to manipulate and control it.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

I see that art, and see a protest against the high price of heating oil and a rebellion against the establishment saying you should keep your tank clean.


(Either that or it looks vaguely like an industrial device)

In my opinion, good art has an aesthetically appealing element, and that does not.

[slap_j]

It's ☺☺☺☺.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Leboman

I see that piece of "art" and I see a statement against health care...specifically the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to manipulate and control it.

At least that meaning would be supported without explanation by the piece.

Without the placard, would you ever guess it as a nuke proliferation protest?

Is it art if it needs to be explained? Is it art if it doesn't need to be explained?

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I see that art, and see a protest against the high price of heating oil and a rebellion against the establishment saying you should keep your tank clean.

Haha. Same comments as Lee's apply.

(Either that or it looks vaguely like an industrial device)

In my opinion, good art has an aesthetically appealing element, and that does not.

But does nuclear proliferation have an aesthetically appealing element? Can it?

Or is nuclear proliferation outside the realm of topics on which art can comment?

Originally Posted by slap_j

It's ☺☺☺☺.

Isn't nuclear proliferation also, though?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Nate

Isn't nuclear proliferation also, though?

No, nuclear proliferation is not "nice." I don't know why it was censored the first time.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Nate

At least that meaning would be supported without explanation by the piece.

Without the placard, would you ever guess it as a nuke proliferation protest?

Is it art if it needs to be explained? Is it art if it doesn't need to be explained?



Haha. Same comments as Lee's apply.



But does nuclear proliferation have an aesthetically appealing element? Can it?

Or is nuclear proliferation outside the realm of topics on which art can comment?



Isn't nuclear proliferation also, though?

And this is exactly the problem with this type of banal postmodernism.

It degenerates into discussion of the art rather than discussion of the problem.

There's no [or very few] sane person who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing.

There's nothing to discuss after viewing a piece of art like this, except art itself.

Postmodernism seems, in most cases, to be nothing but navalgazing.

[Nate]

On the very rare occasion that my journal is on the front page, it shows up like this:



Reminds me of those stupid "Love is..." comics, and that gives me a great idea.

Complete that phrase in my journal title in your own way. Be creative, thoughtful.

I chose it as my blog title because I think it's an extremely profound statement.

I don't doubt that y'all can be at least as profound. It's certainly a good prompt.

So, tell me, what is the harm of words? Fill in the blank: The harm of words is...

[Leboman]

The harm of words is that they often kick your ass.

[Leboman]

Originally Posted by Nate

And this is exactly the problem with this type of banal postmodernism.

It degenerates into discussion of the art rather than discussion of the problem.

There's no [or very few] sane person who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing.

There's nothing to discuss after viewing a piece of art like this, except art itself.

Postmodernism seems, in most cases, to be nothing but navalgazing.

I agree. Honestly...to me...that is not art. It's pretentious and I guess it's supposedly high-brow...but that doesn't make it art. It's lazy. There seems to be no thought behind it or no energy exerted to make a true statement. Seriously...you can throw all kinds of ☺☺☺☺ together and claim that it is art. I can take a dump on a piece of cardboard, spray paint it blue, nail it to a broken dining room chair and claim that it's a commentary on the current economic situation and under the guise of "art" no one could argue otherwise. That's just stupid.

I guess there is a line somewhere isn't there? I am not a student of art (outside of one freshman level art history class) so I don't feel as if I'm qualified to really make a statement.

[Leboman]

Kaleo San Diego Church > Articles > Finding God in Abstract, Absurd and Postmodern Art

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Leboman

I can take a dump on a piece of cardboard, spray paint it blue, nail it to a broken dining room chair and claim that it's a commentary on the current economic situation and under the guise of "art" no one could argue otherwise. That's just stupid.

One could interpret it as you saying that the Democrats [blue paint] have ruined our paper money [the turd on the cardboard] by over-spending it [nailing it to] to the point that the working man's support system [the table on which he puts food, and the chair on which he sits at the table] is broken.

Given the ease and plausibility of that interpretation, and the fact that you and Bill were able to easily come up with two other plausible interpretations of Yellowcake, it seems almost as if art interpretation is as important as art creation [exactly what the postmodernists would claim].

Is there an end to that argument?

Is art infinitely interpretable?