[Leboman]

Originally Posted by Nate

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?

Did you read the post I linked? That's exactly what the guy is saying. Art isn't really important...the interpretation is what's important.

Doesn't that rob art of any real value that it might contain?

[Leboman]

One textbook definition of art that I've read is that art is the representation of what a culture values. In a postmodern context, art is either everything...or nothing.

Or am I just full of crap?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Leboman

Or am I just full of crap?

I don't know. It seems nebulous to me.

[Skeeter]

The Harm of Words is...attacking Superman in space.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Leboman

Did you read the post I linked? That's exactly what the guy is saying. Art isn't really important...the interpretation is what's important.

It was a very strangely written article, I thought. Very difficult, even though it seemed his thoughts were simple. Just bad prose, I think. Really really really freaking bad prose.

[For instance, the entirely agrammatical: "What started out as a simple discussion of bands that sing ‘screamo' (see side definition) where the singer's words and lyrics are unintelligent."]

[By the way, what a malapropism: "unintelligent"!]

[And how the heck do "words" differ from "lyrics"?]

Doesn't that rob art of any real value that it might contain?

I think more than anything it robs criticism of any real value it might contain.

The job of a critic isn't to assign value to art.

Originally Posted by Leboman

One textbook definition of art that I've read is that art is the representation of what a culture values. In a postmodern context, art is either everything...or nothing.

Or am I just full of crap?

Originally Posted by slap_j

I don't know. It seems nebulous to me.

I think a better definition of art starts with what art does rather than what art is.

One word that comes to mind is "interprets".

Originally Posted by Skeeter

The Harm of Words is...attacking Superman in space.

Originally Posted by Leboman

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

You guys are so violent.

If we get enough, I could make a compendium. I'm half-tempted to start a blog.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Nate

You guys are so violent.

One of the things I like best about the quote is that it is anticlimactic.

It doesn't seem that "sometimes we don't quite know what they really mean" is all that harmful.

Certainly not on the same level as getting kicked in the ass or attacked by Superman in space.

The harm of words isn't that they sometimes come back to bite you in the butt, that you sometimes have to eat them [why the oral fixation with this and the previous figure of speech?], or that you often have to put your foot in your mouth for saying something you shouldn't have said.

The harm is that you can say things that simply don't mean what you think.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Nate]

Another great line from Haseltine on language:

"There are times meant for breaking and words to ignore."

It's in the context of a spousal argument. Certainly there are things we tell our spouses that we wish we could take back, that we wish they w/could ignore, that we wish we never would have found the occasion or impulse to say.

But should they really ignore those words? Should we?

You wouldn't say there are "colors to ignore," "melodies to ignore," "days to ignore," "lives to ignore," "feelings to ignore," or anything else. These things, with words, are the "fabric of our lives". Shouldn't we think of them seriously?

And yet we'd get on much better if we ignored a lot of what we say.

Words, like art, interpret, and must be interpreted.

You don't interpret color, songs, emotions. You just experience them.

We don't experience words [or art] in the same way.

Words have an inherent meaning that must be uncovered, interpreted.

But, the harm is that there is a lot of translation noise.

For that reason, there are words that are so "noisy" we must ignore them.

[Skeeter]

I just think "The Harm of Words" would be a great translation for the name of an alien race.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

The harm of words is... that sometimes we know what they mean, and use them anyway.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The harm of words is... that sometimes we know what they mean, and use them anyway.

Touche.

[Art]

The harm of words is... directly related to my inability to know when to stop using them.

Too long.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

I just think "The Harm of Words" would be a great translation for the name of an alien race.

I'm not sure I get it, but ok.

Reminds me of "The Diet of Worms."

My pastor pronounced it in full English last Sunday: "diet of worms." Just like that.

Ahahahaha. He's a smart guy too. Throws out perfect Greek pronunciation every week.

But he obviously doesn't know his German or Latin. "Dee-it of vərms".

Imagine a German person saying "Harm of words." Ahahahahahaha.

"Zee ɦarm ahf vərds ees..."

Originally Posted by Art

The harm of words is... directly related to my inability to know when to stop using them.

Too long.

Catchy, though.

[Nate]

On an unrelated note (unless you've been privy to the PM conversation between Jeffrey and I), a cognitive psychologist I've been reading lately writes:

"Thoughts are almost by definition not ambiguous" (contrasting thoughts to visual images)

What!?

That can't possibly be right. At least not in my world. Thoughts, like words, are often ambiguous.

When we ask someone what they're thinking or how they feel about an issue, they can rarely come right out and tell us. The more usual response is "I don't know."

[Nate]

In other news:

The most unfortuitously named mineral.

The harm of suffixes?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Nate

In other news:

The most unfortuitously named mineral.

The harm of suffixes?

That's the naughtiest mineral...EVAR!