GENIUS FORUMS

bert · Post by **bert** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:07 am

art is communication,and alone has the gift of tongues;has it not universal understanding...
when its fundaments are known,the gate-path towards all Wisdom and Knowledge is nearby.

the artist has a feeling to illuminate unseen beauties,and awakens us to such a degree that the beauty becomes a pleasure that is of a more permanent kind.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:06 am

bert wrote:art is communication,and alone has the gift of tongues;has it not universal understanding...
when its fundaments are known,the gate-path towards all Wisdom and Knowledge is nearby.

the artist has a feeling to illuminate unseen beauties,and awakens us to such a degree that the beauty becomes a pleasure that is of a more permanent kind.

Art alone has the gift of tongues? That doesn't seem true.

If you're talking about postmodernism, it's a reflection of the death meme so popular in the elites in our world, as postmodernism is a removal of coherent human narrative from the realm of art; it is dehumanized and technique focused, like a nazi.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:16 am

Art is a stimulant for dulled minds.

-

bert · Post by **bert** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:01 pm

Art alone has the gift of tongues? That doesn't seem true.

why?

If you're talking about postmodernism, it's a reflection of the death meme so popular in the elites in our world, as postmodernism is a removal of coherent human narrative from the realm of art; it is dehumanized and technique focused, like a nazi.

was I talking about postmodernism?It didn't cross my mind.from when off are things postmodern?
what happened to some-but-not-all?
in what way is it dehumanized?why has it become dehumanized?
what is wrong with technique focused things?don't you do technique focused things?things that you consciously set up,aren't they obviously technique focused?

actually,teachers (in schools) would be far better off if their teachings were better technique focussed.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:00 pm

bert wrote:
Art alone has the gift of tongues? That doesn't seem true.
why?

Well. Right off the bat, I know foreign language teachers and manic pentecostals also have the gift of tongues. SO art is not alone in it's multi-lingualism.

If you're talking about postmodernism, it's a reflection of the death meme so popular in the elites in our world, as postmodernism is a removal of coherent human narrative from the realm of art; it is dehumanized and technique focused, like a nazi.
was I talking about postmodernism?

were you?

It didn't cross my mind.from when off are things postmodern?

since fairly recently.

what happened to some-but-not-all?

Last i heard he moved to Vegas.

in what way is it dehumanized?why has it become dehumanized?

It has become dehumanized when it contains not even a shard of a human narrative, a story. This happens when little punk-ass pretentious artist types think it's deep to be meaningless.

what is wrong with technique focused things?don't you do technique focused things?

They're too self relfexive and portend or convey nothing higher than themselves.

bert · Post by **bert** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Faust wrote:Cinema when done properly e.g Sergei Eisenstein, is a greater synthesis of universal virtues which speak to the 'human condition' than art. Much of the art before the impressionists took off, expoused typically eurocentric idealisations of white beauty, morbid catholicism, inter alia. Its very difficult for an artwork to have truly universal appeal with as much emotive power /pathos as say, a war photograph.

The only truly universal artist, whose works reveal the 'unseen beauties' of human form, virtues, vices, and can embolden the human spirit, is the neo-classical master Jacques Louis David. 'The Oath of the Horatio' can be displayed to uneducated paesants in third world villages, and they would understand it (because that's the ultimate test), one doesn't have to be white to appreciate it. More so than those indulgent romantic/classisist works of nubile sexually-charged white beauties being fed grapes by black slaves, which I cannot stand.
'Aleksander Nevskiy' is in my view 'the single most universal cultural achievement of the entire 20th century'. It will stand the tests of time.

well,a bit hard to explain,but...
as for the values of art,we have to tune in on the mentation adopted that finished the work,as expressionalism,'a form of logic';they serve only their own rules.
the rules of one art form(take Pre-Raphaelism) can not be applied to the set of rules of (for instance) Post-Impressionism.
composition implies 'balance',a harmony,but it does not imply some kind of pattern.

the point of beauty is,we change more than beauty does,..or maybe better,beauty changes less than we change.

on the other side,you have those artists who think they have to take suppressed ideas in society into the open.they find it the job of the artist.
I do not agree with that as a set rule.
art as basis is the truth that we have realised of our believe.
why is this?cause we are subject to our moral laws,our own moral laws;and it does not matter whether you are or are not aware of them.
the desire will set his teeth in you.
so the highest artistic creations are those that bring the most incongruous things together,they harmonize it.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:26 pm

bert wrote: as for the values of art,we have to tune in on the mentation adopted that finished the work,

No we don't. That's just wishful thinking on the part of self-important artists who would lick their own asses if they were flexible enough.

bert · Post by **bert** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:44 pm

millipodium wrote:
bert wrote: as for the values of art,we have to tune in on the mentation adopted that finished the work,
No we don't. That's just wishful thinking on the part of self-important artists who would lick their own asses if they were flexible enough.

yeah.

imagine I'm talking about well-known art works then.

or,don't

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:26 am

bert wrote:
millipodium wrote:
bert wrote: as for the values of art,we have to tune in on the mentation adopted that finished the work,
No we don't. That's just wishful thinking on the part of self-important artists who would lick their own asses if they were flexible enough.
yeah.

imagine I'm talking about well-known art works then.

or,don't

I'm just saying, if artists want to pontificate about process, they're free to write essays on that subject. But that "mentation" is not part of the finished product.

bert · Post by **bert** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:11 am

millipodium wrote:
bert wrote:
millipodium wrote:
bert wrote: as for the values of art,we have to tune in on the mentation adopted that finished the work,
No we don't. That's just wishful thinking on the part of self-important artists who would lick their own asses if they were flexible enough.
yeah.

imagine I'm talking about well-known art works then.

or,don't
I'm just saying, if artists want to pontificate about process, they're free to write essays on that subject. But that "mentation" is not part of the finished product.

I completely agree

art

art

Re: art