Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

Socrates didn't read books and he invented philosophy that is to say the first art and the first science... what have we invented since we read books? nothing absolutly nothing that is the sad truth...

We have the "Microwave Oven" and let me tell you I'm very happy with that invention after the reading age. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Kyra_Ny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

If I had to make the choice of either the internet or my books, I must admit it's the books I'd keep... and depite the inevitable withdrawal pains, I don't doubt I would be quite content in the end. There is really no substitute, IMO.

But Master_G may have been into some of the truly dreadful stores now proliferating -- mostly pop fiction, fad non-fiction, and general crud, with a lot of cards and candles and "gift items" taking up valuable space --, and in those places, I'll help him light the bonfires!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

... but we only know about that because we read it in books... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

do you think i've truly time to waste for that, Rince? no there is so much fundamental things you can't do without reading... scrying the sky, mathematizing (true maths not the engineer science Barta was denouncing... woops i'm a dead man <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/alien.gif" alt="" />), thinking about the Unit, Thinking... well books are wasting our attention from that like food or sleep or other arts... for experiencing real human condition we have no other solutions than Diogenes one... the barrel!

yes it's true i've read all that in books when i was younger but books are like philosophy in Calllicles mouth (Plato: Gorgias) they are for young people...
wisdom come with the 33th year of one's life (that is an argument!!!!)...

Ahhh, so you don't really want to burn all the books? They are still useful for the young?

None of us "book-lovers" are arguing that books are preferable to actually living and experiencing and thinking... but they make available to us the thoughts and experiences and discoveries of others, now and in the past, and thereby enrich our own lives and thoughts. They're fuel for our inner fires. They nourish. They illuminate. They inspire. They smell good. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

And some of those books, read when young, will take on a whole new resonance when read again in age.

(Wish I'd known wisdom was coming at 33... I'd have tried to hang on to some it! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" /> )

In my case, if wisdom came when I was 33 it must have knocked on my door, seen that nobody was home, and left again.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

Just as things seem to be picking up, the time for announcing the WINNER has come around again.

My sentimental favourite was Kiya's splendid 5 point summary of why she loves books. However, she didn't take any swipes at the electronic competition or really get the bit between her teeth... so who else might qualify?

Hakea and Koz kept the ball rolling and made some good points, but didn't really set the topic alight. Then came quick guest appearances from Jurak and Mea Culpa. Poor Mea is clearly exhausted from his experience as a judge and terrified of winning again. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

I'm certain that Jurak would be a superb arguer if he felt like it, so I can only assume he doesn't want to risk winning either! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" /> Come on you Lean Green Fighting Machine - get stuck in! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" /> Ditto for Womble (whose phrase inspired the thread title) - no show this time, yet I'm sure he could land some hefty argumentative blows if he felt like it.. maybe we've seemed a bit too artsy-fartsy for his taste? Whatever the reason, there's a definite Womble sized hole in this thread! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" />

Master_Guroth then returned just in time to stop the thread drifting into obscurity (as the Caption Contest sadly appears to have done) with some good punchy and argumentative contributions. Extra points awarded for getting back to arguing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

And Kyra-Ny reappeared, refreshed and ready to go again. Let's hope she will win again soon, and grab the chance to make us all dance to her choice of tune. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

So that leaves Rincewind. Rince often tries hard to hide his light under a bushel, but there's just too much wattage there to successfully keep in the shadows. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />

Rincewind made some excellent defences of books in general, made a bold declaration in regard to a choice between books and the net, and even expressed willingness to help burn some of the pappier crud. All of which struck major chords with my own views. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

He even deflected some thrusts from M_G and generally gave me enough reason to declare him the WINNER.

<< Rincewind has just returned from shopping for a quarter basket to hide under... and picked up a chaldron basket also, just in case <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> >>

Thanks, Kris, and thanks also to Master_G for the much-needed provocation.

So we need a new topic... ok, it's said that "Art influences our lives every day, from the beauty of a sunset to the curve of a roadway." Well, sunsets are usually free, but every year millions of dollars of public and private money are spent on purchasing, preserving and restoring art and artifacts from the past... yet few living artists get much respect, and the debate still rages on the question of what constitutes art.

For the sake of argument: "The rich can do what they like with their money, but the public art galleries of the world are a massive waste of funds, and should be shut down. The free cash should then go to support the development of nature preserves and public parkland."

... Open to debate ...

Great topic! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Just as I think that it's time that I snuck quietly off and stopped babbling away on forums, along comes something I can't resist. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

But which side should I take.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

On the one hand I can see myself chuckling gleefully away at the screams of outrage as all the Grants and sinecures dry up and the bullsh*t generating machinery is hauled away for scrap. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> .....

But on the other hand I have spent some wonderful time in galleries. There's something absolutely awe inspiring about standing right next to beautiful objects from the Chinese "Entombed Warriors" exhibition, or the tombs of the Pharoahs, for instance. And Van Gogh looks OK in books, but when your eyes are only a few feet from his paint, they can tend to cloud up a bit....

But I get the feeling that this discussion will not be won by taking a wishy-washy approach, or having a bob each way. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> I'll retire for a while and consider the options. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

This reminds me of the tussle between the Archibald Prize and the Doug Moran Art prize, here in Australia – both for portraits.

The Archibald is the full arty-farty number with big canvases, big egos, big reputations, and all the codswallop you can swallow… Some decent pictures in there of course, but all washed down with bucket loads of arty waffle. But Australians like nothing better than taking the p*ss out of each other, so while the Art heavyweights sip their Chardonnay and discuss the layers of meaning that Ankledankle imbues her textures with, and the ‘risks’ that Binkledonkle takes with his yellows, the viewing public also votes for a People’s Choice award. And equally well reported is The Packers’ Prize – awarded by the workmen whose job it is to unpack all the crates and lug the ‘masterpieces’ around. The packers tend to like nudes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> There is also a rival 'Bald Archie' competition run by people who don’t get invited to the Archibald exhibition.

All well and good, but it got right up the nose of Mr Doug Moran, a reportedly tyrannic old right winger who made his considerable fortune out of farming geriatrics - i.e. running chains of nursing homes. Mr Moran likes a portrait whose eyes follow you round the room and which look just like the person who sat for it.

So he endowed a prize for ‘realistic’ type portraits. But the nice touch was that the old buzzard made sure that it was the richest art prize in the country – just to get back at the people he no doubt thinks are a bunch of poofy arty farty types. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />

So let’s try the Doug Moran approach for a change – you can have whatever public or private art you like, just so long as you’re prepared to pay directly for it. Whip the Government teat out of all those Opera and Ballet mouths and make the people who want to watch them pay the real cost of putting them on, just like people do who want to watch football matches or rock concerts.

And Art Galleries? Bah, humbug! Put the money into restoring and maintaining our architectural heritage instead. No, better still, give it me and I’ll spend the whole lot on a series of 'action art pieces' involving Ferraris, Lamborghinis, crates of beer and bus loads of nymphomaniacs. It’s the New Art, and I’m its Salvador Dali .... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

Well, I thought at first that I might come down in favour of the Public Art Galleries. My wife and I like pictures, and we’re fond of public institutions such as libraries. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/freak.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/freak.gif" alt="" /> Just a pair of old squares really.

I just did a quick count and – not including photos or things cut from magazines –there were over 100 pictures on our walls. Quite crowded, considering that it’s just 8 rooms, 4 of which are a hallway, a kitchen, a laundry and a bathroom.

It’s mostly inexpensive prints (by all the usual suspects, through to work by Chinese and Japanese artists) but also 20 or so originals, mostly presents from local artist friends, and four or five done by relatives. Some lovely stuff, but nothing that the Uffizi, Guggenheim or Tate will be beating our doors down to acquire... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

But, when I think about it, I haven’t been in a public gallery in years. Instead, I have put a lot of effort into making sure that my life gets plenty of ‘parkland’ style views and a generous dash of sunsets. Plus I’m rather partial to enjoying the "curve in the roadway" too.

The view from my favourite chair faces west through a sweep of windows and french doors towards the sunsets. I can sit and watch the sun go down every day for the rest of my life if I choose, and I frequently do. With a soothing glass in hand if required. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

No, stuff the general populace – ignorant pearl glutted swine that they are – let my own naked self interest guide my vote. Art is wherever you look, in the gentle hands of a mother bathing a baby, in the flash of a parrot’s wing, the shadow of one building across another, or the random splashes of paint on a house painter’s shirt, and other such poetic flapdoodle... Art only comes to life in the eye and brain of the person looking. It’s everywhere, and if you need someone to stick a frame round it, put it a special building and tell you it’s art, then you’re probably wasting your time anyway. I believe that people like Marcel Duchamp have hinted at this approach before. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

By all mean spend the money on more environmentally soothing projects. Unless of course Hakea gets his grant and gives me a role in his New Art action piece... He and I could definitely enjoy exploring the Art to be found in "the curve of a roadway", among other things. There is some art that should still be encouraged. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/party.gif" alt="" />

Now if you’ll excuse me, sunset is only 10 minutes away and I think I can hear the cry of a trapped cork that needs to be released from captivity. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shhh.gif" alt="" />

let kris resell his collection to public art galleries and the rich ones pay for restoring and maintain architectural heritage and natural parks... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />
what is the interest of art if it should be a private thing? why would it be reserved for the narcissic contemplation of some select few?

people are educated by public Art galleries not by private collections and more they will be great, less ignorance will be a foul in this world... (Stalin was thinking something like that probably, but i won't defend stalinian views about arts here... well not today anyway! anyhow there is probably still a way to make something different with the same idea...)

anyhow when all the private collections will have been nationalised the rich (a bit less rich) would be able to consolate himshelf with admiring the sunset... so everybody will be happy there <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

Sadly Kyra_Ny cannot debate this topic. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" />

Although, not perfect, we do put a lot of money into the upkeep of our parks and nature preserves as well as our museums equally.

And our local artists do quite well for themselves if they put forth the effort and learn how to apply their efforts.

Again I say...Although not perfect.

Maybe next topic
Kyra_Ny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

If anyone wonder where I am, my brother borrowed NWN this Saturday, so I don't have time to argue (and of someone picks me as the winner because of this... (note not only what I wrote but what I didn't wrote. It's for your own good I tell you this)).

Übereil (let's play some NWN)

hmm Art what is it and why?

Art is the expression of a singular persons perspective of beauty, transformed into a physical (may it be form or sound) entity.

Why?
Because people who come to see the artists perspective are so enamoured with themself, in regards to discovering how clever they really are, and to proof this they are willing to lay out good sums of money.
Now if the said artist is actually diseased ... even better cause he can not disagree about the persons perspective being totally wrong, (no it is not the face of my wife while in childlabor, it is a feeling of mutual acceptance!) and thus the person owning this piece of art eclaims the wonders of what the art depicts (to its knowledge) to their friends, who in turn do not want to look stupid and thus proceed to buy art from the same artist.

Since this artist is deceased it follows that there's a limited availability of his/hers work and thus we come to the old slogan of supply and demand, which is the sole reason why deceased artists Art is more expensive <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Haha! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Selling my collection wouldn't change the course of history much - I'd be lucky to get the price of a crate of Guinness for it...



Nobody is suggesting that art should be reserved for the narcissistic contemplation of a select few. Remove the Public Art Galleries and Art doesn't stop being available for view - it would simply mean that the public would need to go to commercial galleries (and auctions) to see artwork (and buy if they chose) which of course they can do now. Same as if they wish to see and/or buy most other things in life. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> They might also try seeing that art is all around them for free if they have the eyes to see. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Why waste money public money on "Art" Galleries, why not free Music Galleries? Free beer? Free furniture? Much of art subsidy simply props up outmoded and outdated forms of expression that few people now have much interest in any more.

Museums? Different story, different role. I'd keep them for sure - but Rincewinds quote does specify "public art galleries of the world", so that's OK. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



Which people? 90% of the public never go near them! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> Furthermore many of the items and exhibitions in Public galleries are actually owned and loaned by private collectors.



But I already enjoy the sunsets and my pictures. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/freak.gif" alt="" /> Who gives a damn if 90% of the world prefer pictures of pop stars and sports people on their walls (if anything). Stop trying to spoon feed the clods of the world something they're not interested in. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> They want junk food, junk TV and junk culture - leave them to it, and go your own way... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

And there's always more lasting satisfaction in things that you have to put a little work into discovering for yourself. Make people put a little effort into discovering what art is all about and they will enjoy it all the more. Ban it altogether and they might just flock to it! But subsidising it, sticking it in a public building and telling the masses that it's "worthy" and "cultural" is a sure way to put a box round it and slowly strangle it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

No, cut Mummy Government's apron strings and make art stand on its own feet and come to life on its own merits. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Hmm, I was hoping to be able to oppose Kris.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" /> I thought he’d support the galleries..

Anyway, let’s attack the notion that Public Art Galleries are beacons of culture. In fact they’re more like the Black Holes of the art world, with the greater part of their collections stored away in vaults. They are Mausoleums -Necropolises who pin art to their walls like so many dead butterflies.

Empty the vaults and put art back where it belongs – as part of life. Paintings and sculptures belong in places that are being used for living in – private houses, railway stations, offices, libraries, parks, gardens etc. Art should be as much a part of life as music, laughter, conversations, eating and drinking, not roped off, subsidised and treated like a freak show.

There may well have been some place for Public Art Galleries a century or two ago when the average citizen may have had limited access to some forms of art. But these days you can easily access images and information through books, public libraries, films, the internet, Cdrom, TV etc. And if that piques your interest then you should be prepared to view (or buy) in a commercially viable setting. Art is available to suit all budgets, from a reproduction on a postcard up to whatever you can afford. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Subsidised Art Galleries are outdated dinosaurs - white elephants that actually do the cause of art a disservice by separating it from the mainstream of life and (ironically) making it seem more elitist and dull. Far from keeping art vibrant and alive, public subsidy and official meddling distorts what should be a natural development and interaction with the population at large. And in a pathetic attempt to stay ‘modern’ and ‘relevant’ galleries often collude in the promotion of utter crud that the wider free market would deservedly ignore. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

Scrap them, and let art flower or wither where it may. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

a fable:

once upon a time, many years ago, there were painters, sculptors, poets, playwrights, potters and musicians. they worked alongside their fellow men and women and were respected and rewarded for the work they did.

but along came a wicked fairy, waved a magic wand, and covered them all in a thick layer of bull$hit. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

poof !(sorry, no pun intended) - they all turned into Artists.

and despite a lot of arty people kissing each other ever since - practically non-stop (and sometimes in quite inventive places) - nobody has yet figured out how to turn them all back.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

(oh, and do what you like with the galleries, i never go near them <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" /> )

for the sake of all gits here, i have to argue for i haven't argue since .... it's been too long! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

i would support nature reserve & parks rather than man-made art.

now don't take me wrong. art, especially fine art, which is most used as example & for some, highlight of anything art, is a testament of creativity of humankind in display on a flat medium. of course there are other kinds of art which mark heights of civilisations & therefore recorded historical events & such which make art more than just aesthetics.

however if cashflow is tight & severely limited, holding on to the past, that is art, is just not possible when compared with something at least equal in importance; nature. nature is to be preserved even at the cost of the arts. after all, it is nature that inspires art & not otherwise so where art fades away with time, nature endures & continues to inspire.

another point that i feel makes nature takes precedence over art is that art is very much subjective & the saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" says much more. what people who swoon at monet may not do so for chinese paintings, whoever that admires cubism may hate rennassaince (sorry, forgot how to spell it) & on & on. personally, i would swoon at photographs of nature but only glance at the 'masters'; monet, van Gogh, Da Vinci, etc. i adore Tchaikovsky but detest waltz. such is the subjectivity of art. such is the fickleness of humankind. but nature is all objective. preservation of it takes precedence over many things. even more so for countries that rely on it to live.

nature is the source of art. & it will continue to be that. from the earliest forms of art by cavemen (& cavewomen, i'm sure) to fine art to abstract art to pop art to photography to digital art; nature is always the flame that lights the candle in the minds of creativity.

nature nurtures. the body, mind & emotion. this is more than the best art can do. nature is the mother where humnankind is the child & art being the fruit.

this argument can go on & on but i feel i should stop here. as conclusion, i would support nature preservation over art. anytime. art imitates nature, never vice versa.