Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ondeaander

[1] 2
Interzone / George W. : Conspirator of Satan
« on: March 23, 2009, 12:37:06 PM »

Interzone / Re: News Sources
« on: March 17, 2009, 04:12:10 PM »
What?! Israelis and Palestinians are fighting again? No shit, really?
And then people look at me weird when I ask "who's Anna Nicole Smith?"
I get my news via at least 3 degrees of hearsay, and to be honest, I can't tell the difference.

Interzone / Re: Creating true elitism
« on: March 17, 2009, 04:02:30 PM »
Also, I'm just curious, since you mentioned a "false superiority" I wonder if there is such a thing as a "healthy superiority?"
A couple of observations:
People who are truly elite don't feel the need to tell everyone about it.
Elitism is not a permanent state. You achieve something, overcome a challenge, discover a natural talent, and you have a sense of superiority and increased self-worth. Then you need to look to the next challenge. Anyone who lives in one moment of elitist passion for too long will quickly fall behind. Just imagine if you were going on about how much better your drawing skills were at age 5 than the other kids (and people DO this!). Talent doesn't excuse sitting on your arse, and elitism has got almost nothing to do with talent anyway.

Metal / Re: Metal iconography has lost direction
« on: March 16, 2009, 04:25:40 PM »
Google "Hordes of Chaos" and you'll uncover the inspiration. Why write music when you can play with dolls?

Interzone / Re: Conditions for Art
« on: March 16, 2009, 04:13:18 PM »
Was reading this the otehr day and it occurred to me that perhaps this more than anything explains the rise and fall of metal. Art never exists in a vacuum and it is not simply down to the people involved why such an art failed.
How has it been a failure? We're here, aren't we? Contemplating, planning, living. Nothing is static. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it merely changes forms. And life is opposed to entropy.

Interzone / Re: Classical guitar
« on: March 16, 2009, 03:46:24 PM »

This'll fuck you up.

I keep going back to this site, and keep realizing how crappy most of the arrangements are - half the time you're meant to move your hand from one side of the fretboard to another, and still miraculously give the impression of an independent bass-line. But it's free and persistent. Fernando Sor is good since his pieces were written for the guitar and haven't been subjected to some wanker trying to hack a piano sonata to work on 6 strings.

Interzone / Re: Vegetarianism
« on: March 16, 2009, 03:25:16 PM »
The suffering of animals has less to do with eating meat and more to do with how the animals are farmed, an issue which is a symptom of overpopulation.
How did you come to conclude that overpopulation is the culprit? Pick out any rural town in America and you can bet it'll still have a Wal-Mart and a Starbucks. I'd put it to industrialization being taken as the bread, meat, and dessert. As Helmholtz, we've lost our connection to the animals. We have with them no longer a personal relationship and interdependence. Animals are an industry. We get this epic battle of industry vs. environmentalism for the souls of mankind which has got almost nothing to do with anything, especially not reverence for man, animals, or the natural world.

Interzone / Re: The final solution to the world's problem...
« on: February 07, 2009, 04:02:04 PM »
Civilizations rise and fall; they tend to regulate themselves. Since we can see the theoretical possibility of controlling these cycles for the better, it is always tempting to try and seize control. Yet it is precisely that mentality, that obsession with control, which got us here in the first place. The only difference today is that we have developed a violent technology wielded by bureaucrats who are immune from all responsibility. We might not get another chance. The big Democracy experiment is proving Plato right - letting the common man run the government is like having a gardener do brain surgery. Seems like a good idea at the time, and then it disintegrates back into a nasty totalitarianism. We don't want a dictator and we don't want a democracy. We want leaders who know what the hell they're doing. Leaders who set an example for the people rather than vice-versa. And we need to be unified on more than social contract in the name of trade.

We'll probably either get #3, or more likely #4: we fade into oblivion while the East takes the throne for a few hundred years. The trouble with empires is that every time culture tries to revive itself through art and protest, it just gets assimilated. But the fact that we're here is good. We're it. It's up to us. There is nobody else. You are one in a mere handful of people who gives a damn. So choose wisely what you damn...

Interzone / Re: Forgotten ambition
« on: February 07, 2009, 03:36:05 PM »
The problem with metal being transformed into action is that metal hasn't got a cause. We haven't articulated what it is that we're fighting for. We've come up with some idealistic images of "what would be nice", but the only thing that's held us together so far is the common recognition that something is wrong with our lives. I'm not sure what that cause will be, but I think we need to each do whatever we feel needs to be done - write, make music, create, raise hell - until that cause arrives or takes form. We're not organized, we're not the social elite. Our power is in the hands of individuals. And each of us must go most of the way alone. The best thing is to be prepared for the time when our opportunity may arise.

"It's a pointless struggle, but we will fight them, and when we can't fight in this world we will continue in the next one."

What are we fighting for, at heart? What is it about metal that is eternal - more than a passing fashion? I think it's nothing short of a renaissance of Western culture. You can't bring that about systematically. Unfortunately most people only realize they were born at all when something catastrophic happens. There's still a lot of inertia in the wrong direction (probably still the shock wave of WWI/II). But we can make ourselves ready for the time when action will be effective.

Goluf makes a good point - do something! History gives us inspiration, but it's also a danger to think that everything's been done before, so it's not worth trying to create. Education is great, but you don't have to compete with every man in known history for greatness. Being an amateur is better than not to bother at all.

Interzone / Re: Personality types by brain chemical
« on: February 07, 2009, 09:34:43 AM »
I always find attempts to place every person into x, y, and z personality type end up having more exceptions than rules. A truer 'rule of thumb' would be: As adults we are essentially the same person as when we were 5. Biology doesn't define who we are; it's what we make of it. But then, some people don't make anything of it, and just remain 5-year-olds.

Interzone / Re: Experience and music
« on: February 04, 2009, 03:35:21 PM »
Can you elaborate on type 3? Quite frankly, I've never met anyone but metalheads who like ambient music.

Interzone / Re: On Negative Capability
« on: February 02, 2009, 05:11:07 PM »
Quote from: Cargést
This sounds like you're trying to flavour your view for this forum's userbase.

I didn't know the truth comes in flavours.

Quote from: Cargést
Art's primary function, in my view, is to "please" (though the method and result will differ, depending, once again, on the form of it).  However, this does not at all mean that it is merely an "object to be sold". [...] I completely fail to see your logic, and I am trying very hard.  It appears to me, somewhat, that you are grasping at straws located around a central opinion that "art > man".

I like that. Art > Man.

Things meant to please differ from person to person in how well they please, therefore what is "good" is arbitrary, therefore things that please hold no particular truth or meaning, and therefore they are essentially worthless. I don't think art is worthless, and neither do you - so art cannot be meant to please. There is a confusion of the cause-effect relationship here. The desire to please is not the cause of art; Inspiration causes Art, and art may incidentally be the cause of pleasure. When this is reversed, you don't get art. You get a product.

Quote from: Cargést
What is the purpose of art if not to be viewed by men?

What is the purpose of a fart, if not to be smelled by men? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Art has no purpose in and of itself. The purpose lay in the inspiration. People don't usually think about babies when they're having sex. The purpose of art that is not to be viewed by men is perhaps akin to the purpose of having sex which doesn't produce a child.

Quote from: Cargést
Humans are selfish creatures, driven by their own perceived needs.  Only a certain type of madman would see himself as needing to create art that should not be viewed by other people.

Maybe that's why Artists are often seen as Madmen.

Quote from: Cargést
Many reasons.  1.  An artist may be against modernism.  2.  The best way to portray something may be in a three dimensional fashion.  3.  Modern photography captures a precise and definite moment, whereas a painting which takes many hours to complete may be influenced by the differing states of the object being painted (probably most applicable to landscapes).

The first reason is a human reason, the second obvious, the third detailed.  I could write an essay on why other artforms are superior to photography, but I cannot be bothered at this point in time.

It's really quite beside the point.. the artist's methods actually have little to do with its designation as 'art'.

Quote from: Cargést
The "reaching after facts and reasons" is of the poet, not of the reader.  He is attempting to find and prove meaning in something which has one very clear and obvious.  The reader/viewer/listener is entirely welcome to "reach after facts and reasons", as, at that point, not every reader is forced to come to the same conclusion.

Here I feel I see the root of our perceived differences of opinion, which is a misunderstanding of who is doing what.  It is the artist who should not scrabble after whatever meanings he seeks to find in an object, not the reader.  The artist is he who is showing the object and explaining it in his terms, the reader is he who extrapolates from that what he or she will.

I don't quite follow.. If the meaning is already obvious, then mightn't a poem about a cow just as well be C-O-W scrawled on a piece of notebook paper?

Cow brown
Brown cow
With a spot
On his eye

Quote from: Cargést
Fallacy. Art may, under these circumstances, be judged by the gravity with which it impacts upon those who are pleased by it. After all, the wise man and the fool do not see the same tree. So, three men enter a gallery and look at two paintings. At the first, the three men agree that the work is of average quality. At the second, two men are left cold by the painting, whilst the third proclaims it the greatest work he has seen. But which painting is the greatest work  of art?

The adjective "greatest" has no place in this discussion... there is no "greatest". There are works of art, and there are products. Amongst either, there are those that you like and those you don't - but aesthetic appeal and "greatness" and popularity are not what determine what is art and what isn't.

Quote from: JewBob
Great art should move anybody of any worth.

There is an argument that "intelligent people tend to gravitate towards good art", though I think that's a separate topic.

Interzone / Re: How to get ANUS publically accepted
« on: February 01, 2009, 07:23:24 PM »
Perhaps in your mind, but i highly doubt that, for example, Varg sits in his prison grinning about the possibilty of metaphor that relates to sexually transmitted immune difficiency disorders. ..Nor the Obituary boys (who probably couldn't spell the name of a single philosopher), the heroine addict from mutiilation.. etc etc.. you get the idea.

Personally I like most aspects of the ANUS philosophy, obviously. But I also like the metal promoted here as well. If... IF, ANUS wants to promote all this metal more effectively then it might have to seperate metal from ITS philosophy (and allusions to AIDS, assholes, sodomy etc). That's it. If ANUS insists on continuing to link the two, then that's great: my post simply relates to a question raised about the metal.

Your mistake is to think that metal and philosophy exist separately. ANUS isn't artificially imposing philosophy on metal; it is just offering the real thing, undiluted. We want to attract the right people, not just warm bodies. If only 1 in 1000 people are interested, that means we need to spread the ANUS to 1000 people to get one new face.

Interzone / Re: On Negative Capability
« on: January 31, 2009, 01:36:56 PM »
I am not sure to what you are referring with "The Augustans are turning in their graves."

Viewing art aesthetically is just a regurgitation of the way we, as humans, already understand ourselves. In approaching art so, we are not open to a broadening or reevaluation of our understanding of ourselves. The set of characteristics which each of us may find aesthetically pleasing is neither universal nor eternal, nor life-changing. A representation of an object "as it is" is not art; Art has the ability to change the way we see it. Art reveals something to us about ourselves or the world which was not previously known/obvious. This can't be explained purely in terms of particular emotional or intellectual reactions. My experience of "good" art is of discovery and personal insight - thoughtfulness, in short - rather than a reaction. When you're truly affected by art, you do not form an opinion of it. You fall into contemplation. This can happen regardless of whether you find the piece aesthetically pleasing. Objects are not "worthy of artistic expression" based upon some aesthetic merit. Art has the power to make them worthy.

I'll quote some Wikipedia, too (from the same page, "Art"):
Immanuel Kant, writing in 1790, observes of a man "If he says that canary wine is agreeable he is quite content if someone else corrects his terms and reminds him to say instead: It is agreeable to me," because "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste". The case of "beauty" is different from mere "agreeableness" because, "If he proclaims something to be beautiful, then he requires the same liking from others; he then judges not just for himself but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things." [...] For Kant "enjoyment" is the result when pleasure arises from sensation, but judging something to be "beautiful" has a third requirement: sensation must give rise to pleasure by engaging our capacities of reflective contemplation. Judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once.

Re: Metal.  This is where the second half of that quote of myself is required.  While, most certainly, there is definably good and definably bad metal in the world, I am all for allowing people to listen to what they want to (as long as they don't insist on pushing it upon me).  If somebody listens to Slipknot and thoroughly enjoys it, then, to that person, "in [his] own opinion", to quote myself, it is good, and Slipknot are "directly communicating with [him] through [their] [utterly shit] ["music"]".  Also, why remove "metal" from "art"?  I would suggest that Metal - good Metal, mark - is Art.

Indeed, good metal is art. But why is it art? Metal is not an example of "persons of high skill" composing pleasing melodies, and the "object or ideal" portrayed is most often intensely aesthetically displeasing - intentionally so. Thus I again suggest that art is not judged by aesthetics. The notion that instinctive reactions to art/music determine what is "good" is simply egalitarianism. If all reactions are "in the eye of the beholder" then you are denying the possibility of metal (or any art) being anything more than an object to be sold, to make money, and to "please". If that is all you see and feel when you listen to metal, that's really unfortunate. Art, as metal music, does not exist to be viewed by men - for if you lock a work away forever, out of sight, it loses none of its potency as art (although its methods may become outdated).

My final point is an outright rejection of your statement that "art for the sake of art" does not exist.  There are many "works of art" (again, definition required.  Bloody philosophy) by many people who would happily say "Oh, I just like to make music/paint/draw/whatever".  This could be for personal enjoyment, for the sake of it, for both.

Can you give a concrete example of art for its own sake? Art for personal enjoyment is art for personal enjoyment; not art for it's own sake. Nobody wastes their time doing something which has no forseeable purpose or reward (even if that is emotional). The only category of "art for its own sake" I can think of is accidental art - if that is possible. Cats make paintings when someone dips their paws in paint. If we exclude the intent of their masters, perhaps this is art for its own sake:

Still, there is no prerequisite of art that it must represent something other than what it obviously represents.

I think art says more about an object than is "physically" present. In the age of modern technology, why would anyone still resort to the time-consuming complexity of sculpture or painting in order to accurately represent objects? If you want realism, get a camera. They're much more effective.

All good poetry, should it choose to meander through thought, will return to its original point.

By the time poetry comes full circle, has our disposition (as readers) not been changed since the introduction of that idea/concept/object? Were all the lines in between the first and the last futile? Filler? Meandering blots of ink to take up space in the most visually appealing way possible?

Conversely, with a poem like "Ozymandias", also by Shelley, the ambiguity of the poem really rather invites the reader to reach - irritably - after the many facts and reasons of it.

If you find thinking and interpreting "irritable", then what enjoyment do you derive from art? What is it like for you to view a work? Like eating candy? Like sex? A comfort? Do you then seek art which echoes ideals which you've predetermined as "correct" without hoping to discover something new? Consideration is more difficult than forming a binary opinion, but, per the earlier Kant quote, I agree that it is necessary to the enjoyment of art. I enjoy this very discussion, for example, for the sake of contemplation, discovery, and organizing my thoughts. I wouldn't bother posting if I felt that I already knew the answers, or that all opinions are equally valid. Yet I am not troubled to know that almost noone will read what I write here. Quite frankly, if these "side topics" hold little to no interest for you, I have difficulty understanding how you can derive enjoyment from reading poetry or listening to metal. Even to describe poetry, which you "like", you use adjectives such as "meandering" and "irritably ambiguous". So what is it you like about (some) poetry? Its ability to concisely state a reasoned conclusion which you agree with? Its ability to accurately describe objects, while expertly fitting the words together as in a crossword puzzle?

I can see how realism can be "represented artistically" but I don't see the point - as said, you can get a camera or read a physics textbook. [Wikipedia/Realism] You're not the only person to put forward your view; I just disagree with you on more levels than I can count.

Interzone / Re: The maturity of a seven-year-old
« on: January 30, 2009, 05:03:56 PM »
Clever inspiration.

[1] 2