Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

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 - Cargést

1 ... 137 [138] 139
2056
Interzone / The final solution to the world's problem...
« on: February 07, 2009, 02:00:49 AM »
... is to kill an immense number of people, by any means necessary, as soon as possible.

The fundamental problem with the modern world, as I see it, is overpopulation, and, on average, an idiotic population.  By removing those with lesser intelligences, lesser physical abilties, less creativity, etc, we will not only come to a point where we will no longer waste our resources on those unfit to receive such benefits of our currently liberal society, we will also come to a point where there are few enough humans alive that the planet itself need not suffer any longer, thus assuring the possibility of the continued existence of humans.

This is an unrealistic goal, of course.  It will never happen, for the sole reason that those who do not fall into the category of "intelligent, physically fit, and creative" will never be defeated by the disparate groups of those who do fall into such capacities.  As with any movement, political or otherwise, which may end up actually working, and contributing to society, the individuals described above are too intentionally at ends with each other to provide a stronger front.

I am beginning to see four distinct possibilities:

1.  The greatest of humans band together to fix the overpopulation problem (not likely);

2.  The greatest of humans all decide to do the above, but fight each other about it, and are eventually driven out, sucked up, or killed, by the average man (somewhat more likely);

3.  A crisis of some sort causes a change in perspective in the majority of people.  An ideal is formed, and the fires of our civilisation are rekindled;

4.  Nothing is ever done of any considerable weight or volume.  Our society peters out into nothing, ready to give birth to the next, wherever that may come from.

The last is very interesting to me: in the past, new societies have come from other peoples.  Rome is the only example of this I can come up with right at this moment, as it is probably far too late for me to be thinking coherently anyway.  Perhaps Egypt and Greece count, as well, and the different Dynasties and Empires of mainland Eastern Asia, the acquisition of India by the British Empire (well, not a new society for the world, but new for the area), and other such cases...

2057
Interzone / Re: Oxford students comment on PANTERA
« on: February 06, 2009, 09:23:21 PM »
I was rejected by Oxford because I want to take a gap year.  I have to agree, the students there were just the same, if not worse, than the students at Edinburgh, the University I actually want to go to.  I mean, I had my heart set on putting Oxford as my insurance choice (a big "fuck you" to the best University in existence), but I suppose this is inevitability.

2058
Metal / Re: Blackmetal and Failure
« on: February 05, 2009, 11:25:49 PM »
Should I stop listening to Gehenna, Necromantia and Mysticum because they cant compare to Burzum, Emperor and Graveland?

I hope to God that this question is rhetorical/sarcastic.

It was rhetorical, meant to make the following point: "if it is acceptable listen to third rate second wave bands, then I dont see any problem with listening to third wave bands that have produced works of greater quality"

As far as I can remember, Gehenna are just about 2nd wave, if rather late.  Certainly fantastic music, regardless.

All of this "3rd wave" nonsense aggravates me.  it wasn't a wave at all, it was a petering out of the creative forces behind the 2nd wave.  There was no point at which, suddenly, new bands started to create shit Black Metal.  It was far more gradual than that, although I will accept the suggestion that "suddenly, at some point, Black Metal started becoming cool".

2059
Metal / Re: Death Metal bands that succumbed to The Norming
« on: February 05, 2009, 11:22:56 PM »
To be fair, one riff of track 6 of "Nattens Madrigal" was good.

The rest...

"Meh", as they say.

2060
Interzone / Re: What is a hipster?
« on: February 05, 2009, 11:20:03 PM »
"Dusk and Her Embrace" is a good album.  Cradle of Filth turned down the "Metal" and turned up the "music".  However, it wasn't popular enough, so in subsequent releases they appear to have, annoyingly, changed direction significantly - fully reversed, in fact.

I own all of their albums and DVDs, through my own purchase (the earlier albums) or as gifts from well meaning family and friends (the later garbage), and of all of the music they have ever created, they were never so good as when they were not trying to play Metal, and were simply creating music (read: "Vempire" and "Dusk...").

I agree with Mr. Woods, in that the "elaborate victorian and romantic ćsthetic" was, by far, the most interesting and captivating aspect of their music.  "Dusk", especially, has an undefinable feeling to it, especially when considering the entire package - the music, cover, and booklet, and the images used in the last two, create a definably "English" atmosphere, which is not present in any other British Black Metal.  On the back of the booklet, to be precise, there is a picture of a Graveyard, which is so picturesque, especially after its photo manipulation, as to seem to be the inspiration for every good bit of music in the entire album.

But that's enough about Cradle of Filth.  There was a trend, recently, for despising them purely because of their recent music - the trend, now, is to like them for their early output.  Being not a follower of trends, I can merely assert that I have always liked their early work, and will always like it, even when it becomes unfashinable.

Praeteritio over.  Hipsters can suck a cock.

2061
Interzone / Re: On Negative Capability
« on: February 03, 2009, 05:12:26 PM »
Maybe: that we need a proper definition of art before we discuss it, so that we know what we're talking about?

Thus, the problem with any attempt at philosophy is disparate definition.

2062
Interzone / Re: On Negative Capability
« on: February 01, 2009, 08:17:10 PM »
Evidently, we will never agree on the subject, so I will answer some basic questions and pose some interesting ones.

Quote
I am not sure to what you are referring with "The Augustans are turning in their graves."

The Augustans valued Reason above all of the other abilities of the mind.

Quote
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.

In Metal, ćsthetics is turned entirely on its head, and that which is ćsthetically pleasing could be deemed monstrous to an outsider looking in.  The skill is in the creation of music which invokes the "intensely ćsthetically displeasing".

I would state that ćsthetics can be variable in different forms of art.

Quote
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"

This sounds like you're trying to flavour your view for this forum's userbase.  How, pray tell, does anything of what you've said in this quote lead to the next?  I fail to be able to make the leaps of logic which you with such grace have.  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".

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).

What is the purpose of art if not to be viewed by men?

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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?

You take the part for the whole, here.

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 would write more, but I feel that is almost sufficient, and I'm very hungry.

2063
Interzone / Re: The maturity of a seven-year-old
« on: January 31, 2009, 02:13:45 AM »
I wonder whether it might be beneficial for me to read some of Rand's work.  Apparently, it's simultaneously awful and good, depending on the perspective.  What's the general consensus?

2064
Interzone / Re: On Negative Capability
« on: January 31, 2009, 01:25:18 AM »
The Augustans are turning in their graves.

Perhaps this is where a clarification might be necessary: I can see where one might find meaning in and object or ideal, in an abstract fashion, and be inspired by this meaning to portray said object or ideal.  However, as you said, "the deliberate search for meaning... rather misses the point".

I would further state that, as "the mysteries of being human" are not the same as "mysteries of a human nature": the former, I would assume, would include our wondering at our intelligence, our ability to reason, to feel emotion, &c.  My meaning, by the latter, was "mundane nature of thoughts of/created by humans, when compared to the emotions and senses invoked by an object ćsthetically pleasing enough to be worthy of artistic expression", which implies that the ordered thoughts of humans are secondary to the primary emotional responses of humans, among other things.  They are "mysteries created by human nature", I suppose, and not good ones.  Superfluous ones.  Effectively, n order to condense what could have been an entirely long and boring description, I went vaguely and tangentially philosophese on yo' ass.

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.

Perhaps our definitions of "art" are different.  I would define "art" as being "the human attempt at expressing any object, emotion, ideal, or concept, through physical means".  Wikipedia, the worst encyclopedia in existence (but all I can be bothered to use for now), states: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the sense or emotions".

Amusingly, upon looking at the Wikipedia article on "Art", I've realised that, somehow, my concept of what art is, is, effectively, either artistic "Realism" or artistic "Objectivism".

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.  It is, I will accept, an ambiguous statement in that regard.  Still, there is no prerequisite of art that it must represent something other than what it obviously represents.  I would say that most art can cause emotions and thoughts in the viewer other than those experienced by the artist, but that fundamental object/ideal is the central point, the focus, the anchor of all conjecture conjured by the work.  All good poetry, should it choose to meander through thought, will return to its original point.

Shelley's "Alastor" (Shelley was not an advocate of Negative Capability, though he admired Keats greatly) had, according to him, a definite "meaning", as it were, which is that a man should not be a recluse, should not shut the rest of the world off from him, and he from it, for it inevitably leads to a death similar to that in the cold, barren wastes, as experienced by "the Poet".  Many have argued that this goes against Negative Capability entirely, as it is "reaching after fact and reason".  I would dispute that the primary ideal that Shelley had in mind when he wrote "Alastor" was that men should not distance themselves from others to the point of abject and complete solitude.  This is the sentiment conveyed by the poem.  Shelley stated no other reason for writing the poem (other than, of course, to write a poem).  It conforms, thus, with the concept of Negative Capability, and is a primary example of a poem, the fundamental ideal of which, is not explored, nor extrapolated on, and is merely translated by the poet into art.  After many readings, I still enjoy it, and have never considered, before now, to gaze so deeply into its depths as to invent a secondary meaning.

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.

This has turned into rather a long post, in which I've rather raved about a great many things which hold little to no interest in me.  My question has been answered - evidently, Realism and Art can coexist, therefore I would believe that Poetry is not exempt, as long as it is art.

2065
Metal / Re: Hipsters are destroying metal
« on: January 30, 2009, 07:10:54 PM »
The episode is, apparently, called "Dethfashion".  It's about "fashion for metalheads".  Ihsahn does the voice for "Eric von Wiechlinghammer".

2066
Interzone / Re: Ovid's Metamorphoses
« on: January 30, 2009, 01:03:26 PM »
Hardly haphazard, but certainly a chronicle of their lore.  Possibly sublime (certainly in scope, possibly in artistic merit).  I like it a lot.

2067
Metal / Re: Hipsters are destroying metal
« on: January 30, 2009, 09:26:05 AM »
Ihsahn was on an episode of Metalocalypse.  It was vaguely amusing.  I have to say, I agree with their portrayal of the average metal head - not necessarily a moron, but certainly acting like one.  That "Fallen Angelz" thing proves it, really.

2068
Metal / Re: Winter Moon - British Black Metal
« on: January 29, 2009, 08:17:52 PM »
I see.  I like Gehenna's early work very much, and so I shall attempt to track down some of the music of the Finnish Wintermoon.

2069
Interzone / Re: On Negative Capability
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:39:48 AM »
The reason is that the object in question is worthy of being translated into an artistic format by a person of sufficient skill to do it justice.  Meaning is second to ćsthetics in art (in my view).  The thought is in how best to portray the object in question, and then concept is the object.  Art for the sake of art, for the sake of beauty, without any alterior secrets or mysteries of a human nature to cloud the enjoyment of it.

One would judge its merit as one should - by how it looks.  If you like it, it's good.  If not, it isn't.  This, of course, is not all encompassing, but singular, in that it is your own opinion, and in this way, the artist is communicating directly with you through his artistic impression.

The other end of 'pretentious', possibly.

2070
Metal / Re: Winter Moon - British Black Metal
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:34:47 AM »
Good point.  I'll rethink the name (although I'm keeping the website), and, this time, I'll search Metal-archives to see if people are stealing my thoughts before I've thought them.

I'm also open to suggestions.

What do you mean by a "poetic take on black metal"?

1 ... 137 [138] 139