badmotogoozer Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I've got 3:13 on the computer, 3:20 on the clock and 3:15 on the wrist watch. Whos right? 83913[/snapback] All wrong. It's 10:54. Rj
Guest aironepony Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 This shit may be written using what appears to be English on the surface, but is in fact a different language encoded using the structures and words of English. It is in reality pure jargon, normally used to allow cliques of academics to live the life of riley at taxpayers expense. It is a fog of obfuscation designed to make people think something valuable is being done, when in reality it is a load of socialist hippies on tax funded holidays. 83891[/snapback] Literary criticism can be no more than a reasoned account of the feeling produced upon the critic by the book he is criticizing. Criticism can never be a science: it is, in the first place, much too personal, and in the second, it is concerned with values that science ignores. The touchstone is emotion, not reason. We judge a work of art by its effect on our sincere and vital emotion, and nothing else. All the critical lambasting about style, content and form, all this classifying and analyzing of books in an imitation "botanical" fashion, is mostly redundant jargon. ......................
Baldini Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 ....We judge a work of art by its effect on our sincere and vital emotion, and nothing else.... BOLLOCKS KB
DeBenGuzzi Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 BOLLOCKS KB 83974[/snapback] I wish they used that word here. I laugh everytime I hear it. I don't think america has any exclusive swear words.
Guest aironepony Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 BOLLOCKS KB 83974[/snapback] My point, precisely............. Have you thought of taking up literary criticism? I think that you could be verrry good............
helicopterjim R.I.P. Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 I wish they used that word here. I laugh everytime I hear it. I don't think america has any exclusive swear words. 83987[/snapback] What about "dangnabbit"?
Baldini Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 ....Have you thought of taking up literary criticism? I think that you could be verrry good... Aha! Shame! You resort to sarcasm .... the lowest form of wit COBBLERS! but no, I haven't thought of literary criticism - it is, like all other criticisms - a job for parasites..... KB
Baldini Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) Literary criticism can be no more than a reasoned account of the feeling produced upon the critic by the book he is criticizing. Criticism can never be a science: it is, in the first place, much too personal, and in the second, it is concerned with values that science ignores. The touchstone is emotion, not reason. We judge a work of art by its effect on our sincere and vital emotion, and nothing else. All the critical lambasting about style, content and form, all this classifying and analyzing of books in an imitation "botanical" fashion, is mostly redundant jargon. ... Sincere art, is the same as sincere science - they are both forms of primary research - the search for some kind of truth/beauty in the things around us. Much, both in art & science, masquerades as genuine research, but in truth is merely a cynical expending of grant-bought time, with no real aim other than box-ticking to assure the next cheque. You do both art & science a diservice if you say they may be judged exclusively by either subjective or objective criteria. The view that art can only elicit a response from the emotions & cannot be viewed objectively is one reason why our public galleries are filled with dross & why most people feel disconnected from it (I can't understand it, but art is subjective, I'm told it's good, it's in the art gallery; so it must be valid). The view that science is purely objective disallows the fact that we have limited knowledge & that scientists have imagination. To my mind Richard Feinman was a great artist as Paul Cezanne was a great scientist. Subjective/objective?... both are fundamental in any sincere work - without either, art or science is less. KB :sun Edited March 28, 2006 by Baldini
Guest aironepony Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 You do both art & science a diservice if you say that either may be judged by only subjective or objective criteria. KB :sun 84035[/snapback] Are there other criteria?...................... Everything is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation. The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too. Everything ideological possesses semiotic value. .....................
Baldini Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 ...Are there other criteria... My writing did not make my meaning clear. Hopefully I have corrected in my edit. Re ideology/signs - I think I understand what you are saying but do not understand what point you are making? KB
g.forrest Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 we lost one of our great artists this day. pro hart..a great bloke. and a guzzi rider.; to pro hart..rest in peace. Sincere art, is the same as sincere science - they are both forms of primary research - the search for some kind of truth/beauty in the things around us. Much, both in art & science, masquerades as genuine research, but in truth is merely a cynical expending of grant-bought time, with no real aim other than box-ticking to assure the next cheque. You do both art & science a diservice if you say they may be judged exclusively by either subjective or objective criteria. The view that art can only elicit a response from the emotions & cannot be viewed objectively is one reason why our public galleries are filled with dross & why most people feel disconnected from it (I can't understand it, but art is subjective, I'm told it's good, it's in the art gallery; so it must be valid). The view that science is purely objective disallows the fact that we have limited knowledge & that scientists have imagination. To my mind Richard Feinman was a great artist as Paul Cezanne was a great scientist. Subjective/objective?... both are fundamental in any sincere work - without either, art or science is less. KB :sun 84035[/snapback]
Guest aironepony Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 You do both art & science a diservice if you say they may be judged exclusively by either subjective or objective criteria. KB :sun 84035[/snapback] Ah, that's nearer to a statement; not one that I would personally endorse though.................. My writing did not make my meaning clear. Hopefully I have corrected in my edit. Re ideology/signs - I think I understand what you are saying but do not understand what point you are making? KB 84044[/snapback] Never mind, the sun's shining.................. BTW...what time is it?
Baldini Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 .......Never mind, the sun's shining.... ...not here it **** ain't... KB
Frenchbob Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 ...not here it **** ain't... KB 84058[/snapback] Nor here. Took my bloody Triton to bits to fettle it two days ago and it's still in bits because I can't get anything outside and out of the way to work on it: it's persisting it down. Oh sorry. I thought for a moment this was what's your weather like and it's what time is it. What a blunder!
belfastguzzi Posted March 28, 2006 Author Posted March 28, 2006 ...not here it **** ain't... KB 84058[/snapback] subjective or objective observation? I bet it is shining
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now