What is art?
Paraphrasing:
I know it when I see it.
~Some Guy
Hell, I don't even know it when I see most of the time.
I read that in the voice of Cunk.
Do you mean Philomena Cunk?
She don't look anything like Gravdigr.
I believe that philosophy and art go hand in hand. Most "Art" requires thought to fully understand.
I generally consider art to be inessential creativity that appeals. There can obviously be more to it (e.g. the art of medicine); but, this seems to be the contemporary mainstay.
There is no answer that would be universally accepted. Sometimes paint is used to make pleasant pictures, and sometimes it's just weather proofing. Many, maybe most, think Picasso made pleasant pictures, I think he was weather proofing canvases. Maybe the best answer I can conjure, is creating something that pleases yourself, but I can't see the division between art and craft.
I'm skeptical of the whole "art" thing, and discussions about "art." I've seen crude stuff in museums that I wasn't very impressed by, but somebody decided it was art. Whatever.
But there is something. Art is real. When you take one medium and you manipulate it to represent something else entirely, I think there is something special going on there. Chip off bits of a rock and it becomes a person. That's magical.
Sorry, 'what is art?' is kind of a trollish question.
Oh, I know... Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts, 'cause Wiki said so.
Oh, I know... Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts, 'cause Wiki said so.
Thou art being perfunctory.
Art is imagery etc, that makes you feel things other than the literal representation of the medium in use.
Art is imagery etc, that makes you feel things other than the literal representation of the medium in use.
Yes!
Throughout history gatekeepers and rich folk have tried to control society by refusing to acknowledge as art the artworks which they don't like. With the privilege of hindsight, it makes a lot of sense to skip ahead and embrace everything: Art is anything that anybody says is art.
The more important question is: what is good art?
And that's usually a pretty subjective, personal question.
It makes a lot of sense to me to walk through an art museum and find lots of things that you don't give a damn about. In what ways is your life relatable to that of someone living in Europe in the 1870s? (And so on for every other decade and continent represented)
Art is imagery etc, that makes you feel things other than the literal representation of the medium in use.
Yes!
LJ has mastered the art of persuasion.
LJ expressed well what I was trying to say in my post.
The problem is that even that definition doesn't capture some things well. I think most people would be in agreement that Mikhail Baryshnikov dancing ballet is considered art. But when I watch him dance, it doesn't make me feel anything other than impressed at his skill. It's pretty and impressive, but doesn't evoke anything else. The medium is dance, the feeling it evokes is nothing. Maybe that's just me. But I wouldn't protest if anyone called his dancing "art." I'd agree with them.
To me, art must communicate something, preferably pleasurable, but cannot have a practical purpose.
I guess that rules out porn, Spex. :o
LJ expressed well what I was trying to say in my post.
The problem is that even that definition doesn't capture some things well. I think most people would be in agreement that Mikhail Baryshnikov dancing ballet is considered art. But when I watch him dance, it doesn't make me feel anything other than impressed at his skill. It's pretty and impressive, but doesn't evoke anything else. The medium is dance, the feeling it evokes is nothing. Maybe that's just me. But I wouldn't protest if anyone called his dancing "art." I'd agree with them.
I differentiate dance, etc as 'performance art' Performance being the operative word. There's talent, and skill there, but you're right.... It seldom evokes ant reaction beyond admiration of their skill. There are exceptions of course.
To me, poetry is art because it conveys messages or images without actually depicting them. A portrait of a head or a still life is where my interpretation breaks down. It's art, but it's really just a snap shot.
On the other hand, a photograph of a person's head can be art.... so...
Of course, this photograph sold for $1,089,335.
That's not art. That's crazy people doing crazy things.
I think the potato photo is art, just not very effective. Pretty to look at, like ballet. Not worth $1M.
Art is trying to say something a different way.
Expressing oneself differently constitutes art.
.....................^[COLOR="Green"]Who wants to buy it?[/COLOR]^.......................:D
sexo "inessential" right, that's a strange quality of it; it's art because we do it for some other reason, or purpose, not because we had to in order to fulfill the basic needs.
But none of us would chose a life without it.
I'm reading a book by V.S. Ramachandran about (among other things) the neurological reaction to art, and how they can on the one hand say art is definitely art because it stimulates these particular neurons the way art does, and yet also predict that person X won't like art style Y because their inferior parietal sulcus or whatever is smaller than average and didn't fire when they did this other thing to it. It's a really good book.
I differentiate dance, etc as 'performance art' Performance being the operative word. There's talent, and skill there, but you're right.... It seldom evokes ant reaction beyond admiration of their skill. There are exceptions of course.
FWIW, my perspective is that if it is interpretive or spontaneous dance, then the dancer is an artist. If it's choreographed, then the choreograher is the artist and the dancer is a technician.
I think the potato photo is art, just not very effective. Pretty to look at, like ballet. Not worth $1M.
It's worth as much as some sucker is willing to pay ;)
sexo, moving on from inessential, "creativity that appeals".
Creativity, i.e. creating: art is making something that was not there before. But not just --
"I hit this piece of wood with a hammer, and now there is a dent in it, so I am creative".
That doesn't count; that creativity has to be directed at appealing.
"I made this dent to show how imperfection stands out amidst sameness."
It's intent, then; my creativity was directed at, not creating something appealing as in pleasant and tasteful, but something that appeals to us, calls on our senses and emotions and whatnot.
Yes, it's not just that a woman takes off her clothes; rather, the way she appeals it off that makes the strip tease a performance art which calls on our whatnots.
[SIZE="1"](the debbil made me do it)[/SIZE]
xob "creating something that pleases yourself, but I can't see the division between art and craft"
"Pleases yourself" removes the audience entirely. And here is where it goes right into navel-gazing. Does it count if there's no audience?
If you play an amazing musical piece in the practice room, with nobody but yourself, was that art? If you paint an amazing painting, but show it to nobody, is that art?
In the theatre, the audience is the whole thing. It's played at them, it's lit for them, etc. and each performance is different and usually they are a big reason why.
So you're saying in order to be art it has to be done for someone else? I'm not buying that line for a moment.
No but it does give the art new meaning. Much more meaning in some cases.
It's like, masturbation counts but it's a whole different thing with other people!
New meaning? Sounds like approval, pats on the head, needing reassurance from others, or is it recognition from others. How about if you get paid for it, that's certainly affirmation of approval, when it's a job, is it art? If more people like it does that mean it's better art, you're a better artist? No, if I paint a picture and never show it to anyone, vs hanging in a museum, I'll miss out on the hosannas and cash, but it's the same damn painting, the difference is my ego, not the art.
The expression
Art for art's sake comes to mind. Wikipedia has an entry for it that deals mostly with the separation of art from utilitarian function; but, also touches on art for oneself versus for others. A couple of excerpts:
Point;
... and Edgar Allan Poe. For example, Poe argues in his essay "The Poetic Principle" (1850):
We have taken it into our heads that to write a poem simply for the poem's sake [...] and to acknowledge such to have been our design, would be to confess ourselves radically wanting in the true poetic dignity and force: – but the simple fact is that would we but permit ourselves to look into our own souls we should immediately there discover that under the sun there neither exists nor can exist any work more thoroughly dignified, more supremely noble, than this very poem, this poem per se, this poem which is a poem and nothing more, this poem written solely for the poem's sake.
Counterpoint;
George Sand wrote in 1872 that L'art pour l'art was an empty phrase, an idle sentence. She asserted that artists had a "duty to find an adequate expression to convey it to as many souls as possible", ensuring that their works were accessible enough to be appreciated.
It seems to me that the implications of Poe just about brings it into the realm of spirituality while Sand's implications just about brings it into the realm of commercial success; but, both stop short.
The end product from the spark of creativity is art to me regardless of how many get to experience it. Sometimes the impact on the few; or the one, is greater than the impact on the many.
What is art?
I believe one can conclude, with a high degree of probability, that it depends on what your definition of is, is.
"approval, pats on the head, needing reassurance from others, or is it recognition"
Any reaction at all. It might make them run from the room, or vomit, or cry, or be confused, or curious, or angry. To bring about any emotion at all would be the most meaningful goal an artist could shoot for imo.
If you create something meaningful and don't share it with others, that is sad. If people who see/hear/read your art bring their own meaning to it, and find new meaning, that elevates the work.
If a critic says they don't like it, guaranteed their will be a dozen people who will say they like it just to be contrary. If the critic says they like it, guaranteed 1000 people will gush like it's the new sliced bread. What are the critics and indeed the public doing, comparing my work to someone, everyone, else's work, to see how well I stayed within the lines, their lines? See how close I came to what they wanted to see?
NO, the work does not change, regardless of how many emotional attachments people heap on it, or causes it gets attached to. A piece of art might get elevated in importance sociologically, but that doesn't make it better or more important art. The poster of Rosie the Riveter has all kinds of emotional attachments to many causes, but the poster is the same as the day it made.
I've been told (not here) that this isn't a poem.
To me is is.
This Is Just To Say
I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold
(William Carlos Williams)
So if someone else decides that [visual] art is art, I'ma not gonna interrupt.
This is my favorite of this type of poem.
Driving to Town Late to Mail a Letter
It is a cold and snowy night. The main street is deserted.
The only things moving are swirls of snow.
As I lift the mailbox door, I feel its cold iron.
There is a privacy I love in this snowy night.
Driving around, I will waste more time.
—Robert Bly
Those could be Springsteen lyrics.
The screen door slams
Mary's dress waves
Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays
Roy Orbison singing for the lonely
Hey that's me and I want you only
That's actually the tune I heard in my head as I read the poem.
:thumbsup:
I do believe the song has replaced the poem as how we express ourselves in this way. Each word carefully chosen, and Bly and Springsteen create very vivid pictures in our heads with as few words as possible.
Like, we see the porch Mary is dancing on, even though it wasn't mentioned. We can hear that screen door. We can feel that mailbox.
fuckin right
And he was standing
At the corner
Where the road turned dark
A part of shiny wet
Like blood the rain fell
Black down on the street
And kissed his feet she fell
Her head an inch away from heaven
And her face pressed tight
And all around the night sang out
Like cockatoos
NO, the work does not change, regardless of how many emotional attachments people heap on it, or causes it gets attached to. A piece of art might get elevated in importance sociologically, but that doesn't make it better or more important art.
In another sense though --
If a piece of art becomes well-known, and is thought to be important enough to pay attention to, it actually then contributes to all future art.
When someone sits down to write music, or a novel, or paint a landscape, they start with what they know, which is roughly a summary of everything that was well-shared and appreciated in history.
All western music was changed by Bach, Beethoven, and the Beatles. Were there better writers than McCartney/Lennon, yes but they won't have changed all music. And so in 100 years their music is likely to sound seem uninteresting or even strange.
Doesn't even have to be a hit or a critical success to change everything.
The Velvet Underground and Nico sold 30,000 copies, not enough to even be a minor hit or make any lists. Brian Eno later said "everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band."
And when they started those bands what did they play? Did they want to sound like Velvet underground, or make money for nothin' and chicks for free like the Beatles? Would Bach and Beethoven have changed music if they hadn't become the rage with European patrons(money), so they became the cool kids? Should we play what we have been for free grog at the tavern or play what the rich people want to hear hoping for better gigs?
Of course I admit I'm rather soured on the music business, so lets take paintings. Everybody say the Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas. But is it that good, or just better than most from it's era, so became the standard among the patrons(there's that word again), when most of the people in the world never heard of it. In fact most of the people of the world hadn't seen a painting outside of maybe the church, or a cave, at that time. There isn't much from the period to compare it to now.
My point is all these accolades come from critics or promoters who steer the hoi polloi. Now back when people bought record albums you had thousands of releases every year to choose from. But damn few people heard any of them if the didn't get airplay, which was dictated by critics and coughpayolacough promoters. The old, I don't know much about art..., is certainly true, but unfortunately what we're exposed to in order to make that choice, is more orchestrated than we care to admit. Sure, with the internet there's more opportunity to find stuff, but ain't nobody got time for that. :haha:
Everybody say the Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas.
[SIZE="1"]I'll bite...[/SIZE]
The Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas.
[SIZE="1"]Sorry, couldn't help m'self.[/SIZE]:p:
Sure it is, performance art.
THIS. IS. [strike]SP[/strike]ART[strike]A[/strike]!!!!
[ATTACH]55410[/ATTACH]
Found recently while on photosafari:
Barn art:
[ATTACH]55872[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]55873[/ATTACH]
Must be a hippie, because that ain't traditional or Mail Pouch. :cool:
Was reading about St. Hubert, and ran across this, "
The Vision of St. Hubert", by J. Brueghel and P. P. Rubens:
[ATTACH]56077[/ATTACH]
Shouldn't that be vision of the dogs? 3 dogs and Hubie are seeing it, the buck, horse and the rest of the mutts aren't.
Speaking of vision...
Heh...Reminds me of this:
[ATTACH]56116[/ATTACH]
Those are great, not something you'd hang in a doctors waiting room or where people are waiting in line.
This building is across the street from a guy I know. He was watching the guy who did the mural, and could tell from the way he moved he was an older guy. When my buddy saw him sitting on the tailgate of his truck, he went to talk to him.
Get this: This guy is a retired painter/sign man, and he travels around the country in his retirement doing this to ugly buildings. Beautifying ugly buildings he happens across. For material costs. He doesn't make a dime. That fella's a rarity, I'm a-thinking.
[ATTACH]56483[/ATTACH]
My buddy said he got the impression the old guy was pretty eccentric.
My house is ugly.
Did you happen to get his number?
I'd love to have that on my house.
Stump Man [SIZE="1"](my title)[/SIZE]
[ATTACH]57447[/ATTACH]
Inspired by Gravdigr's post #68, I did a search for a mural depicting a railway locomotive painted on the gable end of a row of terraced houses in Swindon, Wiltshire, home of the Great Western Railway.
Unfortunately, the work I had in mind couldn't be found but I think that this is a worthy substitute.
[ATTACH]57466[/ATTACH]
Art? Definitely!
Absolutely. And fairly cool, too.
Art is any expression of smd's feelings... I guess.
some mother ducker?
Shaking my dong?
might just be a contraction for 'somebody's'
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
...the nasty lil bug that gets in your head, eats on your brain, lays eggs, then dies.
...the mummified cat poop you find under the sofa well after you strangled the four-legged bastid and tossed its carcass in a dunpster.
...the sound of a baby chokin' on strained peas while ma watches 'Dancing With The Stars'.
...the smell of a well-used public restroom.
...the dog realizin' the leg it was gonna bite is attached to a body that bites back.
...the thug who gets shot in the face by the easy mark.
...the bored cashier sellin' you defective condoms on a Saturday night.
...the wizard throwing lightinin' bolts out of his ass 'just because'.
...sittin' on your stoop, smokin' and sippin' coffee, watchin' mushrooms grow on the horizon.
...the burly rapist left dead and unsatisfied by the mousy woman from Poughkeepsie.
...the sun beatin' down on your head.
...the client who stiffs you for 500 bucks.
...the tires of the client who stiffed you for 500 bucks (cuz 'if he ain't gonna pay me, he's gonna pay somebody').
[ATTACH]58028[/ATTACH]
It's a Rembrandt isn't it? Well, only up to a point.
ING, the Dutch bank, and Microsoft joined forces to produce 'The Next Rembrandt' by computer analysis of a number of his paintings.
From the
Daily Telegraph:
The team behind the painting insisted it was not an attempt to to mimic, copy or reproduce what Rembrandt painted. Bas Korsten, a creative director who came up with the project idea, said they used "technological advances" including "big data", facial recognition and 3D printing techniques "to predict, on the basis of analysis, what the Great Master might have painted next." The painting was created through a complicated process using software that interpreted Rembrandt’s use of geometry and composition – qualities that marked him out as one of the finest Dutch painters of the 17th century.
A height map was then used to determine how to mimic his brushstrokes, and recreate the texture typical of his paintings. The final painting was then printed, made up of 13 layers of paint-based UV ink.
“We looked at a number of Rembrandt paintings, and we scanned their surface texture, their elemental composition, and what kinds of pigments were used. That’s the kind of information you need if you want to generate a painting by Rembrandt virtually”, said Joris Dik from the team at the Technical University Delft, which also contributed to the project.
Unfortunately, as is often the case with art, not everyone was impressed.
This particularly splenetic piece is from
The Guardian:
What a horrible, tasteless, insensitive and soulless travesty of all that is creative in human nature. What a vile product of our strange time when the best brains dedicate themselves to the stupidest “challenges”, when technology is used for things it should never be used for and everybody feels obliged to applaud the heartless results because we so revere everything digital.
Hey, they’ve replaced the most poetic and searching portrait painter in history with a machine. When are we going to get Shakespeare’s plays and Bach’s St Matthew Passion rebooted by computers? I cannot wait for Love’s Labours Have Been Successfully Functionalised by William Shakesbot.
You cannot, I repeat, cannot, replicate the genius of Rembrandt van Rijn. His art is not a set of algorithms or stylistic tics that can be recreated by a human or mechanical imitator. He can only be faked – and a fake is a dead, dull thing with none of the life of the original. What these silly people have done is to invent a new way to mock art. Bravo to them! But the Dutch art historians and museums who appear to have lent their authority to such a venture are fools.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]IuygOYZ1Ngo[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Looks like if UT and digr had a kid
What a horrible, tasteless, insensitive and soulless travesty of all that is creative in human nature. What a vile product of our strange time when the best brains dedicate themselves to the stupidest “challenges”, when technology is used for things it should never be used for and everybody feels obliged to applaud the heartless results because we so revere everything digital.
I have to agree with this, don't the whiz kids have something better to do?
[Devil's Advocate]This all falls under the larger umbrella of AI, which has technological uses beyond recreation of art styles. When we explore relatively useless things, we often find answers to completely different problems.[/Devil's Advocate.] That being said, yeah, we don't need the art. We need the information about how the computer came up with the art so we can get it to come up with other stuff.
I have to agree with this, don't the whiz kids have something better to do?
It was an interesting, and perhaps ultimately useful, experiment in computing, ING got some publicity and brought art to a wider audience and
J Walter Thompson were awarded a couple of baubles at a prestigious advertising shindig. There doesn't seem to be much of a downside to the whole project.
Incidentally, JWT and ING produced a new take on Rembrandt's 'The Night Watch' when Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum re-opened in 2013 after refurbishment.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]a6W2ZMpsxhg[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
The original...
[ATTACH]58038[/ATTACH]
I doubt the AI was slick enough to use texture the way he did.
http://www.naturalpigments.com/art-supply-education/rembrandt-impasto-technique/
The IT bods made a commendable effort to replicate the technique, so I think they deserve full marks for that.
There are machine planets all over the galaxy which think they have art.
...meat loaf (both lower and upper case).
...the bloody 'thing' the cats left on the stoop, the 'thing' I bare-foot stepped on as I stumbled out of the house at 4 for the day's first smoke.
Is it better to step in 'thing', or to step in 'stuff'?
Which would you rather?
Discuss.
'Thing', to me, implies some organization, some structure. The bloody 'thing' I stepped on, while not recognizable as a particular (kind of) animal, 'was' an animal, had some (remaining) structure, and so, to me, was a 'thing'.
'Stuff', on the other hand, to me, is just 'stuff'...like poop, or blood, or vomit....there's no structure to it, just a lump of, a pool of, a splash of, 'stuff'.
Now, I'm just takin' about organics here, what you might run across in your backyard or in the woods (or, your toilet or tub). 'Thing' and 'stuff' get cast different, for me, when we're talkin' about made or built 'things' or 'stuff'.
...useless explanations of idiosyncratic definitions.
And: I wouldn't wanna step in Ben Grimm, so I'll step in stuff.
Rick: What's Glenn's favorite restaurant?
Carl: Please, Dad, don't...
Rick: Popeye's, Carl! Glenn's favorite restaurant is Popeye's!
Yeah, it should be, but, sure as shit, if I'd used 'Coral' some other numb nuts woulda corrected me, illustratin' 'you just can't win'.
Rick: What's Glenn's favorite restaurant?
Carl: Please, Dad, don't...
Rick: Popeye's, Carl! Glenn's favorite restaurant is Popeye's!
Nuthin wrong with Popeye's iffn ya don't mind a teaspoon of grease in ever bite.
tarheel
Can someone explain Glenn, Carl, Coral reference and humor?
Walking Dead spoilers:
[[COLOR=White]Glenn was a character on Walking Dead who was hit on the head with a baseball bat so his eye popped out.[/COLOR]]
"Coral" is how Rick pronounces "Carl" when agitated.
It became a meme.Just prior to the screen grab used in those meme's, Carl had to kill his own mother.
Which, I think, makes the meme jokes even funnier.
The winner of the Turner Prize is to be announced a little later this evening.
It's worth £25,000 and is awarded to a British artist, under the age of 50, considered to have put on the best exhibition of the last 12 months.
Here's one entry. So to speak.
[ATTACH]58737[/ATTACH]
I think it represents a chopped candidate from the RAF Navigation School.
He couldn't find his own arse with both hands and a map.
Don't ask where the map is. :eek:
Turner Prize winner to be announcedWho's the butt of that joke? :rolleyes:
Here's one entry. So to speak.]
Don't be cheeky.
It definitely grips the eye.
Well, not the eye, but, the area very near the eye. Lower outer crack.
This art, not science, but it's art about science.
Russian scientists tribute to lab mice.
pretty snowflake
sittin' in the corner
fragile, complex
and
white
pretty snowflake
don't listen to the bad man,
awful, nasty
and
right
pretty snowflake
cover up your ear holes,
stay airy, stay blissful
and
light
pretty snowflake
god is gonna save you
from livin', breathin'
and
fright
pretty snowflake
now you are in heaven
nestled, coddled
so
tight
stinky joe
sittin' on a toilet
stinky joe
pushin' out a turd
stinky joe
feelin' kinda happy
cuz he heard that *plop*like he knew would
stinky joe
got it all together
stinky joe
wipes his butt just fine
stinky joe
gonna eat some pizza
loadin' up his gut for very next time
Those should be in the Fine Poetry section. :rolleyes:
I can't figure out if this is anti-racism taken to a professional level, or art hoping to use the campaign to increase the popularity and sales of art, or an artist expressing his support in his familiar medium, or an artist using the movement to make a buck? :confused:
It used to be called propaganda.
don't mind the pits
bill
you keep pickin' them
cherries
This is art:
https://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=32970
This is within the genre of image-recycling art with social commentary, e.g. stencils, collage, with annotations.
Every time I see this thread's title I read as
What is love?
And then I
hear What is art[COLOR="Gray"]art[/COLOR][COLOR="Silver"]art[/COLOR]?, like the opening line to the song.
Yeah, my head works funny sometimes.
What is an artist?
[YOUTUBE]Di1TZLEWT9o[/YOUTUBE]
David Hockney just met another ijit. This particular ijit just paid $90,000,000 for Hockney's Portrait Of An Artist, making it the most expensive auction work by a living artist.
[ATTACH]65591[/ATTACH]
I think two ijits just met.
It's gone to double-ijits.
There is so many ijits with big bucks. :confused:
Double digit ijits!!!![ATTACH]65592[/ATTACH]
People like music because they like *patterns*. If the patterns are too obvious, we say the music is lame. When the patterns are typical enough to recognize, but unusual enough to be surprising, we like it. When the patterns are too unusual and unrecognizable, we say the music is confusing.
We then apply meaning and story to those patterns, so we can recognize them and codify them. This is actually all because recognizing patterns is important to all animals' survival in nature. One beat is a predator's footsteps, coming for us. Another beat is our family's footsteps, or even our mother's heartbeat in the womb. The sounds of both danger and of safety are a deep part of our evolution and our understanding of the world.
People like songs with lyrics, because they present patterns that are already given meaning. Before the development of writing and printing, early humans advanced by creating stories, poetry, and songs they could remember across generations. By using sounds that were similar in pattern (i.e., rhymes) they could more easily remember them. This gave stories, poetry, and music much greater importance as knowledge and wisdom could now spread across generations more easily.
This is why art is a part of human evolution, why it is deeply spiritual, and why nobody much lives without some form of it in their lives.
The re-admission of middles and highs into my brain has reawakened my interest in different musical styles, it's been a blessing. I really think that losing touch with music and sound in general can have a profound impact on the brain and not in a good way.
From the department of familiar sounds: Paul Simon, who still has a beautiful voice, played two of his classics on SNL but with ymusic backing him. Honestly it looked pretentious and out of touch much like SNL generally, but maybe I'm a stick in the mud.
... our mother's heartbeat in the womb.
Blues. The standard form of the blues shuffle.
You'd think that people would get bored with a form of music that generally does the same basic patterns over and over. But...
ba Bump
ba Bump
ba Bump
ba Bump
It feels so good.
Coming Home by Leon Bridges is cozy as the womb.
So you take a mother's heartbeat, the most reassuring thing -- and maybe you attach onto that a melody and/or lyric of deep sadness. Now it gets complicated, what is our emotional reaction now?
Maybe each part of the music pulls at us from different directions and so maybe that is part of the spiritual reaction. Maybe we find it as complicated as our own emotions? So when it's complicated, like the above, we find different things in it?
~ and then they use it in ads (and films) and it throws all that meaning away for something spiritually cheap? ~
Everything in our lives-- even sadness, pain and misery rides on the rhythm of a heartbeat.
I often think about the idea that America is a cultural wasteland with nothing to contribute to the fraternity of distinguished nations with rich, historical traditions. But, Blues. --Jazz! America is a cultural powerhouse! Sure, it's all a "melting pot" of African rhythms, but if there's any bragging rights, it all happened here in the USA.
I've been playing shuffles a lot for the last three years, and nothing feels better. I lose myself in it, and experience peace and oneness. Once I get into shuffle mode, look out because everything is gonna be a shuffle.
The blues was born here 'cause we beat our slaves gooder.
The mother's heartbeat is the emotional armor that allows us to listen to the tales of pain and suffering in the blues.
I could tell something was there, but I can't tell what it is:
[ATTACH]66348[/ATTACH]
First one looks like maybe a Beatles or Queen poster, the other just looks like the back of a playing card.
IDK
You're not supposed to know, because if you did you wouldn't buy the trash.
[ATTACH]68906[/ATTACH]
A hammer head, made from hammer heads.
Koo-ky.
Dumb idea, brilliantly executed.
No, I don't.
I now know what the pattern is called...
This is knot art.
[ATTACH]69074[/ATTACH]
Link, w/video
I was amazed the way he glued the sections together using scotch tape. He'd obviously beveled the edges but never mentioned that.
What is art?
Something that does nothing but look pretty, and is somehow still worth money.
Like those Kardashian people.
I was amazed the way he glued the sections together using scotch tape. He'd obviously beveled the edges but never mentioned that.
Gorgeous. The edges were beveled from the start; that's why at 2:00 he used two chopsaws.
I thought it was because the angle had to be dead nuts and he had to do so many, but I sure you're right that's where he did it.
Science article: The World in Song - summarizes new findings about music.
Scientists find that, first, music is universal. It's used in every known human culture. Not only that, but, it's used in similar ways in different cultures. There are lullabies, love songs, healing songs, dance songs. Not only that, but all these types of songs have similar musical features. Some of which you'd figure (dance songs are faster) some you wouldn't (ritual healing songs are "less melodically variable" than dance songs).
Musics seem wildly different across cultures - across some remote cultures, you can barely identify it as music. But the approach they used (Bayesian analysis) was able to find relationships we can't easily find. So, science confirms it, music is deeply built into humanity - may even be something we evolved.
(now I'll quote from the article just for fun)
Additionally, the authors found that the principle of tonality (building melodies from a small set of related notes, built upon a base tonic or "home" pitch) exists in all cultures. This suggests the existence of a universal cognitive bias to generate melodies based on categorical building blocks.
Not gonna lie, I understood the first sentence (and I'm proud) but not the second one.
Does it mean all toes tap?
Not gonna lie, I understood the first sentence (and I'm proud) but not the second one.
This suggests the existence of a universal cognitive bias to generate melodies based on categorical building blocks.
It just means humans instinctively prefer simple patterns. They went out of their way to use obtuse terminology because it makes them sound smarter. It's a stunningly common feature of (bad writing in) scientific papers--state the actual evidence, and then hit the reader over the head with what the evidence means in more general terms, except drag it out so it sounds like a brilliant conclusion rather than a derivative rehashing.
"Ketchup is available at 95% of American restaurants. [strike]This suggests people like ketchup.[/strike] The widespread presence of tomato-based reductions demonstrates the successful incorporation of colonial agronomy techniques with modern ludic promotional functionality."