Stuff that can’t be defined intimidates me. I don’t believe in stuff that can’t be defined.
The obvious idea here is deities: gods in certain religions (Buddhism, Judaism, Islam to a degree) cannot define God – it’s said throughout the teachings of these religions that even an attempt to describe God makes God lose all meaning. While lack of proof is also a factor that turns me off from any sort of belief in a God, lack of definition is something that I often don’t like to deal with.
I refuse to believe in something without proof. It’s why I’m atheist, not agnostic – according to these religions, there is no way to ever define God, to describe God, to put any constraints within which God must fall – so I completely discard this notion altogether and look instead to focus on matters that can actually one day be proven. There’s no belief or disbelief here at all – it’s simply a matter of given facts.
So basically, I have no faith. No hope, no fear. I don’t really have the need, nor do I want to spend any of my time, thinking about what I’d like to have happen. Don’t worry, be happy, whatever will be will be, etc.
But what I really wanted to talk about was stuff like the arts – art itself can be defined as anything that does not directly affect two of life’s goals: survival and reproduction (Outlook stolen from Scott McCloud’s works). But then when we get into subcategories, like music, visual art, and poetry, that’s where my insecurity about where lines should be drawn sets in. I read, I think in some high school English class’s poetry segment’s reader, that poetry “is.” That’s the definition. Poetry IS. So basically, anything you write down on a piece of paper can be poetry. Visual art is anything you can see. Music is anything you can hear.
My thoughts on this matter are regressive – removing the boundaries on what poetry, visual art, or music can be is very unappealing and almost offensive to me. I’ve actually (intentionally) angered people with my thoughts on this with my Porter Core Final Project from a year ago. Looking back it is a weakness on my part, but something I want to have – the need to have social and historical standards determine what really is poetry, visual art, or music, and what is just… I dunno, wasted time. “Crap” art.
There can always be half-assed explanations behind the sort of art that I find crappy, though. And to me, what’s most interesting of all is how viewers reply to these explanations. Really esoteric critics could even be swayed by such a nonchalant explanation such as “I dunno, I wrote the word ‘and’ on a piece of paper and I thought it was pretty deep.” Anyone ever seen that episode of Doug where Porkchop steps in paint and walks all over Doug’s canvas and then Doug’s hailed as a prodigy (and can’t even finish his works that follow because people misinterpret them before they’re even done)? That’s the sort of people I’m talking about. Even though people can bullshit a description about this sort of stuff, IN ALL SERIOUSNESS THE WORK CANNOT BE EXPLAINED. And I fucking hate that!
But that’s really how most progress is. Someone’s always trying to one-up someone else. Someone realizes, hey, poems don’t have to rhyme. Someone else says, hey, poems don’t have to be comprised of verses. Someone else says, nor do they real words! Nor do they even have to have any words at all! And on and on! And I reiterate – my belief that this sort of stuff is wrong is REGRESSIVE. I simply don’t appreciate nu-nouveau-new-neo-futurist-modernism, because it’s ahead of my time. And it’ll only “progress” further. If you don’t feel it now, chances are you will when you’re older, when people intentionally listen to things that cause severe, irreversible damage to their eardrums on a daily basis, or people claim an already-made structure or lot of land and label it visual art, or take some old school paper and label it a poem and be done with it…
…oh wait, people are ALREADY DOING THIS… man, I’m getting too old.
Iunno. Agnosticism sounds better. You can’t really have proof that God doesn’t exist, so if you don’t believe stuff that’s unproven…. like, prove that. =o =o =o
So, did you read the third paragraph?
Yeah
Props for quoting Doug.
I remember that episode.
reified college cruff that falls away in your first foxhole.
Excuse me?
He’s saying God should exist because you have to have something to pray to when you’re staring down the muzzle of an AK.
Don’t worry, the world needs academics just as much as it needs soldiers, but that doesn’t mean they have to understand each other or agree. Some soldiers need God, most academics don’t.
Ah, so basically I have to join the army before I really believe there’s a God. I’m glad I’m being taken seriously.
I think he was just trying to rile you. After all, you dissed his God. The sheer boldness of it!
Oh man, I’m taking leaps and bounds.
he did diss my God, didn’t he? i should clearly murder him brutally in my Lord’s name. he’d better watch himself. i could be just around the corner with a butcher’s knife.
AK is more likely. The Sword of Conversion.
1. Art is the viewer’s perception, not the artist’s intention. Thus meaning is transient, not self-evident, and crap is brilliant only so long as people feel it so, and afterwards it becomes only a piece of history; this is a major, probably the biggest principle behind postmodern work. If you took art 80c like I did last quarter you would probably feel a lot more reassured, as artists basically gave up on the idea of art as self-expression by the 60s-70s. While that doesn’t mean they’ve run out of bullshit, it means you are entirely free to call them on it.
2. Am I undefined? Intimidating?
As an actual answer to your second point, I don’t really know about you being undefined/intimidating, whatever, but I don’t like people who act as total enigmas.
Come to think of it, the entire thing about withholding details (or not having them in the first place) really pisses me off. I don’t like when people act mysterious to boost their ego, and for some weird reason, actually appeal to people.
That was beautiful. I wholeheartedly applaud you. That, was art.
I love the flash animation (I agree) and what the audience hears… wow, now that just gave it an A+.
I know you didn’t ask for my two cents but you did let me comment, so…
Art is subject to interpretation, but just because someone can interpret it as good doesn’t mean it is. True real art is defined by an overcoming of previous thinking culiminated through a grand display of hard work, clearly illustrating a well thought out and clear point. Ambiguity isn’t art, it’s life. Life isn’t art. They imitate eachother, but are not equal. Modern art can sometimes be so bad it’s good, but it’s not new anymore, there’s no creativity or realisation anymore, you’re right, it’s a cheap grade. That’s why art is rare, because there’s so much imitation CRAP.
As for gods, well, the lack of definition for gods is.. understandable – Jeffrey, what is outside of the universe? would be a better question to ask if you were seeking to define gods. It’s simply impossible, but in theory, there should be an outside (then again, which theory?!?!?!). There is no evidence saying there is or isn’t an outside to the universe, so it’s up to guessing. Same with gods, despite how much co-incidental evidence there is, it’s just that, co-incidental.
Reply
MYSTERY!