On 2006-08-18, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Friday 18 August 2006 15:27 \__
>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:pcrfr3-rnn.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 2006-08-17, Oliver Wong <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not so much the author (I've never heard of him/her before), but
>>>> the stance that I'm critical of. To me, it's remeniscent of the elitist
>>>> attitude towards criticizing fine art ("If you don't like this painting,
>>>
>>> Except the state of fine art is rather static. The underlying
>>> principles are quite static. You could apply an art appreciation class
>>> you took 50 years ago to the whys and wherefores of a particular bit of
>>> art.
>>
>> If you believe one must take classes before one is allowed to say
>> whether or not they like a certain painting, then you've missed the entire
>> point of my post.
>>
>> Some person, let's call them Joe, looks at a painting. He says he
>> doesn't like the painting. Some might say he doesn't have the *right* to
>> dislike the painting, having not taken any fine art appreciation classes. I
>> believe that Joe is entitled to his opinion, and if he says he doesn't like
>> the painting, I believe him. I'm not going to get into an argument of the
>> form "Yes, you *do* like the painting, you just don't realize it yet,
>> because you aren't aware of this or that, etc." or "If you don't like this
>> painting, you're an idiot."
>
>
> I strongly agreed with JEDIDIAH and, with hesitance, I would argue that you
> missed the point s/he had made or dug too deep to intercept its value.
> Putting it simply, a painting, let us call it "a portray of Joe" will remain
More importantly, the artistic ideas behind "a portrait of Joe"
are not likely to change in 50 years. Even some of the stranger ideas in
art are bound to be 20 or 30 years old. Even them, some of the really
basic framework ideas are still going to be centuries old.
Language barrier aside, you and Da Vinci could have a very
meaningful discussion about "a portraitt of Joe". Leo could even give
you a good (and likely still valid from a modern perspective) notion
of why it is or isn't a good painting. Leo could also probably give
you a good understanding of why your gut reaction to it is as it is.
> the same 50 years down the line. It will still be called "a portray of Joe"
> and be identical. Debian, on the other hand, changes all the time. It
> evolves. Its present state is dependent on time, but the name is immutable.
[deletia]
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
|
|
