• Register
  • Login
  •          

    PoliticalCompass Test

    Image
      Abandon all sanity, ye who enter here!

    Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Redstar » 28 Aug 2009 14:49

    Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

    :?

    I said it wasn't.

    I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
    User avatar
    Redstar
     
    Posts: 1184
    Joined: 25 Feb 2009 04:13

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Freakzilla » 28 Aug 2009 14:58

    Redstar wrote:
    Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

    :?

    I said it wasn't.


    I'm glad you're here to clarify these things for me. :)
    Image
    Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
    ~Pink Snowman
    User avatar
    Freakzilla
    Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
     
    Posts: 18055
    Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby A Thing of Eternity » 28 Aug 2009 14:59

    Redstar wrote:
    Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

    :?

    I said it wasn't.

    I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.


    Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.
    Image
    User avatar
    A Thing of Eternity
     
    Posts: 6090
    Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
    Location: Calgary Alberta

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby A Thing of Eternity » 28 Aug 2009 15:01

    Drunken Idaho wrote:This question had me struggling for an appropriate answer: "No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it." It's tough because I'm against being overly proud of your country just for the sake of pride and meaningless nationalism, however I'm all for it if you truly believe your country ought to be a guiding light to other nations. I ended up answering "Disagree" because of my own experiences. I love my country for it's overall liberal and democratic values, and I (for the most part) agree with the way it treats its citizens as well as other countries.


    I had that question the last time I did one of these - what a stupid question. The real answer is YES it IS foolish to be proud of your country just because you were born there, BUT, it's fine to be proud of it for other reasons.

    Based on the questions they ask I think a very right-wing person put the test together, because the questions make no bloody sense from a left wing or center perspective, only to a rightwinger would most of those questions be answerable.
    Image
    User avatar
    A Thing of Eternity
     
    Posts: 6090
    Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
    Location: Calgary Alberta

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Freakzilla » 28 Aug 2009 15:08

    A Thing of Eternity wrote:
    Redstar wrote:
    Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

    :?

    I said it wasn't.

    I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.


    Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.


    It depends on HOW abstract it is. It has to be recognizable for me. You can't paint a picture of a god damned emotion.

    :roll:
    Image
    Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
    ~Pink Snowman
    User avatar
    Freakzilla
    Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
     
    Posts: 18055
    Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Drunken Idaho » 28 Aug 2009 15:10

    Redstar wrote:
    Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

    :?

    I said it wasn't.

    I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.


    Then the question is really about what one considers to be art. For instance, there are many who feel that art doesn't have to have a message, but instead can leave a distinct and purposeful impression. That impression can be emotional or physical or whatever. It doesn't have to be saying anything about anything else.

    A good example would be my taste in music... Some people think that lyrics are paramount, whereas I think the real poetry lies in the ability to evoke a specific emotion (or series of emotions) using nothing but tonal manipulation.
    "The Idahos were never ordinary people."
    -Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza
    User avatar
    Drunken Idaho
     
    Posts: 1197
    Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
    Location: Ontario, Canada

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby A Thing of Eternity » 28 Aug 2009 15:14

    Freakzilla wrote:
    A Thing of Eternity wrote:
    Redstar wrote:
    Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

    :?

    I said it wasn't.

    I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.


    Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.


    It depends on HOW abstract it is. It has to be recognizable for me. You can't paint a picture of a god damned emotion.

    :roll:


    Sure you can, I think the result will suck, but it can be done. Lots of totally abstract art can convey meaning - we're just talking about visual arts, but music without lyrics is abstract (if you think about it), and convey lots of meaning, same goes for images IMO.
    Image
    User avatar
    A Thing of Eternity
     
    Posts: 6090
    Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
    Location: Calgary Alberta

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Drunken Idaho » 28 Aug 2009 15:19

    Hmm, yeah that question just said "abstract art" so I factored it all in, visual arts included.

    I enjoy a lot of Ambience and Tom Waits, so yeah...

    Oh, and films by Gilliam, Gondry, Jonze, Lynch (except Dune)...
    "The Idahos were never ordinary people."
    -Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza
    User avatar
    Drunken Idaho
     
    Posts: 1197
    Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
    Location: Ontario, Canada

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Redstar » 28 Aug 2009 15:22

    Drunken Idaho wrote:
    Redstar wrote:I said it wasn't.

    I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.

    Then the question is really about what one considers to be art. For instance, there are many who feel that art doesn't have to have a message, but instead can leave a distinct and purposeful impression. That impression can be emotional or physical or whatever. It doesn't have to be saying anything about anything else.

    A good example would be my taste in music... Some people think that lyrics are paramount, whereas I think the real poetry lies in the ability to evoke a specific emotion (or series of emotions) using nothing but tonal manipulation.

    The specific question was "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."

    So it wasn't generalizing all abstract art, just abstract art that doesn't represent anything.

    And DI, that's what I said. A "distinct and purposeful impression" which is emotional, physical, or "whatever", is a message. I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
    User avatar
    Redstar
     
    Posts: 1184
    Joined: 25 Feb 2009 04:13

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby lotek » 28 Aug 2009 15:58

    what do art and politics have in common?

    they both pretend to be something they're not :)
    Spice is the worm's gonads.
    User avatar
    lotek
     
    Posts: 5734
    Joined: 28 Jul 2009 08:33

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Redstar » 28 Aug 2009 16:13

    lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

    they both pretend to be something they're not :)

    Oh my. A joke about art and politics? Aren't we cynical.
    User avatar
    Redstar
     
    Posts: 1184
    Joined: 25 Feb 2009 04:13

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby lotek » 28 Aug 2009 16:17

    Redstar wrote:
    lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

    they both pretend to be something they're not :)

    Oh my. A joke about art and politics? Aren't we cynical.


    And me just trying to be funny ;)
    Spice is the worm's gonads.
    User avatar
    lotek
     
    Posts: 5734
    Joined: 28 Jul 2009 08:33

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby A Thing of Eternity » 28 Aug 2009 16:31

    lotek wrote:
    Redstar wrote:
    lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

    they both pretend to be something they're not :)

    Oh my. A joke about art and politics? Aren't we cynical.


    And me just trying to be funny ;)


    Wait wait, I can make this more cynical AND more accurate in one fell swoop:


    what do art, politics, and religion have in common?



    they all pretend to be something they're not.


    :D
    Image
    User avatar
    A Thing of Eternity
     
    Posts: 6090
    Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
    Location: Calgary Alberta

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby lotek » 28 Aug 2009 16:47

    nice!
    Spice is the worm's gonads.
    User avatar
    lotek
     
    Posts: 5734
    Joined: 28 Jul 2009 08:33

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Spicelon » 28 Aug 2009 16:59

    Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.


    Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you. ;)

    The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.
    Poop is funny.
    MetaCugel8262 is not.
    User avatar
    Spicelon
     
    Posts: 702
    Joined: 30 Mar 2008 23:31

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby A Thing of Eternity » 28 Aug 2009 17:02

    Spicelon wrote:
    Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.


    Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you. ;)

    The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.


    Indeed. My personal opinion is that the only person who can really know whether or not something is art is the person who created it - and even they might be wrong.

    Saying that something is or isn't art is rediculous, we'd have to define art long before we could get started on excluding things from the catagory.
    Image
    User avatar
    A Thing of Eternity
     
    Posts: 6090
    Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
    Location: Calgary Alberta

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Redstar » 28 Aug 2009 17:33

    Spicelon wrote:
    Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.


    Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you. ;)

    The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

    Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.

    You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
    User avatar
    Redstar
     
    Posts: 1184
    Joined: 25 Feb 2009 04:13

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby A Thing of Eternity » 28 Aug 2009 17:36

    Redstar wrote:
    Spicelon wrote:
    Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.


    Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you. ;)

    The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

    Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.

    You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
    Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.
    Image
    User avatar
    A Thing of Eternity
     
    Posts: 6090
    Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
    Location: Calgary Alberta

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Redstar » 28 Aug 2009 17:40

    A Thing of Eternity wrote:
    Redstar wrote:
    Spicelon wrote:
    Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.


    Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you. ;)

    The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

    Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.

    You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
    Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.

    I agree, which is why my argument otherwise can't stand because there's no way to prove it... But the question specifically stated that that art has no meaning, so we know.
    User avatar
    Redstar
     
    Posts: 1184
    Joined: 25 Feb 2009 04:13

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby A Thing of Eternity » 28 Aug 2009 17:44

    Redstar wrote:
    A Thing of Eternity wrote:
    Redstar wrote:
    Spicelon wrote:
    Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.


    Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you. ;)

    The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

    Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.

    You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
    Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.

    I agree, which is why my argument otherwise can't stand because there's no way to prove it... But the question specifically stated that that art has no meaning, so we know.


    Fair nuff. I like your napkin example, my artist roommate was telling me a story about a guy who did just that with a urinal.
    Image
    User avatar
    A Thing of Eternity
     
    Posts: 6090
    Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
    Location: Calgary Alberta

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby SadisticCynic » 28 Aug 2009 18:26

    Apparently one time a urinal was voted the best piece of art. Is that what you're referring to?
    Ah English, the language where pretty much any word can have any meaning! - A Thing of Eternity
    User avatar
    SadisticCynic
     
    Posts: 1999
    Joined: 07 Apr 2009 09:28
    Location: In Time or in Space?

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Freakzilla » 28 Aug 2009 19:19

    A Thing of Eternity wrote:
    lotek wrote:
    Redstar wrote:
    lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

    they both pretend to be something they're not :)

    Oh my. A joke about art and politics? Aren't we cynical.


    And me just trying to be funny ;)


    Wait wait, I can make this more cynical AND more accurate in one fell swoop:


    what do art, politics, and religion have in common?



    they all pretend to be something they're not.


    :D


    Not realism.
    Image
    Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
    ~Pink Snowman
    User avatar
    Freakzilla
    Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
     
    Posts: 18055
    Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby DuneFishUK » 30 Aug 2009 12:15

    SadisticCynic wrote:Apparently one time a urinal was voted the best piece of art. Is that what you're referring to?

    Don't knock Marcel Duchamp - Fountain was clever (at the time) :)

    The worst abstract art is just as meaningful as some of the old-master's portraits. It just lacks the skill/craftsmanship elements - which makes it less interesting to look at.. but it's still art, just not very good art.
    User avatar
    DuneFishUK
     
    Posts: 1987
    Joined: 25 May 2008 14:14
    Location: Cool Britannia

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby Drunken Idaho » 30 Aug 2009 19:11

    LOL@Battlestar Helvetica

    :lol:
    "The Idahos were never ordinary people."
    -Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza
    User avatar
    Drunken Idaho
     
    Posts: 1197
    Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
    Location: Ontario, Canada

    Re: PoliticalCompass Test

    Postby GamePlayer » 31 Aug 2009 15:56

    lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

    they both pretend to be something they're not :)


    I really like that one. I'm going to have to remember that joke :)
    "They can chew you up, but they gotta spit you out."
    User avatar
    GamePlayer
    70mm God
     
    Posts: 2993
    Joined: 09 Feb 2008 11:26
    Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    PreviousNext

    Return to ˱

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

    cron