[Vertigo-1]

Quote:

I'd rather have bad experiences than no experience at all.

Go ahead and crank your HD-600s to over 90db, and listen to it for 24 hours straight. Then compare what you've gained with previous experience. Everybody here should experience this bad experience, just to gain the experience.

Or how about going out and lying in the middle of a highway after a couple of shots of vodka? Gotta check that out at least once in a lifetime.

IMO, I don't think it's worth experiencing something if you aren't going to learn or gain something positive from it. I'd rather take the time used in experiencing something bad to go and experience something good. It's one thing if the bad experience means you learn something useful (i.e. trying alcohol and discovering you really just don't like it's taste or something), but if you say everybody should go and have bad experiences in general, some can be quite harmful. Others downright fatal. Depends on how you define "bad" experience, and how bad.

 

[Audio-Me]

There's bad experiences, then there are stupid experiences like the ones you've mentioned...

 

[Mr.PD]

I wouldn't trade all of my "BAD" experiences for one of your good ones. I either learned not to do that again, or to be more carefull doing that again. I may not be glad I did all of it, but I'm not sorry for any of it.

 

[cajunchrist]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio&Me There's bad experiences, then there are stupid experiences like the ones you've mentioned...

Yeah, Vert, I think you're missing the point. There's putting yourself in a bad situation when you are fully aware of the consequences (which is stupid) and putting yourself in new situations where you are not sure what the outcome will be. Maybe they'll be bad, but maybe they'll be good.

You'll never know if you don't go.

Daddy?
Yes, son?
What does regret mean?
Well son, the funny thing about regret is, it's better to regret something you HAVE done, then to regret something you HAVEN'T done. Oh and by the way, if you see your mom this weekend, make sure and tell her...
[size=small]SATAN!
SATAN!
SATAN!
SATAN![/size]

 

[ponzio]

EE + JD = Patent Attorney

 

[Audio Redneck]

Title: Information Technology Manager

Description: fancy name for Computer Geek. Been doing it for a living for 12 years now. Currently work for a group of dialysis clinics run by the hardest working bunch of doctors I've ever met or heard of. I keep the offices and the clinics talking to each other.

Before (and occasionally during) this, I have been any and all of the following:

Salesman (YUCK),
Janitor,
Warehouse packer (shipping),
Mfg boxes,
machinist (camshafts for diesel engines),
Water Dept. (sewer worker - almost as bad as saleman

),
Valet Parking attendant,
Photographers assitant,
Tour guide,
Landscaper,
Farm hand/bob-ware fencer (sometimes called "barbed wire")
Office gofer

 

[rickcr42]

my first actual "paying" job was working the "fly" at a newspaper,anyone in the business knows what that entails,a real bitch for a 90 pound 15 year old with a drinking problem

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio&Me Anyone who tells me Britney Spears is an artist needs a reality check.

Then I guess I need a reality check, because I agree with the sentiment that she's a recording artist. You can argue with me all you want whether or not she's a good one -- that's our opinions -- but to call someone who you think is a bad artist "not an artist" shows more about your inability to define something than anything about Britney Spears.

And I'm not saying this to defend Britney Spears, I just hate it when someone criticizes a certain work of art -- which is obviously not targeted at them -- by saying that it is "not art". Those are two entirely different arguments -- what is art vs. what is not, and what is good art vs. what is bad art.

It may seem like I'm just being pedantical, but the two are fundamentally different to me, and need to be stated clearly, otherwise you lose credibility as a debater.

 

[zowie]

Dusty,

If Britany (or whatever other performer) were to come out and say she has no interest in attempting to create good music but only uses it as tool to make money, would that check your reality?

Purely academic question, not targetted at Britany.

 

[delenda est Sony]

nice thread here! good to learn about you all, and there were some great side discussions as well...

I'm a lawyer, practicing in insurance defense. Can't decide if that's business or other, so I'll go with business.

Nice idea!

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by zowie Dusty, If Britany (or whatever other performer) were to come out and say she has no interest in attempting to create good music but only uses it as tool to make money, would that check your reality? Purely academic question, not targetted at Britany.

Mmm...good question. I'm not sure how to answer. I don't think the artist/non-artist is a black-or-white issue, I think it's scales of grey. She might have very little interest in the art side of it, and a great deal of interest in the commercial side of it, but...if that were so, why doesn't this hypothetical person just choose a different profession? The art world is a notoriously hard world in which to try to make a living. Now, this case is obviously different, since they are already making great money being a celebrity, so...I'm not sure how I would answer...but I really don't see something like that happening.

Take, for example, BS, herself. She was "caught" criticizing her audience (she didn't know her mic was on) -- I forget what she said exactly (I'm not a huge fan, only follow tangentially), but it was something like "what the hell are they doing, f--king moshing?" Is this the act of someone who doesn't care the slightest about her art?

No artist lives in a vacuum. They all care -- to various degrees, admittedly -- about their target audience. This can be motivated by their artistic side, or by their commercial sense, and, unfortunately, I see no way to extricate the two. Personally, I don't care about their motivations, which is what this is about, I only care about the end result. If the end result is art -- I don't care how bad, nor how "not your cup of tea" it is, if someone can like it as art, I will use that very loose definition as art -- then the person creating it is an artist. MHF.

There, I think I sufficiently qualified my statement.

I think.

I did make statement, didn't I? It's in there somewhere...

It's late, I'm going to bed, ask me questions, I totally dig these kind of philosophical "what-if" situations.

 

[stuartr]

I agree with Dusty about removing the judgementalism from the definition of art. Much of the progressive art that is worshiped these days was either ignored or disdained during the era of its creation. I think cajunchrist also had a good point (it may not have been in this thread, I forget) about this board striving to define things too specifically. In my opinion definitions are only useful as general guides. Look at poetry or even good prose -- often the exact meaning of a word is not as important as the feeling it evokes. This feeling can come merely from the shape of the word, the way it rolls of the tongue, or connotations based on its structure (resemblence to another word, even if it is completely unrelated and so forth). Of course, if you get too carried away, no one will have any idea what you are talking about, and you lose the beauty of the effect. I think TS Eliot said that using a thesaurus is the first step in killing your writing -- you have to have your own understanding of what things mean to give your ideas any relevance. Rules are the same way. Obeying them is often important, but there are invariably cases where they need to be broken. So definitions should not be overly cherished.
I realize that was not entirely on topic, but whatever. Maybe in your interpretation of my words it is.
Stu

 

[setmenu]

These days when art is discussed it is usualy more about concept rather than execution.
In times past much of what we now call 'art' was considered a craft.
Many things are called works of art ,often a description of top quality[as in relation to best of craft].
So you get 'work of art' and 'piece of art'.
Art as a badge of quality rather than as a description of a unique
concept idea etc.
You do also get the terms commercial art and fine art.

With so many tools available these days for a person to express their ideas 'art' is reaching more and more people.
Infact the internet is now the biggest fine art gallery in world as
peoples ideas and expressions can be accessed for free at the
press of a button.
No need to constrain your ideas for commercial appeal as there is
generaly no need to sell an idea to spread it to a wider audience.[unless you have been doomed to express yourself with sculpture that is]

So ... judging the likes of Britney in terms of art you have to compare like with like.

Hell with this, Stuart puts it more eloquently.
The written word isn't my thing anyway[wish it was,still practise makes perfect].

Setmenu

 

[Audio-Me]

So singing to someone elses songs making huge profits is art?

 

[setmenu]

audio
what about Jazz standards?
Classical compositions?

Interpretation is considered an artistic endeavour here.
Charlie Parker
Sir george Solti
would these people consider themselves artists?

Setmenu