January 7th, 2004
|12:31 am - Deviant Art?|
Pre-note: Lots of random babbling.
So a friend of mine decides to yammer at me. A rough transcription follows...
A: "I'm getting depressed looking through other people's DA pages"
A: "Deviant Art."
Me: "Isn't that redundant?"
Me: "At least repetitive."
(some stuff that I've forgotten)
Me: "So what distinguishes Deviant Art from Art? What is it?"
A: "Uhhhh....Everything creative"
Me: "That sounds a lot like art to me."
A: "That's a very broad description."
Me: "What you just said was a very broad description."
Me: "Look: If it's trying to do the dada thing, just say so. Trying to define itas
something that cannot be defined makes the whole thing sound elitist and
Me: "By Deviant Art, you mean stuff at deviantart.com."
A: "Yes...That's the place."
I googled for it in the conversation. It's how I knew.
Some cool stuff. Typical tiny internet commune. Some who are misled. Some who are uninformed. Some who are loudmouths. Some who are reasonable. Here's a good sampling of it:
Yes, Bill Gates does donate to charity. This does not whitewash him. Especially when you compare him to much more famous capitalists who donated much more of their yearly gross than he does.
Old folks like Getty, Rockwell, and so on? Some as high as 20%. The average was around 10%. People accepted 5% to be a rule of thumb.
Bill Gates? 3%.
I don't think he's the devil. I do think that he's someone who has by and large hindered the progress of computers (despite jokes about their inability to create bloat).
I also don't mean for this post to be a discussion of Bill Gates.
If I were going to end this simply I would say:
"Is that snippet somewhat pathetic or is it just me?"
Since I'm not going to, I'll continue.
-----SOAPBOX----Random ranting----I can probably be talked out of most of this---
Art shouldn't be cool because you dream up a new name or a new school of thought or a new clique for it. Art should be cool because it is pleasing. Drawing yourself into a community to pretend that you're different from everyone else, yet also stating that you're open minded and not bound by rules or whatever is just contradictory and silly.
I despise cliques. I despise people who claim open mindedness and contradict that by being members of such cliques. I despise people who find it difficult to identify themselves as anything other than themselves. The song "Bitch" seemed honest because (virtually) every line began with "I'm a..." It's actually dishonest because none of those titles were really descriptions. Life is not about what classes you have joined.
More accurately, it's not about joining classes so that you can define other people as just that. Other People.
My sister had a boyfriend who was an atheist because he felt it was little more than another way to classify people and we really don't need anything more to divide ourselves.
I've heard that the greeks had the concept of a private and public religion. This certainly followed with Roman persecution of Christianity. If everyone's religion were private, everything would be fine and dandy.
In other news, I was somewhat introspective based on my ability to be an effective pirate in Puzzle Pirates the other night. We lost a couple of battles that I thought could have been won.
---the above disclaimer---
Almost never is anyone the best at what they do. People can be good. They can occasionally even be quantifiably good within certain skill levels.
Comparing yourself to other people is a tricky task. While it's easy for Xians to say that they try to make themselves in the image of Jesus, they're really picking and choosing qualities that they want to develop in themselves. That doesn't actually mean that they want to be like Jesus.
Last year at BayCon, I discovered boffer fighting. I also discovered that I'm reasonably good with a spear. I met a guy who kicked my arse several times who also used a spear. He was damn good, I might add.
The last night at BayCon, we dueled a couple of times for fun. I won every time.
I suspect he was holding back, but I realized something. The way to acquire that quality was not to be like him. The way to acquire that quality was to work at it. Being like someone is just a way of fooling yourself into inadequacy and pseudo-improvement.
I was chatting with Athena for a bit today and she invoked the name of Kilgore Trout. I was able to immediately follow that thread to Vonnegut. We left for dinner and came back. Then I remembered: Kilgore Trout was a reporter and the main character of Breakfast of Champions.
That made me happy.
So is his claimed origin of the term "beaver" accurate?
This should have been 8 different posts ; )
Alright. I'm going to sleep. Fizz is behind me saving precious memories of childhood. The God of Computing will remember her work in saving all of those wonderful games. I, too, will be recognized for writing the scripts she's using. But that's a sidenote.
There's other stuff that tickles at me, but I wanna sleep 8)
Oooh! I fixed Fizz's laptop's ugly font problem =D
Ok. That's it. Be seeing you
|Date:||January 7th, 2004 08:31 am (UTC)|| |
I think you're totally missing the definition of open-mindedness, here. Being open-minded isn't about not being in a "social clique". It's about understanding why other people are in their's. It's completely separate from one's willingness to actually try something.
Y'know, the wiser man isn't the one who's without restriction or belonging; he's the one who actually knows what belonging means.
|Date:||January 7th, 2004 04:56 pm (UTC)|| |
Then he shouldn't have said open-mindedness when he meant the opposite.
Anyway, what's wrong with seeking acceptance? It's a gratifying indulgence that -every- human being in the history of humanity has some time wanted, no matter how inertly. There's just no way around it.
|Date:||January 8th, 2004 01:34 am (UTC)|| |
Seeking acceptance is one thing; finding it by the exclusion of others is hypocritical, not to mention that it just passes on bad feelings. It's silly for us to keep trying to say what Phil means, but I believe he referred not to open-mindedness, but people who claim they're open-minded and aren't. A rather sad example is the gay person who is as squicked by a man and woman kissing in public as some straight people are about two men or women. It's hard to convince someone in a minority that he's prejudiced, but the phenomenon is far from rare.
I've gone off on a tangent, though.
When I said open-mindedness, I was talking about communities which claim open-mindedness and prove to be quite the opposite.
Example? The DA community (or at least the posture) presented by the lead-in. There's certainly other examples to be drawn for the gay community, some of the more vocal minorities, and so on.
It's not a matter of seeking acceptance; it's seeking standing in a clique.
(cmoog and relsqui: you are absolutely correct)
|Date:||January 11th, 2004 02:35 pm (UTC)|| |
You know, maybe you should post there. There's just something very wrong to me about you claiming how they're narrow-minded and just using themselves to support their own ignorances when you don't even give them a chance to hear your argument. Sorry.
If I were looking for ANOTHER flame fest, I'd do it. My dance card is filled for a bit though.
If I actually thought it would make one iota of difference, I'd do it.
What I really wish is that I could adapt Dream's speech to the serial killers to any of these communities and retain the point as nicely. It holds for most of them.
I'll point out, by the by, the quoted person got an earful of the argument.
|Date:||January 11th, 2004 03:58 pm (UTC)|| |
Yeah, which one? The Bill Gates argument or the "clique" one?
If you reread your argument, you should note that you can apply it to this LJ community "clique" as well. And, ya know, there's nothing wrong with that. Every group of friends is a clique. Every exclusive conversation between a number individuals is a clique. Narrow-mindedness isn't to not understand another community, it's to argue against it within your own. Thusly, I daresay you're being more narrow than they are; while they're thinking little of your opinion, you're arguing against their's in the sole presence of friends.
But, as I said, there's nothing wrong with that. Knowing who's opinion to care about isn't really part of narrow-mindedness either. It is, in fact, the better part of modesty. At least I think so. *shrugs*
|Date:||January 12th, 2004 03:15 am (UTC)|| |
Actually, scratch this entire argument. I just had a dream about it. You replied by saying you'd delete my post because I liked to a really long article that had nothing to do with anything, and now your eyes hurt. Also, you called me "Ashil", who's the character in my Pokémon Sapphire game I've been playing recently. So I totally digress; that's just a bad sign, man.
I guess what bent me was the line "Art shouldn't be cool because you dream up a new name or a new school of thought or a new clique for it. Art should be cool because it is pleasing." Which totally reminded me of a scene from a certain movie
Good movie. Which scene in particular?
My eyes don't actually hurt, Ashil. On the other hand, I've got to run. Gotta catch 'em all. ; )
And by the way? Double-edged dildo!
|Date:||January 12th, 2004 05:43 pm (UTC)|| |
You know. All the ones where the folks get pissed off at the store owner's art because they didn't find it "pleasing".
*linked by the way, not liked. Bah. Stupid no edit button.
You'll note that I didn't say art should be cool because _I_ think it's pleasing.
I'm just annoyed about the cliqueishness of those who find a certain set of art attractive and then make a point of distinguishing those in the know from those who aren't.
If that had been answered with:
"stuff posted at deviantart.net" or whatever it was, then we wouldn't be shooting back and forth here.
|Date:||January 13th, 2004 04:22 pm (UTC)|| |
Yes, yes. I understand. I was just answering your question; it wasn't a rhetorical statement. ;P