Wilco in designer clothes

[Sir Stewart]

however, I can count on one hand how may times i've found myself saying: 'i really feel like sitting down and listening to white light/white heat in it's entirety'.

One finger for me. Spring 93. Hash. Dorm room. Whoa.

[EL the Famous]

Then does it follow to say my 13 year old nephew, who is just now learning to play the guitar, can barely form a chord, is equally as talented as, say, Eddie Van Halen? And that the tortured sounds he produces are the equal of anything Mr. Van Halen has ever produced?

 

If I am using extreme examples, it because you are taking an extreme position.

 

while i'd agree that the word talent may not be completely subjective, it is still subjective. plus, you seem to be arguing from a standpoint of technical profficency and experieince level, rather than talent...which, i think, is a more ambiguous term.

 

as far as, the whole tree in the woods if nothing can be better than somethign else than it's nothing thing...we're talking things of an artistic vein...there is no scoring system as there is baseball or algebra test to ascribe a pass/fail grade.

 

let's take it back to the original comparison that started this thread...how can one definitviely say either tweedy or adams is the superior and/more artistic artist? it's flat-out impossible.

[Good Old Neon]

I guess my question is how do you quantify the

[ction]

However, a persons subjective experience of something does not trump reality

[Synthesizer Patel]

Bad analogy, because if we're comparing trees falling to art, then there's going to be a lumberjack around to hear the sound of the falling tree. And the first person to experience a piece of art would be the artist, right? But yes, in order for the "merit" of a work of art to be judged, someone has to experience it.

 

 

ok. although that doesn't account for how a monkey or an elephant can make a painting, or how a child that draws lines on a page is making art - if you give a child a spoon they will draw patterns on the floor without actually leaving marks, but in the same manner as they would if they were given a brush and paint, therefore their actions are the same whether they are apparently making art or not. does that make sense? therefore i think it is fair to say that a painting by van gogh which has been painted with all the experience and talent he had is better than something by a child who is working without that talent and experience.

 

here's another analogy: i woke up a couple of months ago and found on one of my windows a perfect pattern of an owl. (this is true by the way - very weird). as though it had flown, cartoon style, into the window and left a mark. now, if a person were to make the same pattern on my window. surely you could see the difference of how one of them was intentional, and the other not. therefore one was art and the other not. and the level of intention that someone puts into a piece of art can determine its worth. so a child drawing doesn't have the same level of intention over their markings as an adult painter.

 

i might not be able to continue in this thread much longer, cos i've got a headache, but i'll try.

 

oh, and everyone should see this film: the rebel before they say anything else in this thread.

[caliber66]

ok. although that doesn't account for how a monkey or an elephant can make a painting, or how a child that draws lines on a page is making art - if you give a child a spoon they will draw patterns on the floor without actually leaving marks, but in the same manner as they would if they were given a brush and paint, therefore their actions are the same whether they are apparently making art or not. does that make sense? therefore i think it is fair to say that a painting by van gogh which has been painted with all the experience and talent he had is better than something by a child who is working without that talent and experience.

I would absolutely agree that Van Gogh would be a more experienced painter. I would disagree that he would necessarily produce a "better" piece of art than a novice. Thomas Kinkade is a quite accomplished and experienced painter and I'm not interested in looking at a single painting he has produced.

 

here's another analogy: i woke up a couple of months ago and found on one of my windows a perfect pattern of an owl. (this is true by the way - very weird). as though it had flown, cartoon style, into the window and left a mark. now, if a person were to make the same pattern on my window. surely you could see the difference of how one of them was intentional, and the other not. therefore one was art and the other not. and the level of intention that someone puts into a piece of art can determine its worth. so a child drawing doesn't have the same level of intention over their markings as an adult painter.

 

i might not be able to continue in this thread much longer, cos i've got a headache, but i'll try.

Sure, intent is a huge part of the creation of art. Enjoyment may or may not take intent into consideration.

[tongue-tied lightning]

could someone be so kind as to re-cap this thread for me ?

I read the first 2 pages, and understood the Ryan Adams is a genius jerk part, but

after reading the last page of this book I got confused why Van Gogh go involved somehow.

[myboyblue]

could someone be so kind as to re-cap this thread for me ?

I read the first 2 pages, and understood the Ryan Adams is a genius jerk part, but

after reading the last page of this book I got confused why Van Gogh go involved somehow.

Van Gogh and Adams are both 'has-beens'

[redeyedndblue]

I made it to the end. This whole thread was a very entertaining way to spend my morning.

[m_thomp]

I was with this thread until all this Harry-Potter-owls-at-the-window talk.

 

Surely worth in art is determined by the observer, and by that very nature is subjective? Some people may value the aesthetic connection, others the spiritual connection, others both, and so and so on.

 

The other side of the worth coin, and this is were 'intention' steps in, is the creator's (or artist's, or if we're being truly theological, God's) successful achievement of their intention. That again is subjective, because even if they didn't achieve their intention, there may be a personal preference in the worth, from observer and/or creator, of a finished piece.

 

After three hours of on-and-off trawling through this thread, I now really need a break. Can someone post a picture of an elephant on a tricycle, or a randy dog? Now that's good art.

[Synthesizer Patel]

you don't get it! the owl left a perfect mark on the window. you could see all it's feathers perfectly and also you could see it's face and beak etc... it was totally upright on the window (like i said, cartoon like). it's only recently gone after a good couple of months.

[caliber66]

[embiggen]

now that's art!

[m_thomp]

now that's art!

 

Seconded

[bobbob1313]

Bobbob stated that it is all subjective,

[Good Old Neon]

You seem to be arguing that talent isn't subjective. Or, rather, that somebody's training and experience isn't. Those things, in my eyes are not the same as talent, but you are trying to make them the same.

 

From Webster

[Synthesizer Patel]

You seem to be arguing that talent isn't subjective. Or, rather, that somebody's training and experience isn't. Those things, in my eyes are not the same as talent, but you are trying to make them the same.

 

Eddie Van Halen has been playing guitar for years, but somebody just picking up the guitar may make noises with it that are more melodically pleasing to somebody. Does that mean they are wrong?

 

aren't the words 'melody' and 'pleasure' both subjective under your terms, anyway? so it doesn't mean anything to say that. i would also say that music doesn't have to be melodic or pleasurable for it to be concidered good - subjectively, or otherwise.

[bjorn_skurj]

One finger for me. Spring 93. Hash. Dorm room. Whoa.

I used to like to listen to that tape while washing airplanes.

[Panther]

I admire all these liberal defenses of subjectivity, no one can argue with these type of

[bobbob1313]

I suppose it might make sense to let on that I have been accused of being a nihilist on more than one occasion.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I suppose it might make sense to let on that I have been accused of being a nihilist on more than one occasion.

 

 

 

and actually...that is pretty good advice...I beat two of the three...

[Good Old Neon]

I suppose it might make sense to let on that I have been accused of being a nihilist on more than one occasion.

 

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I admire all these liberal defenses of subjectivity, no one can argue with these type of

[samuel70]

Damn ! I started this thread about 6 days ago and it's now 20 pages

Though I'm not even bothered to read any post.

Anyone willing to summarize the whole thread ?

(Joking)

[pmancini100]

"Wilcos records have been culturally important and have influenced many modern records and bands."

 

Name one.

 

if it werent for yhf, the national wouldnt have made boxer, which is a great album. tons of new indie bands are citing yhf as an influence. theres a band called cherry ghost that was very influenced by wilco.