Quote:
Looks like aiming to be a stickler more so than aiming for a broadened view on the subject. I may find it hard to define the two w/o occasionally describing the good/evil aspects, but there are clear differences in method/motivations, whether they are classified into the scale of good and evil.
I think its one thing to chill out and enjoy something, and its whole other to be explicitly critical about it. No I don't ordinarily go around stomping on peoples sensitivities, but when they try to literally express the inexpressible, I usually stick up for what I think, because thats philosophy.
Well, if this is the approach, the implications of our discussion could be very serious, because it is ultimately our entire value system. This includes love, hate; and when this is objectified, good and evil. Besides fundamentalist and literal interpretations, it is easy to see that religion is essentially a kind of artistic expression (metaphorical). So you see, explicit definitions of art and politic, must in certain instances be very precise, because they might stand for something as important as the separation between statehood and religion.
Now, if it seemed like you were being poetic rather than definitive, I would not inordinately tear you apart for this. To me, it seemed like you were definitively stating what art and politics are. This is something I am certainly open to, and try to be open minded, but you can't imagine that I won't stand up for what I think. Wouldn't you agree that it is necessary to be precise at times?
Quote:
Is there an open dialogue, or is there a hammering away of facts and urgent concerns?
What is the difference between art and propaganda? I don't think you can blame me for leaning towards the literal, because it is so central to the question being asked! I mean, I am not exactly sure what you mean by an "open dialogue" but it seems like the answer is not quite as clear as you think it is. Again, what is the difference between art and propaganda? Well you might say its the difference between a metaphor and an outright lie! Literal vs. Interpretive has everything to do with this, so you can't deride me for being literal. I would say, if you are going to be literal, I would say, be literal.
Quote:
...the method of formulating these problems rests on the misunderstanding of the logic of our language. Its whole meaning could be summed up somewhat as follows: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
This book will, therefore draw a limit to thinking, or rather-not to thinking, but the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).
The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language, and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
This, for instance is clearly not an artistic mindset. But would you take another step forward, and call one of the most celebrated philosophers of the 20th century close-minded, like you did me? This sort of approach doesn't mean that we are utterly incapable of the other end of the spectrum.
Sure, on the other hand, you might "tell me what art is" in a wholly different way, in a metaphor. If I recognized something like this, I would realize that my rational approach doesn't mesh. Poetically, being overly rational can be "closeminded". But In terms of rational language, a metaphor is just a plain lie.
As I took it though, we were taking an explicit approach. I should have said, if you are trying to explicitly define the difference, well then I disagree for the reasons mentioned: Because philosophically speaking, it is a slippery slope to "good and evil" through which inappropriate objectifications of the good and bad are expressed. Now if I was listening to music, and at all understood what was going on, I wouldn't censor it, call it inappropriate, or a lie inappropriate.
So I hope that clears up my hard-headedness. It is one thing to be logical when necessary, and whole other to become stuck in this rigidness.
Quote:
What is it that makes them such parallels? That they both work towards presenting ideas in a poignant fashion? This is the only real similarity I see. And the modes of expression in art are so many and varied, that it seems rather oversimplifying to say that art in general and propaganda are essentially indistinguishable from one another.
You say this is the only similarity, but I think that this "mere" similarity is the only thing you might objectively say about either one of them. What else could you positively assert?
In a word, they are both expressions: They both have motivations, and they are both directed to the world.
You say that this is oversimplification, but I never claimed that this is all they are. Like I previously acknowledged, there are "clear differences", but these differences are intuitive. Intuitively, the difference is as you say, as clear as night and day, or as what is "good and bad". But my point is, but definitively expressing this, between me and you, is a whole different thing.
Edited by daytripper23 (01/25/09 08:09 PM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
daytripper23 
Noteworthy 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
).
1 2 3 all )
Alan Stone
MarkostheGnostic
fivepointer
blingbling
Larrythescaryrex
LeastResistance
Kalix
Vvellum