General Philosophical discussion

[the.crooked]

Minamilists in art, design?

 

What field?

 

Just curious.

[MAR]

Art.

 

What's called Minimalism in design is questionable in my opinion. Most of it is just Modernism.

[russell jones]

Not exactly MAR. If you are talking about Modernist architecture, such as El Corbusier, Miers van de Rohe, etc. the form is minimalist, but the content is not. They believed that they could literally better society through their forms. Minimalist artists of the 1960's argued, as Frank Stella did, that their work is contentless, ie. form without meaning.

[MAR]

FYI, we're not arguing, I had to read your statement 3 times before I realized what you took issue with.

 

We're talking M/m differences (big=art movement little=visually). It might be minimal, sparingly, designed but it's not Minimal. Pawson might be an exception in Architecture.

 

To expand however, the Minimalist removed, "meaning", which should probably be referred to as "message". The Minimalist sought to make works of art that made one aware of their presence. Robert Morris, Donald Judd, Dan Flavin all talk about it.

[russell jones]

Sorry, my first Minimalism should be capital "M."

 

Now I'm confused about your first statement. Why is most Minimalism just Modernism?

[MAR]

Oh, its just people's confusion with the word vs the movement. Minimalism as a movement was based on some ridged ideas that led to their simplistic forms. People liked the aesthetic but didn't realize the movement was about something else.

 

What happened is people started to associate simplicity with Minimalism when really the works they were looking at were Modernist because it has simple forms too.

[russell jones]

cool, we agree then.

 

It makes me laugh that most people's exposure to the Minimalist/Modernist aesthetic is Ikea.

[the.crooked]

You mean Ikea isn't minimalist?

 

Well fuck, my house is just screwed then...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jk

[viperface]

I've been reading Wittgenstein's Remarks on Colour. They make me laugh, but in a happy way.

Subtle hints of distinctions between language, reality and perception really stand out to me. LW points out several logical inconsistencies concerning adopted definitions and characteristics of colors. I'm not sure if these hints are intentionally subsumed in the text, though. I doubt it.

 

Thought I'd share this cool story

[the.crooked]

Word,

 

I'm glad you did.

 

A little backstory on that text that might help give a fuller perspective. It was released post posthumous. They found it as a collection of notes much like Philosophical Investigations. So the editing feels a bit wonky at times. It was, however, edited by one of his closer protege's G.E.M. Anscombe, so at least it was arranged in a fashion by someone who knew him and his thoughts well.

 

Have you read "Interaction of Color" by Joseph Alber? In some ways it feels like an attempt to turn some of Wittgenstein's comments about a mathematics of color into an art curriculum.

 

I took a class on color theory to explore that very notion, but the application of Alber's text in the class was lacking as it felt a very rudimentary and entry-level art class.

 

And while physics and cognitive science has answered or explained away a lot of Wittgenstein's questions about perception of reality and it's relation to color, many of the linguistic questions remain. I think his discussion on the appropriate level of agreement about a color's placement in relation to other colors is spot on for discussing later arguments in the analytic world about how the role of the social rule determines what meaning actually is. Or rather the intrinsic relationship between semantics and syntax as governed by social standards. And in this example, what is the syntax of color, and is it just as private as the experience of it's semantic value (the color one actually experiences)?

 

I like these questions, I think Wittgenstein's model for proposing questions and having a dialogue rather than a rigid text (as compared to his first treatise Tractatus) is well suited when trying to show how rules can be understood implicitly without needing an expicit agreement.

 

If you are interested in further writings on this, I'd look up the back and forth between Quine and Donald Davidson on radical translation. It's pretty interesting stuff. It's a bit marred down by antiquated ignorance about "the heathen tongue" or savage tongue, whatever. But the main points can be extended to speakers of what they agree to be similar if not same languages.

[viperface]

My notion of funny isn't critical at all, I actually like the editing of the book, because it so clearly avoids the "theory" vibe of a more serious text with long, consistent paragraphs. I also find it somehow delightful that someone associated with philosophy is interested in colors.

 

I always confuse Itten with Albers, but I might have read them both, plus painted some of the examples either one/other/both provided.

Wouldn't surprize me if a school class would concentrate on simple tips and tricks and disappoint someone with more profound interest to the subject.

Basically you could do some experiments yourself. Art education is often too dogmatic for my taste.

 

Then again I haven't read/fathomed the mathematics part yet.

 

I've read a little color chemistry by Doerner, about pigments and such. The thought that our colors are actually mined, transferred and processed somehow inflates "mythical" or absolute aspects of color.

Titanium dioxide, lead carbonate and white could in some cases be synonymous. Professionals probably do speak with pigments instead of primary color terms. This is something that distracts me a little as I read this book.

 

 

I'll try to post more thoughts here as I read on. Thanks for the literary tip!

[the.crooked]

These are just some thoughts from the day.

 

Was talking to a friend today who also studied philosophy. Decided to write something. Just a page while I was at work.

 

I sent it to her with the subject line called "On Delusions of Grandeur," so I guess I'll let that stand as it's title:

 

 

 

 

On Delusions of Grandeur

 

 

Writing is an unfortunate exercise.

What does one say that has not been said before? <-- case in point.

 

What is it for something to be “new?” Is there a difference between the word “new” and the word “novel?”

 

I tend to think so. Rarely does something new come about, but everything is novel. To find the continuity amongst important texts is to see this point. There is a certain truth that can be found in most things produced by humans, but the words to do so are always different. "Existence has this or that point," but is re-said every fifty or so years in some different field or another.

 

It is the difference in form of expressing the same truth that is what’s novel. What is new is a wholly different matter. Most of what people see as a difference or divergence in the evolution of a concept is likely a superficial matter of re-naming something that has already been given a name.

What causes this? Is it inherent to the structures through which we produce such writings? I focus on writings compared to more abstract expressions of human meaning for they are my field. I leave art to the aesthetic moment it is bound to draw from its viewer. Their work will always be more pure to the appreciation of intent and perception than a philosophical text can ever be. The philosopher is mired down by the history of their native language.

It is a more base cause than this, I suspect.

 

The variation in how 10 computers of the same make and model would run the same processes is a nice analogy for this. They can only process as fast as their hardware allows. Inexorably they will come to the same product of computation, but there will be difference in the time taken, etc. This due to the minute differences in the physical manufacturing of its parts, and the way its computational history to date has affected the state of its physical parts.

I hope the metaphor speaks for itself.

 

We, as humans, can only come to certain truths; for our brains are just as finitely constrained in their physical capacities as computers are in their computational prowess.

There is only difference in the time and form of that truth.

 

Perhaps it is not writing that is unfortunate,

But seeking to say something at all that is.

[ANGER]

These are just some thoughts from the day.

 

Was talking to a friend today who also studied philosophy. Decided to write something. Just a page while I was at work.

 

I sent it to her with the subject line called "On Delusions of Grandeur," so I guess I'll let that stand as it's title:

 

 

 

 

On Delusions of Grandeur

 

 

Writing is an unfortunate exercise.

What does one say that has not been said before? <-- case in point.

 

What is it for something to be “new?” Is there a difference between the word “new” and the word “novel?”

 

I tend to think so. Rarely does something new come about, but everything is novel. To find the continuity amongst important texts is to see this point. There is a certain truth that can be found in most things produced by humans, but the words to do so are always different. "Existence has this or that point," but is re-said every fifty or so years in some different field or another.

 

It is the difference in form of expressing the same truth that is what’s novel. What is new is a wholly different matter. Most of what people see as a difference or divergence in the evolution of a concept is likely a superficial matter of re-naming something that has already been given a name.

What causes this? Is it inherent to the structures through which we produce such writings? I focus on writings compared to more abstract expressions of human meaning for they are my field. I leave art to the aesthetic moment it is bound to draw from its viewer. Their work will always be more pure to the appreciation of intent and perception than a philosophical text can ever be. The philosopher is mired down by the history of their native language.

It is a more base cause than this, I suspect.

 

The variation in how 10 computers of the same make and model would run the same processes is a nice analogy for this. They can only process as fast as their hardware allows. Inexorably they will come to the same product of computation, but there will be difference in the time taken, etc. This due to the minute differences in the physical manufacturing of its parts, and the way its computational history to date has affected the state of its physical parts.

I hope the metaphor speaks for itself.

 

We, as humans, can only come to certain truths; for our brains are just as finitely constrained in their physical capacities as computers are in their computational prowess.

There is only difference in the time and form of that truth.

 

Perhaps it is not writing that is unfortunate,

But seeking to say something at all that is.

 

i like this, its similar to what i wrote in the religion thread. We are very creative, yet ultimately mathematical computing machines. We see the answers around us, to find out how these truth exists, we must draw an equation that will correctly predict this answer. It's all mathematics, and being creative we can find many ways and use many variables to compute the correct answer, or number.

[BROTHER ALI]

Sorry, my first Minimalism should be capital "M."

 

Now I'm confused about your first statement. Why is most Minimalism just Modernism?

 

just wondering why you are caring about your "m" being capital, to get a point across it should not matter what is typed incorrectly or what isnt. not picking on you im just saying. maybe i am missing something if so SOWWY =)

[the.crooked]

it's a way of defining a standard definition versus a convention you are creating in your writing. It happens often in philosophical writing. It's also used in the form of italics, bold lettering, etc. Pretty much just a means of formating for delineating

 

time versus Time, Time versus Time, etc.

[russell jones]

just wondering why you are caring about your "m" being capital, to get a point across it should not matter what is typed incorrectly or what isnt. not picking on you im just saying. maybe i am missing something if so SOWWY =)

 

 

Minimalism is a cultural movement, while minimalism is a style or outlook, rather than a movement.

[Tor__Hershman]

"There is no God in foxholes"

[ever elusive]

"Movements" are over rated. America was once a "movement", as were countless societies before that ultimately ended up in the same boat of corruption that is inevitable for any society that holds material possesions in higher esteem than spiritual/philosophical evolution. Thank God that alot of the folks born in the last 30 yrs or so are waking up to this fact. Now, all we gotta do is combat the substance abuse and media brainwashing bombardment and somehow organize ourselves against the media perpetuated status quo. I'm not gonna hold my breath for that one. Oh my god, I have become a hippy, damnit, but seriously the only thing that can overcome evil, opression, taxation, ect......is LOVE.

[CityonSMASH]

love is a sign of weakness.

[handsofdoom]

love is a sign of weakness.

 

at first i was going to blow this shit up and argue the contrary, but i have to agree in a certain context. i do think that love is an idea that is in the very fabric of human consciousness. but love is just chemical signals you receive via pheromones and other stimuli that bypass the thinking or logical part of your brain and go straight to your amygdala-the emotional part.

 

i can't decide if love is a rational or irrational emotion.

 

discuss?

[russell jones]

weakness and strength are concerns of the fearful.

[handsofdoom]

weakness and strength are concerns of the fearful.

 

this doesn't make much sense at all. elaborate the context.

[russell jones]

If one is concerned about weakness or strength, then they are afraid of not being strong enough. With true strength there is no concern.

[handsofdoom]

If one is concerned about weakness or strength, then they are afraid of not being strong enough. With true strength there is no concern.

 

totally biased opinion without any support from actual truth or evidence.

[the.crooked]

yeah, it's called a platitude.

[handsofdoom]

yeah, it's called a platitude.

 

absolutely. i felt it was more appropriate to elaborate my disagreement though.

[russell jones]

yeah, it's called a platitude.

 

 

definitely... :p

[russell jones]

Just to clarify... totally biased opinion. Doesn't really belong in this thread... just something mulling about in my head. More an anecdotal intuition than anything.

[MAR]

"Movements" are over rated.

I have to disagree. So much has come from collective thought, especially in art. Since the advent of the internet the application of artistic/social movements has changed. More often than not, people will jump on the bandwagon of the next cool thing and within weeks, not years, the idea is played out and barely considered in the way it used to be.

[fiddly.bits]

I have to agree with Mar, think about the recent movements in our lifetimes, they have been HUGE. Popular culture such as skating or clothes have changed a tonne since the time of their inception (or change with the clothes). Not to mention graff- it started 30 years ago with someone writing their NAME. Now we have wildstylegrafftagpiecing in almost every country (someone needs to go bomb Antarctica). Not to mention Hip Hop, it started in NY aswell, and now 90% of every pasty white kid is listening to Tupic going "BLA BLA BLA SLAP MAI BITCHEZZZZZ YO!!!!!11!11eleven".

 

Recent movements have affected every every part of our culture: Music, Fashion, Art, Ideas (Obama as President), Society (Martin Luther King anyone?), Technology and many more areas. Of course these are only a few examples, but i'm sure you get my point.

 

Therefore I believe Mar to be right, that movements aren't overrated.