panapp

End of the conversation.

@sexyajax: luckily I explicitly stated that I didn't want to "absolutely descend into presumption nor prejudice." Your response implies that you interpreted the question: why? Instead, it was just, indeed, a question. I'll try to repeat it: I would really be curious to know how many stars you would give, say, to a Greek kouros, or to the Palatine Chapel of Aachen, or perhaps to Caravaggio's "Conversion of Saint Paul," or finally to a pastel of Degas's ballerinas. The purpose of the question, if you really want to know, was simply to find out what you thought of these works, even in relation to the fact that if you give 5 to this lovely collage, I wonder what grade these other four famous works of art deserve. Lastly, I love contemporary art as much as, and perhaps even more than, ancient, medieval, and modern art, and if there is someone disillusioned, angry, bored, and tired of this time and this social, political, media, cultural, sub-cultural reality, well, that’s me. Yet, despite being able to conceptually support it, this work doesn’t go beyond 2.5/3.

And I still delude myself that a conversation can be established...

Quote gasto.

@nes: you're right, Tarantino and his (beautiful) collages are definitely better than this guy who spouts nonsense about things he doesn't understand (because if he understood them, I guess, he would realize they don't deserve the treatment he has reserved for them). @panlio malmieri: Okay, at this point, given the heartfelt comment #34, I take back my goodbye to the conversation since you’ve thrown down, in a disordered manner, let’s say concepts that should justify your little phrase "culture is definitely harmful. it’s a form of diseducation." I gather (correct me if I'm wrong) that from your point of view you have adequately answered my request in comment #18: well, from my perspective you haven't done so, but let's leave that aside, it's better. Assuming I've understood what you want to say in comment #34 (if I'm wrong, correct me), I would now like to know one more thing: in the 13th century, Gothic architecture flourished in France. In your opinion, did the masons and stonecutters who actually constructed the cathedrals have more knowledge & skills, or the master builders, who through mathematical analysis had grasped the best static potentials of the pointed arch compared to the round arch (because, just for those who might not know, Gothic is a style born from a technical discovery and not from an aesthetic choice)? Since my question is clear and straightforward, I would appreciate a clear and straightforward answer and not a roundabout of words. Then: it’s true, Plato was an idiot devoid of all knowledge because all he knew how to do was blabber about nonsense and caves with no practical applicability. P.S.: I don’t hate you, but since you hate us, I gather that you’re how old?, 13? 14? Let me reveal something fantastic: I’m 26 years old and when I was 14 I thought "I’m not stupid and I don’t say stupid things," but then at 16 I realized that what I did at 14 were stupid things, then at 18 I realized that what I did at 16 were stupid things, and so on ad libitum fading. One fine day you’ll reread these lines in which you announce "you idiots! you will die in the flames of hell! I hate you! but I will return! oh I will return! and I will destroy you! ahahhahahaha" and you’ll think "how stupid I was back then." Or at least I really hope so.

@panlio malmieri: I realize that what I'm about to say will interest you very little, but I find it honest to write it. Our conversation ends here as I hoped for a dialogue, but I received only elusive and vague responses to precise and specific questions. Let me explain, just so I have no regrets: having written strong statements that I do not believe in, such as “culture [...] is a form of diseducation,” I was intrigued and - very simply - I wanted an explanation, exactly as I would face a mathematical formula I don't understand. The only responses I received were that I could interpret it as I wished and that you're not obligated to explain what you don't feel you need to explain. At this point, having received no interpretative guidance on your cryptic statement, and having read several phrases in your reviews that are decidedly disagreeable (or tinged with a sense of humor that definitely needs improving), such as “[Poe is a] pain in the ass [who fortunately got] out of the way at a relatively young age and [thus didn’t] further plague our nervous system with his deadly nonsense,” I am forced to think that it is indeed an attention-grabbing phrase devoid of actual content. In simple terms, I consider you a pompous and empty person who, from the heights of your Baci Perugina culture, has the audacity to criticize with hollow arguments (and the problem lies not in the criticism, but in the empty arguments) a literary figure of undisputed and unanimously recognized value. You resemble Quentin Tarantino a bit, that faux-intellectual who dazzles the audience and critics by recycling memories of B-movies and passing off his bombastic collages (sometimes well done, sometimes not, but always collages) as great art when they are instead empty collections of images unsupported by any argument other than their formal rendering; indeed, Tarantino will forever be inferior to Billy Wilder, who thought things through. I conclude: I know you might be less than interested in all this, but I felt it was right to write it. Regards.

@panlio malmieri: no, really, I’m extraordinarily curious. On the other hand, if you can't explain something that you yourself have written, it means that you write only impactful phrases without content. I invite you again to explain what you mean, I am truly very interested.

I want to be good: three to work. Without at all falling into presumption or, even less, prejudice, I would be really curious to know how many stars the reviewer would give to a Greek kouros, or to the Palatine Chapel of Aachen, or perhaps to Caravaggio's "Conversion of Saint Paul," or finally to a pastel of Degas's ballerinas (just to mention some undisputed cardinal works).

@SydeRuS: I basically agree with everything. @panlio malmieri: now you need to explain what you mean by "culture is definitely harmful. it's a form of diseducation." Please be clear and don't make jokes, I'm really curious. If you want to use justifications like "If Hitler hadn't studied, he would have been an ignorant farmer and there wouldn't have been Nazism" or "If Fermi hadn't studied, there wouldn't have been the atomic bomb," that's just utter nonsense.

By the way, I forgot to emphasize the extraordinary nature of paragraphs two and three, where it states that positions such as considering homosexuality "as a despicable vice (referring to the biblical story of Sodom or to the original distinction between man and woman)" or "as the result of a degradation of morals that anticipates the more general crisis of a society in disarray and far from the values, feminine and masculine, that should uphold it (calling to mind the spread of homosexuality in fallen civilizations, such as ancient Greece or Nero's Rome)" are "positions [...] worthy of further exploration and critique." So you consider it plausible the hypothesis, also articulated by your little buddy Ezekiel25_17, that one becomes gay in a tired society on the decline. Not to mention the incredible possibility of relying on the Bible as a reference text to scientifically study human psychology. DEFICIENT, in fact, I take this opportunity to greet Ezekiel25_17 (hello Ezekiel25_17!) and I stand corrected: DEFICIENTS. @Starblazer: "Muccassassina" is the nightclub where Luxuria worked.