puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 7994 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Sure, but be careful, saying "the idea of beauty has changed" is one thing (which I agree with because beauty is still at the center, even if in different forms), saying "art no longer concerns beauty" is another (neither a condemnation, nor a praise, nor even a matter of fact :D)
Name: josi_ | Date: 28/7/2005 | Rating: | Rating for the Album: >>>> Wow! Josi_ already said what I'm saying (Beautiful Josi_! :D)... by now it's like a chat, you lose messages between writing and sending :D
Voto:
In my opinion, Bogus, with the leap from "the search for beauty" to "the evaluation of beauty," you’ve entered a tunnel from which Aeneas will never let you escape :D, either you take one discussion at a time or we no longer talk about CCCP, and indeed it’s better that way, a nice one is fine.
Voto:
If we jump from "art no longer concerns itself with beauty" to "considering a work of art depending on the period it was made and the place it was made," I can't follow you; these are two completely different discussions, Bogus, I don't see the connection. For the first, I say no as I explained above; for the second, the obvious comes into play.
Voto:
Sure, I'm sure of that, Bogus. He can make it ugly and consider it ugly... but he does it on purpose, so he likes it, so he considers it beautiful, as I wrote above. If you do it, it’s because you want to do it; if you want to do it, it’s because you like it; if you like it, you consider it... beautiful. I agree on the matter of the thunderstorm, but that point is so obvious; I wouldn’t tell the Floyd of '78 that they don’t have the perfect synths of today. It seems clear to me, and therefore it can also be omitted, like "in my opinion"; if I write it, it’s "in my opinion," or like the "de gustibus" that’s automatically included when you say "it sucks." If we nitpick over these things, we’ll never finish. From beauty to temporal considerations, there’s a long way. Bogus, I’ve just thought of a fitting example: Ferretti does horrible things on purpose, but he likes them, so for him, they are beautiful; thus, he seeks his own idea of beauty. There is no universal beauty, and that seems clear to me too, so it can be omitted.
Voto:
But how can you say "it’s not said"? Bogus, if someone produces something, it’s because they like it; no one does something that they consider "ugly" on purpose. They might do it thinking that others find it ugly and they like it precisely for that reason, but they still like it, so they consider it beautiful.
Voto:
Dude, I watched the bootleg of the last half hour because some guy recorded it and uploaded it on Soulseek. Download it too because it's worth it, nothing perfect actually makes me wonder if it was the bootleg that made the drums sound "low volume" despite the guy hitting hard, but he really nails the hits, à la Brant Bjork, just like those heavy hitters, Frengo-style and that's it. A joy for the eyes.
Voto:
I think of a guy who works with me who has been trying for three years to make a perfect wooden boar. And he doesn’t care about making it his own; he wants to create a perfect boar. It’s not possible to confine art within rules or change the rules depending on the years; for the guy making the boar, Duchamp doesn’t matter a damn—he wants to make a boar, in 2005, mind you.
Voto:
Expression of oneself trying to produce something that pleases (therefore beautiful) even just for us. There are still sculptors who seek proportion and perfection and couldn't care less about expressing themselves; they just want to make a beautiful statue. Just as there are other artists who couldn't care less about beauty and do whatever they please, there is Roger Waters who perfectly encapsulates both with The Wall. Whether we are in 2005 doesn't matter to me; it will be the same in 3030 and it was the same in 1300 :D
Voto:
Well Josi_, art is also an expression of oneself, not just a pursuit of beauty. I agree with both of you, but Bogus "misses" when he says it hasn't been that way for a hundred years, though I understand since he gave a one to The Wall and a five to this shhhhchifezzuola :D
Voto:
If you judge a rapper by their beats made by sampling and piecing together bits from others, the discussion ends right there, since we're trying to talk about music here. If we then talk about metrics, there's really no taste involved because rap is mathematics applied to language; either you have the vocabulary and apply mathematics well, or you simply can't do it. It’s not music, just technique, pure technique, and technique is objective. But I get it, not listening to American stuff but only the Italian crap, you certainly can’t understand what I’m talking about, with sympathy, of course :)