Realities of FSUW

[Mir]

Here is a perfect example.  How many people here have had experience with Jehovahs Witnesses?  Knocked on your door lately?  This sort of evangelizing is usually annoying but basically harmless.

And I am sure you know that Jehovahs Witnesses do not allow blood transfusion.
There have been incidents when they have let their children bleed to death. Harmless beliefs? certainly not.
The point is that tolerance of others beliefs is fine as long as such beliefs don't cause any harm.
Voodoo and such things cause harm by making innocent people believe in powers that don't exist, and so placing their destiny in hands of such nonexistent powers thus comming to harm.

[Mir]

k, so one thing I am a bit curious about is why painting in Russia never developed very far beyond icon painting until the modernists who were all wiped out by Stalin or simply left Russia.

Kandinsky is and will always be one of my favorites and I am pretty partial to Chagal also.

But, there is no real excitement that I am aware of from the 14th century until the late 19th century.  If I am wrong please accept my apologies but I don't know a heck of a lot about early Russian art.

I don't know much about Russian art but a little bit about Russian literature.
Russian literature is almost nonexistent untill the early 19th century when Pushkin more or less invented Russian literature.
Perhaps a similar slumber affected Russian art?

[Mir]

facts facts facts.. science proves something is a fact until science reverses itself and proves that the exact opposite of what was accepted as fact is in fact a fact

To consider something as a fact in science evidence is needed. If something was accepted as a fact and new evidence suggests it was not as it was thought to be then it needs to change.
The earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth was never a facts since methods did not exist at that time to prove it.
The difference between science and voodoo etc. is that science changes with new evidence and inventions, superstitious beliefs are fixed and inflexible.

Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions(Oscar Wild)

[Sculpto]

And I am sure you know that Jehovahs Witnesses do not allow blood transfusion.
There have been incidents when they have let their children bleed to death. Harmless beliefs? certainly not.
The point is that tolerance of others beliefs is fine as long as such beliefs don't cause any harm.
Voodoo and such things cause harm by making innocent people believe in powers that don't exist, and so placing their destiny in hands of such nonexistent powers thus comming to harm.

Dont take this the wrong way because in the example cited I agree with you.  But, still, they are entitled to their belief system and it is not on the back of the mainstream to force our views on them.  And, did it ever occur to you that their belief system, as archaic as it might seem to those of us so called "civilized" people might actually be more in balance with the natural systems of the earth? 

As an example.. this is something i have seen in Mexico and I understand the same thing is true in much of Africa.  Peasant people often have very large families.  The purpose being that some of the children wil not survive, plus, a large family gives the parents a better chance of a little comfort and security when they are old and unable to take care of themselves.  Due to vacination programs, fresh water programs and food programs the infant and child mortality rates in many underdeveloped places have gone down resulting in more people making into adulthood, but, there isn't enough arable land to go around and so therefore we end up with overpopulation and starvation crisis.

Science isn't perfect.  As Blues tried to point out yesterday erroneously with her comment that a scientist will not bother to look at the backside of the statue because he already knows what is there.  When this sort of thinking takes place we can end up with unexpected results.

[Sculpto]

I don't know much about Russian art but a little bit about Russian literature.
Russian literature is almost nonexistent untill the early 19th century when Pushkin more or less invented Russian literature.
Perhaps a similar slumber affected Russian art?

Literature and music developed into some of the greatest works in history, yet the visual arts lagged behind.. painting, sculpture and even architecture aren't especially exciting.  I am hoping Olga can show me what I have missed, if it exists..

[Sculpto]

The earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth was never a facts since methods did not exist at that time to prove it.

But it was believed to be a fact.  The instruments of observation available at the time "proved" it to those who cared.  Until they were proven wrong it was considered heresy by the church to say otherwise. 

Today we consider as fact the imposibility of intergalactic travel at speeds faster that the speed of light, even the speed of light is considered unobtainable.  But, this too may be proven not to be a fact at some point in the future. 

Nature has an infinite set of variables by which it manifests itself.  To assume that we know anything more than what is merely on the tip of the iceberg would be exceptionally arrogant.  Certainly science and engineering have advanced rapidly in the last 120 years or so, but, until such a time as we are in fact able to achieve intergalactic travel, I am not that impressed with the ability of science to prove facts beyond a reasonable doubt.  Much remains to be explored and discovered.

[Ade]

But it was believed to be a fact.  The instruments of observation available at the time "proved" it to those who cared.  Until they were proven wrong it was considered heresy by the church to say otherwise. 

FWIW, I saw an interesting show on discovery a few weeks ago and the idea that people used to think the earth was flat was raised; in actuality there is no real evidence that this was the case and it seems that it's just a myth. I did a quick google and came up with this; http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/media/storage/paper949/news/2008/02/28/Opinion/The-Fallacy.That.The.Earth.Was.Flat-3240950.shtml although I'm sure there are more academic references if you want to spend more time on it.

Today we consider as fact the imposibility of intergalactic travel at speeds faster that the speed of light, even the speed of light is considered unobtainable.  But, this too may be proven not to be a fact at some point in the future. 

That there is other life in the universe is undoubtedly true. But when you take into account the relatively short span of time species tend to exist compared to the enormous amount of time that they could exist in, there is little chance that we currently share the universe with more than a handful of intelligent species at best.

Then factor in the probability of them having the interest, the will and the means to travel here, not to mention them knowing about our tiny mudball in the first place, and you reduce the probability of alien visitors to astronomically small numbers. Almost as small as the probability that a god exists in fact. 

[SANDRO43]

Literature and music developed into some of the greatest works in history, yet the visual arts lagged behind.. painting, sculpture and even architecture aren't especially exciting.

I don't know if that is quite true, arts seem to have reached a sort of dead end, if one accepts the concept that a true artist must do something really NEW, otherwise he's more of a craftsman than an artist. The last major artistic innovations are rather old:

- Painting: abstract art (Kandinsky, 1910)
- Music: dodecaphony (Schonberg, Berg, Webern, 1920s)
- Literature: flow of consciousness (James Joyce, 1920s)

I'll leave sculpture to you (Moore ?)

[brucen36]

Nature has an infinite set of variables by which it manifests itself.  To assume that we know anything more than what is merely on the tip of the iceberg would be exceptionally arrogant. 

Isn't it arrogant of you to assume nature has an infinite set of variables?

[Sculpto]

I don't know if that is quite true, arts seem to have reached a sort of dead end, if one accepts the concept that a true artist must do something really NEW, otherwise he's more of a craftsman than an artist. The last major artistic innovations are rather old:

- Painting: abstract art (Kandinsky, 1910)
- Music: dodecaphony (Schonberg, Berg, Webern, 1920s)
- Literature: flow of consciousness (James Joyce, 1920s)

I'll leave sculpture to you (Moore ?)

Gosh Sandro, I don't agree at all that the arts have reached a dead end.  There are some amazing things going on in most disciplines.  What about jazz, blues, rock and roll, electronica and even if I am not a fan, hip hop?  

Painting is still struggling but there have been some bright spots in the last 20 years.. but sculpture is definitely in a golden period.  Take a look at

http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/turrell/clip1.html

this one is really long but also indicates the expanisve vision of contemporary sculpture...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991ASPC...17..145M

architecture also is in a golden period...

http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/index.html

http://www.dynamicarchitecture.net/21-06-08/new-web_23-06-08/moscow.html

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/moscow/jpgs/russia_tower_fosters_oct07_1.jpg

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx

this one is AWESOME!
http://www.arcosanti.org/

and of course, Frank Gehry
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2008-41,GGLG:en&um=1&newwindow=1&q=frank+gehry&ie=UTF-8&ei=2SLqSYbLJaK8tAOx4oH1AQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title

I think American literature is really hurting, but internationaly Coehlo, Garcia Marquez and lots of other great writers continue to produce.

[Sculpto]

Isn't it arrogant of you to assume nature has an infinite set of variables?

take a look in a telescope and get back to me on that one.  To even think we have a firm grip on even .001% of the possibilities is ridiculous.

[brucen36]

take a look in a telescope and get back to me on that one.  To even think we have a firm grip on even .001% of the possibilities is ridiculous.

Do you know what the term "infinite" means?

[Ade]

Gosh Sandro, I don't agree at all that the arts have reached a dead end.  There are some amazing things going on in most disciplines.  What about jazz, blues, rock and roll, electronica and even if I am not a fan, hip hop?  

But I think he meant that all of what you mention is essentially derivative and there is nothing that is truly original...

[Sculpto]

Do you know what the term "infinite" means?

no.   

[Sculpto]

But I think he meant that all of what you mention is essentially derivative and there is nothing that is truly original...

I understood that SJ, but I don't agree.  Especially in sculpture and architecture there is an unprecedented level of innovation going on right now.  A lot of it has to do with new materials and the power of the computer allowing for new methodologies in engineering. 

As far as originality in general, art has always built upon what went before it.  Its normal.  A genious like Picasso who changed everything is unlikely to appear again for a very long time, but, there is still massive room for innovation.  Unfortunately in the realm of painting it does in fact seem stagnant.  but, I personally believe that film has replaced painting as the medium of innovation for the "story teller" that painters once were. 

I think we have wandered way off topic.. my fault most likely.. sorry. 

[Wienerin]

facts facts facts.. science proves something is a fact until science reverses itself and proves that the exact opposite of what was accepted as fact is in fact a fact.  Factually speaking it is an often universally accepted fact that the earth is in fact round, however, the fact is the earth is not exactly round and that is a fact.  It was a widely accepted fact that the earth was in fact flat and equally accepted as fact was the fact the the sun, planets and universe revolved around the earth.  That was a fact also until someone with better facts proved that it was in fact wrong.  So, in fact, facts are facts so long as someone doesn't come along and prove some other fact is in fact more factual than the other... fact.

So, who is smarter, humans or dolphins?

Your education was in liberal arts? Sculpto, why do you like to discuss something that you do not know, do now understand and actually isn't much interested in? Fact is something that exists irregardless of who and how observed it or who and how was able to describe and interpret it.

Science establishes existing facts, observed laws of nature. And attempts to understand what exactly these laws are, to describe them in formules, to project and predict how they would work and what are the universal-general laws. The more scientists understand, the more accurate their observation and formulas describing more and more general laws.

These are not all the workings and functions of science, of course. Developing instruments and methods of experiment and observation is also science. Research and development of man-made emulation of nature - is also science. Et cetera and so on...

As to you meager grasp (usually these two-three historical facts are in the first chapter of Physics school text-book ) of history of science, let me tell you something maybe new to you - since your're neither an engineer or scientist by training, thinking or by nature.

Many of the "facts" (much more than you cited and which are not actually facts but more like prevailing - or not - thought and theories at a certain time) endured for so long or even endure now for many people, even for those who know better, just because that for everyday life, application or even scientific assumptions there's not much difference if at all.

Does it make any difference to you to know that all planets aren't in fact ideal spheres but spheroids, flattened a little at the poles? Can it ever make a difference to your life, that you'll be a little bit lighter at the poles and heavier in the equator? Do you really need to understand how and why a compass works? Indian and Chinese mariners used the device called "a magic needle" for thousands of year without that knowledge.

Does knowledge of what is the speed of light, or the formula of Einstein, or how many planets there are in the solar system, or what is a benzene ring and how it holds together make any change in your life? Moreover, all these and thousands of other "facts", laws and theories do not make any difference for much of the engineering-innovation, and various branches of applied science. Because mostly we deal with useful and relevant approximations, and it's easier (and accurate enough for most practical purposes) to consider the Earth a sphere with the constant radius, or to use in calculations "ideal" liquid or gas - using a huge set of calculated criteria for different applications, etc., etc.

[Wienerin]

harmony and melody are still prisoners of time Sandro.. without the passage of time you would only hear one very nuddy note, might sound like an explosion. 

I do not know what you'll hear without time - the pitch, tone, quality of sound (sound being vibrations-oscillations produced by different means in solid matter and delivered to you through the medium of air, or water, or some material) as you receive it is depicted by equations, involving the time parameter. Without the transmitting medium, e.g. air usually (that's in vacuum) you wouldn't hear anything - time or no time.

Harmony and melody are just the terms for organizing sounds in a certain manner. How and why music evolves (bird DO produce their songs with melodies and harmony), and how and why it affects - and so differently for different people, - is an interesting mystery under ongoing research by physicists, biologists and psychologists.

About visual art there's also no consensus but one - the creation and appreciation of art was what distinguished CroMagnon people (our direct ancestors) from the collateral branch of Neanderthal. Some even argue that it was exactly the "art bump" - still undiscovered - which allowed the primitive people to develop into a  humans. Also interesting but mostly at the stage of hand waving and screaming at each other as yet

[Sculpto]

Your education was in liberal arts? Sculpto, why do you like to discuss something that you do not know, do now understand and actually isn't much interested in? Fact is something that exists irregardless of who and how observed it or who and how was able to describe and interpret it.

Science establishes existing facts, observed laws of nature. And attempts to understand what exactly these laws are, to describe them in formules, to project and predict how they would work and what are the universal-general laws. The more scientists understand, the more accurate their observation and formulas describing more and more general laws.

These are not all the workings and functions of science, of course. Developing instruments and methods of experiment and observation is also science. Research and development of man-made emulation of nature - is also science. Et cetera and so on...

As to you meager grasp (usually these two-three historical facts are in the first chapter of Physics school text-book ) of history of science, let me tell you something maybe new to you - since your're neither an engineer or scientist by training, thinking or by nature.

Many of the "facts" (much more than you cited and which are not actually facts but more like prevailing - or not - thought and theories at a certain time) endured for so long or even endure now for many people, even for those who know better, just because that for everyday life, application or even scientific assumptions there's not much difference if at all.

Does it make any difference to you to know that all planets aren't in fact ideal spheres but spheroids, flattened a little at the poles? Can it ever make a difference to your life, that you'll be a little bit lighter at the poles and heavier in the equator? Do you really need to understand how and why a compass works? Indian and Chinese mariners used the device called "a magic needle" for thousands of year without that knowledge.

Does knowledge of what is the speed of light, or the formula of Einstein, or how many planets there are in the solar system, or what is a benzene ring and how it holds together make any change in your life? Moreover, all these and thousands of other "facts", laws and theories do not make any difference for much of the engineering-innovation, and various branches of applied science. Because mostly we deal with useful and relevant approximations, and it's easier (and accurate enough for most practical purposes) to consider the Earth a sphere with the constant radius, or to use in calculations "ideal" liquid or gas - using a huge set of calculated criteria for different applications, etc., etc.

Blah Blah BLAH

to you I say...

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
  Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
  And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
  The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
  And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
  The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
  He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
  Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
  He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

[Wienerin]

that is a precept of modern art.  Prior to the modern era most western painting was subject to propoganda functions of the church and decorative fashion of the aristocracy.  There are hints of what was to come during the renacamiento but it really wasn't until Goya's black paintings that the pure feelings of the artist were the main subject of his work, though, it could be argued that Rembrandt preceeded this with his later work which landed him in the poor house. 

It really isn't until painting and sculpture are disconnected from the control mechanisms of architecture and politics that artists have really been recognized for their independent genious. 

(trying hard not to drop into a swoon) where did they teach all this ...(censored)& At your art school? I didn't read or hear such (censored) even from the most obnoxious of Soviet critics or art historians.

All the artists, not only out-and-out geniuses but simply good artists - were (and are) recognized and remebered through the centuries and even thousands of years. Sheer astounding beauty of Altamira bulls, Nephertiti portrait, Veus of Milo, Nike of Samothrace, Fayum portraits, Theophanus the Greek and Andrei Rublev's icons, van Eyck or Durer, Botticelli or Rubens, Turner or Van Gogh, etc. etc., - I've named maybe one thousands of 1% of those whom we know and rever by name, and there were masters not the least worthy who remain unnamed forever...

You call yourself an artist? And keep obsessing with what religion or politics these past masters had? Come on, you can't be serious even if you were a card-bearing Party member.

G-d in Heavens, do they REALLY teach and debate such (censored) in CA?

(by the way, most of Northern Renaissance, Dutch, English and French artists DID NOT paint religious subjects or indulge in politics much or at all)

As to Rembrandt - he would've surely appreciate your condescending to him and finding some small merit in some of his painting, - but would you please check your facts? He did NOT "die in a poor house", his bankruptcy did NOT stem from any political opposition or views of his, he was NOT persecuted and driven into penury for his opinions and so on, and so forth...

Try sometimes for recreation - and who knows, you may like it - base your theories on fact, not to bend and distort facts to fit some of your theories.

[Wienerin]

Good point.. Bosch is certainly an exception. 

Ok, so one thing I am a bit curious about is why painting in Russia never developed very far beyond icon painting until the modernists who were all wiped out by Stalin or simply left Russia.

Kandinsky is and will always be one of my favorites and I am pretty partial to Chagal also.

But, there is no real excitement that I am aware of from the 14th century until the late 19th century.  If I am wrong please accept my apologies but I don't know a heck of a lot about early Russian art.

Since you yourself say that you do not know a lot about Russian art (from what you said I'd think that you know almost nothing, so sorry), this is pretty unprofitable branch of discussion... You can easily look up on the Net names and works of Russian painers, sculptors, architects or whoever, - I wouldn't bother providing you with samples since it'd be easy for you to say that these are inferior or secondhand or do not measure up to... Look and choose for yourself.

It's wrong to say that all the good artists left Russia or were exterminated by Stalin. This is simply not true.

I'll giove you just a little help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_Russians#Artists - after this you're on your own

[acrzybear]

Blah Blah BLAH

to you I say...

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

You have a degree in liberal arts and all you can come up with is blah blah blah and quoting Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll. That comes across as rather juvenile.

[Sculpto]

You have a degree in liberal arts and all you can come up with is blah blah blah and quoting Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll. That comes across as rather juvenile.

so I am immature and clueless.  oh well..

if you can't see the futility of this ongoing argument with Wienerin who apparently knows everything about everything, sorry, nothing i can do to help you.

Sometimes, in the face of an insulting know it all, the most logical response is simply absurdity. 

I think I shall seek out a burrito and enjoy eating it, well, as long as that is ok with Wienerin, I wouldn't want to eat it the wrong way or perhaps order the wrong food or maybe she will find some fault with the actual act of eating as it can only lead to some dreadful result.

[SANDRO43]

to you I say...

Rather, you CITE, since it's Lewis Carrol's Jabberwocky .

P.S.: I just  noticed that Bear beat me to it.

[SANDRO43]

Harmony and melody are just the terms for organizing sounds in a certain manner. How and why music evolves (bird DO produce their songs with melodies and harmony), and how and why it affects - and so differently for different people, - is an interesting mystery under ongoing research by physicists, biologists and psychologists.

I'm no ornithologist, but I'm not aware of any birds singing in harmony, they may make partial duets (overlapping solos) when courting or staking out a territory, and I'd say that any simultaneous sound of 2 or more notes is purely accidental and very occasional. At least, from whatever birds I chanced to hear.

I do not think that mankind developed music as an inspired imitation of natural sounds. Anyway Lena, if you care to discuss this fascinating subject, here's a place for that: http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=9025.0 .

[SANDRO43]

But I think he meant that all of what you mention is essentially derivative and there is nothing that is truly original...

Precisely.

What about jazz, blues,

These appeared before the 1920s .

rock and roll,

A derivation of country music and blues. Fun to hear and dance, but not a major innovation, musically speaking. IINM, country music itself can be traced back to Irish airs and reels.

electronica and even if I am not a fan, hip hop?

Not what I'd really classify as Music, the first mostly NOISE rather than sound, and the last, along with rap, excrutiatingly repetitive. Music requires both repetition AND variation .

Anyway, I was referring mostly to classical music, whose death in my opinion was marked by Stockhausen's piano sonata: a completely blank score which the performer puts on the piano stand, stares at in total silence for some minutes, then stands up and leaves the stage .