A piece of art.
Comments
-
This old lithograph print from the 1891 "cycling" volume 1, conveys speed .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74418119@N ... 4456874687bagpuss0 -
bagpusscp wrote:This old lithograph print from the 1891 "cycling" volume 1, conveys speed .
"Cycling" 1891.E Dangerfield by rebalrid, on Flickr0 -
Edmund seems to have a leftie0
-
Thank you kendal ....I must learn how to do not.
Bagpuss...aka rebalrid.bagpuss0 -
There's a Lowry exhibition on at Nottingham Uni - think I'll pop down this weekend.
http://www.lakesidearts.org.uk/Exhibiti ... 52&c=5&d=00 -
Hmm. I have an orignal copy of "cycling" volume 1 with Mr Dangerfield pictured at speed, {printed in 1891} can i have a Dali picture go with it. :oops:
This gazette makes wonderful reading.I also have original copies of "The London Bicycle club 1879 " ,
volume 2 "Cycling" 1930{ bound} , and a CTC gazette{ bound} 1903 all full of the social history of cycling.
All will go to the right Museum in time.bagpuss0 -
-
Carravaggio, Warhol, or Hopper. Not so keen on Lichtenstein.I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast, but I'm intercontinental when I eat French toast...0
-
@neeb, if you like that Velazquez, have a look at Caravaggio's beheading of JOhn teh Baptists - in St Johns co-Cathedral in Valetta, Malta:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... aptist.jpg
In Situ:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carava ... 80&bih=6080 -
An interesting thread that I've just read for the first time. I must say though, that I don't get 'art'. There are some clever paintings/photographs/sculptures etc. and I can appreciate both the skill and the imagination that it takes to produce them, but I would never aspire to own a 'piece of art'.Summer: Kuota Kebel
Winter: GT Series30 -
-
this hangs above our marital bed. got it in Paris. always makes me think of dozily making my way over the bridge into dreamland.
0 -
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROl8mX6QvftGAK2lB54A6zZyrL9FnzQ6aUZHkCks9gHNV3xi957g
My uncle :-)Boardman Comp.
Norco Fluid0 -
Its genuinely scary, and perhaps a little dissapointing, to find someone on this forum whos views on architecture and art I share so entrely. But you forgot Michelangelo´s Pietá. And actually I think Le Corbusier and Frank Gehry are two Modernists with something of Grace and Dignity. The rest are "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"neeb wrote:I'm an atheist, but I like religious art.
And I'm a mug for high French Gothic:
Durer's engravings were pretty cool:
l.jpg[/img]
Love Gaudi:
[
It's post-modernism I can't stand, whether in architecture, social philosophy or anything else.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Malta is somewhere I've always wanted to visit sometime - I'll check it out when I get there!BigJimmyB wrote:@neeb, if you like that Velazquez, have a look at Caravaggio's beheading of JOhn teh Baptists - in St Johns co-Cathedral in Valetta, Malta:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... aptist.jpg
In Situ:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carava ... 80&bih=6080 -
Well, if art really does "work" and communicates things that can't be expressed in words, you would expect certain things to group together, so that if you like one you would like the other. So I mostly find it reassuring!4kicks wrote:Its genuinely scary, and perhaps a little dissapointing, to find someone on this forum whos views on architecture and art I share so entrely. But you forgot Michelangelo´s Pietá. And actually I think Le Corbusier and Frank Gehry are two Modernists with something of Grace and Dignity. The rest are "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"0 -
-
I love the simpsons! Futurama even more..Rick Chasey wrote:I still want to know if you dislike the simpsons :P.
<< All about the post-modern see :P
I guess post-modernism has its uses..
0 -
-
I like art that has a coherent and unified purpose, and that is also to some degree "transcendent". I believe that the universe, humanity, etc, are "knowable", albeit imperfectly, and that there are such things as fundamental truths. The post-modernist aesthetic seems to me to be linked to a sort of relativistic nihilism, where we have given up on the idea of anything being knowable / truly revelatory, and are just playing around with motifs to create superficial psychological responses.Rick Chasey wrote:What is it about post-modernism you don't like?
Much of this is probably linked to the fact that I believe in the scientific method and think it is capable of explaining the world to some extent. This is in contrast to the sort of relativists who would claim that the scientific world view is just another way of looking at things, no more privy to "truth" than religion, mysticism, etc. Although I don't subscribe to religion, I recognise that the religious people in the past who created great art were motivated by a similar outlook to the one I have - they really believed that there were truths capable of being revealed (even although they happened to be wrong about them..)
Another reason I dislike post-modernist architecture in particular is that it has been used as an excuse to build cheaply and nastily - the post-modernist aesthetic appeals to banks and corporate entities who would rather not talk about truth, intrinsic values and being part of a cultural tradition (because it gets in the way of profit), and it also allows them to get away with not spending too much money on quality construction methods, permanence, etc.0 -
neeb wrote:
I like art that has a coherent and unified purpose, and that is also to some degree "transcendent". I believe that the universe, humanity, etc, are "knowable", albeit imperfectly, and that there are such things as fundamental truths. The post-modernist aesthetic seems to me to be linked to a sort of relativistic nihilism, where we have given up on the idea of anything being knowable / truly revelatory, and are just playing around with motifs to create superficial psychological responses.Rick Chasey wrote:What is it about post-modernism you don't like?
Much of this is probably linked to the fact that I believe in the scientific method and think it is capable of explaining the world to some extent. This is in contrast to the sort of relativists who would claim that the scientific world view is just another way of looking at things, no more privy to "truth" than religion, mysticism, etc. Although I don't subscribe to religion, I recognise that the religious people in the past who created great art were motivated by a similar outlook to the one I have - they really believed that there were truths capable of being revealed (even although they happened to be wrong about them..)
Another reason I dislike post-modernist architecture in particular is that it has been used as an excuse to build cheaply and nastily - the post-modernist aesthetic appeals to banks and corporate entities who would rather not talk about truth, intrinsic values and being part of a cultural tradition (because it gets in the way of profit), and it also allows them to get away with not spending too much money on quality construction methods, permanence, etc.
The bit in bold is right. It's all relative and there is not one objective, unique, knowable 'truth'. Ultimately we only know things through the prism of discourses (or systems of knowledge). Knowledge, ultimately, is a social construct, and you can't 'know' anything outside it. At best, you can peer through and see what's shaping the discourse but that's about it. Foucault says it better than me, but that's the idea.
A scientific "the world is knowable" is just a very modernist approach. You'd like Richard Evan's In Defence of History.
As for post-modern architecture - you can't hate on architectural styles if they're done badly. Just happened to be a style in vogue when a lot of cheap building needed to occur.
I like the idea that you can reflect a building's context within it's architecture.0 -
I have some problems with this, and with philosophical relativism in general. Basically, I don't accept that there is not an objective, unique reality, although I do accept that it may not ultimately be "knowable" in its entirety due to the limitations of human cognition.Rick Chasey wrote:The bit in bold is right. It's all relative and there is not one objective, unique, knowable 'truth'.
I accept that we only know things through "systems of knowledge", and that these are social (and ultimately meta-biological) constructs, but I don't accept that these constructs can't (to lesser or greater degrees) model external reality (although the model may always be imperfect). The point is that some "systems" do this a lot better than others. Social constructs (if that's all they were) wouldn't be able to make consistent predictions about future events in the physical universe like science can, unless of course you take the extreme view that the physical universe itself is just a social construct (of course I can't entirely rule out the possibility that I may be imagining everyone and everything..Rick Chasey wrote:Ultimately we only know things through the prism of discourses (or systems of knowledge). Knowledge, ultimately, is a social construct, and you can't 'know' anything outside it. At best, you can peer through and see what's shaping the discourse but that's about it. Foucault says it better than me, but that's the idea. )
Thanks for the tip, I might give it a go. I must admit that having briefly looked at a page or two of Foucault once (I think it was him, one of those post-modernists in any case), I'm not convinced that the effort required to properly read it would reap sufficient rewards in terms of enlightenment. The style of writing seems to be deliberately obfuscatory, as if he has less to say than he would like you to believe (or maybe it's just the translation...)Rick Chasey wrote:A scientific "the world is knowable" is just a very modernist approach. You'd like Richard Evan's In Defence of History.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:neeb wrote:
I like art that has a coherent and unified purpose, and that is also to some degree "transcendent". I believe that the universe, humanity, etc, are "knowable", albeit imperfectly, and that there are such things as fundamental truths. The post-modernist aesthetic seems to me to be linked to a sort of relativistic nihilism, where we have given up on the idea of anything being knowable / truly revelatory, and are just playing around with motifs to create superficial psychological responses.Rick Chasey wrote:What is it about post-modernism you don't like?
Much of this is probably linked to the fact that I believe in the scientific method and think it is capable of explaining the world to some extent. This is in contrast to the sort of relativists who would claim that the scientific world view is just another way of looking at things, no more privy to "truth" than religion, mysticism, etc. Although I don't subscribe to religion, I recognise that the religious people in the past who created great art were motivated by a similar outlook to the one I have - they really believed that there were truths capable of being revealed (even although they happened to be wrong about them..)
Another reason I dislike post-modernist architecture in particular is that it has been used as an excuse to build cheaply and nastily - the post-modernist aesthetic appeals to banks and corporate entities who would rather not talk about truth, intrinsic values and being part of a cultural tradition (because it gets in the way of profit), and it also allows them to get away with not spending too much money on quality construction methods, permanence, etc.
The bit in bold is right. It's all relative and there is not one objective, unique, knowable 'truth'. Ultimately we only know things through the prism of discourses (or systems of knowledge). Knowledge, ultimately, is a social construct, and you can't 'know' anything outside it. At best, you can peer through and see what's shaping the discourse but that's about it. Foucault says it better than me, but that's the idea.
A scientific "the world is knowable" is just a very modernist approach. You'd like Richard Evan's In Defence of History.
As for post-modern architecture - you can't hate on architectural styles if they're done badly. Just happened to be a style in vogue when a lot of cheap building needed to occur.
I like the idea that you can reflect a building's context within it's architecture.
I can't believe I'm wading into this but, Richard, don't you think there is something of a contradiction here. Of every contributor to this forum you seem the most 'absolute'. You seem to know how it is, and that is that. And yet here you are eulogising about the post modernist philosophy that there is no absolute truth - whilst telling us for certain that that is the case.
You do know an awful lot 'for certain' for one so young. Interesting.0 -
neeb wrote:
I have some problems with this, and with philosophical relativism in general. Basically, I don't accept that there is not an objective, unique reality, although I do accept that it may not ultimately be "knowable" in its entirety due to the limitations of human cognition.Rick Chasey wrote:The bit in bold is right. It's all relative and there is not one objective, unique, knowable 'truth'.
I accept that we only know things through "systems of knowledge", and that these are social (and ultimately meta-biological) constructs, but I don't accept that these constructs can't (to lesser or greater degrees) model external reality (although the model may always be imperfect). The point is that some "systems" do this a lot better than others. Social constructs (if that's all they were) wouldn't be able to make consistent predictions about future events in the physical universe like science can, unless of course you take the extreme view that the physical universe itself is just a social construct (of course I can't entirely rule out the possibility that I may be imagining everyone and everything..Rick Chasey wrote:Ultimately we only know things through the prism of discourses (or systems of knowledge). Knowledge, ultimately, is a social construct, and you can't 'know' anything outside it. At best, you can peer through and see what's shaping the discourse but that's about it. Foucault says it better than me, but that's the idea. )
Thanks for the tip, I might give it a go. I must admit that having briefly looked at a page or two of Foucault once (I think it was him, one of those post-modernists in any case), I'm not convinced that the effort required to properly read it would reap sufficient rewards in terms of enlightenment. The style of writing seems to be deliberately obfuscatory, as if he has less to say than he would like you to believe (or maybe it's just the translation...)Rick Chasey wrote:A scientific "the world is knowable" is just a very modernist approach. You'd like Richard Evan's In Defence of History.
Yeah.
It took me a good year working solidly on it to get my head around it. I could only sort it out by applying it to something (in this case, history and historical texts). You start deconstructing texts, to peer through to see the underlying assumptions and idelogies of a text, and before you know it, you're unravelling that particular 'discourse'. You then start seeing those assumptions pop up everywhere, and before you know it you start thinking critically about knowledge itself. Easy examples to look at are ones of binary discrimination - sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. Racism is an interesting one since there's a team where it doesn't remotely exist and somehow it creeps into European 'understanding' and 'knowing' about the world. (Take a look at Orientalism by Ed Said).
A good start would be to understand knowledge beyond the strict (and rather arbitrary) style of 'scientific knowledge' and broaden it out to all knowledge. So how do you know this is a post on an internet forum? etc.
I guess since it so convinced me so thoroughly when I studied it I just assume anyone who doesn't believe it hasn't studied it hard enough which is almost certainly bull, so do ignore me :P. It was a bit of a shining light moment when it all clicked into place, and I wouldn't shuttup about it for a good few years.
I do think the idea that there is an external reality or truth is pointless. Surely all that matters is what humans perceive and understand? We're all locked within our brains. If it helps us think that way, great, but all that matters is what we perceive.
---
Either way, you see post-modernism everywhere, whether it's programs like family guy, the simpsons or Mad Men, even have I got news for you or Austin Powers, or your local hipster enjoying dolly parton one minute and Skillrex the next, all in some kind of meta ironic appreciation of different cultures.
Just don't get me started on post-postmodernist guff like High School Musical...0 -
jim453 wrote:
I can't believe I'm wading into this but, Richard, don't you think there is something of a contradiction here. Of every contributor to this forum you seem the most 'absolute'. You seem to know how it is, and that is that. And yet here you are eulogising about the post modernist philosophy that there is no absolute truth - whilst telling us for certain that that is the case.
You do know an awful lot 'for certain' for one so young. Interesting.
Can't start applying epistemological arguments to everything. You'd never get anywhere.
There's a time and a place for it. You can consider how you know things, movements in philosophy, art, architecture, without letting it get in the way of day to day functionality.0 -
Anyway, all the Evans book is is him defending History as a subject from post-modern attacks.
He rolls it all up into the example of holocaust denial, where he says people use post-modernist hyper-relative ideas to justify morally, socially reprehensible and factually wrong interpretations of history. Was a while ago that I read it but I think he takes the line that history has a social function and day to day it functions pretty well without post-modern epistemological fears, so they should put a sock in it so that they can continue their function.0 -
(etc)Rick Chasey wrote:Yeah.
I can see where you are coming from, and as I haven't really read any of that stuff in the original I guess I have to keep an open mind... Maybe I'll give it another go sometime.
I beg to differ here, and I wonder if perhaps where people stand on this question (on an emotional level) is at the heart of disagreements about knowledge and truth. For me it does really matter whether or not there is an external truth and how closely human perception approaches it.Rick Chasey wrote:I do think the idea that there is an external reality or truth is pointless. Surely all that matters is what humans perceive and understand? We're all locked within our brains. If it helps us think that way, great, but all that matters is what we perceive.
Cliched question, but if you could be plugged into a virtual reality, Matrix style, in which everything seemed completely real but you knew it wasn't, would you be happy to exist that way indefinitely?0 -
neeb wrote:
Cliched question, but if you could be plugged into a virtual reality, Matrix style, in which everything seemed completely real but you knew it wasn't, would you be happy to exist that way indefinitely?
There's that word again.
A better example would be if you "didn't know it wasn't virtual reality".
If I knew that my life was fake? I'm not sure. Depends which I'd prefer.
If I didn't know, then I don't see what difference it makes.0 -
neeb wrote:
Malta is somewhere I've always wanted to visit sometime - I'll check it out when I get there!BigJimmyB wrote:@neeb, if you like that Velazquez, have a look at Caravaggio's beheading of JOhn teh Baptists - in St Johns co-Cathedral in Valetta, Malta:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... aptist.jpg
In Situ:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carava ... 80&bih=608
I'll do you an intinerary, it's my 2nd home!0
