20 Aug 09
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyConsidering these interests, you ought to search 'grey vampire' and 'troll' on this blog here:
I also agree with the SVW-comparison. What do you think of the Secret Admirers? They are part of what I think is important about the book; the character Sangomon Taylor in "Zodiac" is important for the same reason, as are the real-life ELFs and WOMBLES and Theodore Kaczynskis and Anonymous. The kind of thinking you mention is shallow and also scary ...[text shortened]... s/them business, and perhaps I'll elaborate tomorrow, since this post is pretty content-free.
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'd be more inclined to use 'skill' or 'craft', art lends itself to aesthetic consideration and I think the intention is for there to be some utility or functional aspect, even if that is, in the case of a painter, to provide glory to god, social commentary or obligation to one's landlord.
'Techne' means 'art', doesn't it?
After reading this discussion, I don't feel so bad about not being able to slog through the book.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by StarrmanWell, the distinction between aesthetic and utilitarian considerations is very, how shall I say, Victorian; I'd prefer to adopt a robust, Greek viewpoint whereby function and aesthetics combine. Architecture has always been a good example of this. And we may speak of the art of governing, the art of war, and so on. The art of roofing. Why not? (Plato's 'The Statesman' (Politicus) is to blame for my interest in this stuff).
I'd be more inclined to use 'skill' or 'craft', art lends itself to aesthetic consideration and I think the intention is for there to be some utility or functional aspect, even if that is, in the case of a painter, to provide glory to god, social commentary or obligation to one's landlord.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think the distinction is valid, lest we make the mistake of assuming all aesthetic things are of some functional use, or to better put it; labelling anything aesthetic as techne, irrespective of its functionality.
Well, the distinction between aesthetic and utilitarian considerations is very, how shall I say, Victorian; I'd prefer to adopt a robust, Greek viewpoint whereby function and aesthetics combine. Architecture has always been a good example of this. And we may speak of the art of governing, the art of war, and so on. The art of roofing. Why not? (Plato's 'The Statesman' (Politicus) is to blame for my interest in this stuff).
The 'art' of war makes it sound very glorious and noble, though I suspect no such situation exists.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by StarrmanOr we could talk about the aesthetic value of a given instance of techne. The art of rhetoric -- speaking well is a skill that, taken to its height, can evoke an aesthetic response that contributes to the achievement of its goal. Isolating the aesthetic is merely a hangover from 'l'art pour l'art', a deceitful expression if ever there was one. Actually, I'd argue that all art has a function, else why bother making it? Again, 'function' has a pejorative aura stemming from a dated concept of high art versus the philistine bourgeosie.
I think the distinction is valid, lest we make the mistake of assuming all aesthetic things are of some functional use, or to better put it; labelling anything aesthetic as techne, irrespective of its functionality.
The 'art' of war makes it sound very glorious and noble, though I suspect no such situation exists.
The art of war would be war waged with maximum skill. War has its own aesthetic, too, like it or not.
We also talk of the surgeon's art. Every technical pursuit can be viewed as an art, marrying form and function for maximum aesthetic kicks. Suspension bridges. The pleasure of driving a finely crafted automobile.
'Kunst' means both 'art' and 'skill'; it's an interesting nicety. Insisting on two different words for each meaning impoverishes English, in my opinion.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not sure I agree with the notion of aesthetic 'value'. To assign value to somethign there needs to be a scale or measurement we can use, is there such a thing for aesthetics? If not, or at least if not in the objective sense, how can we not seperate the aesthetic from the functional?
Or we could talk about the aesthetic value of a given instance of techne. The art of rhetoric -- speaking well is a skill that, taken to its height, can evoke an aesthetic response that contributes to the achievement of its goal. Isolating the aesthetic is merely a hangover from 'l'art pour l'art', a deceitful expression if ever there was one. Actually ...[text shortened]... ting on two different words for each meaning impoverishes English, in my opinion.
I agree with the marrying of form and function being necessary for the most effective technical pursuit, but in my opinion calling it an art leads to a more romantic interpretation and mires the qualities it might have, some aesthetic and some functional. It may impoverish the language, I'm not sure. I guess it depends whether we're after a more lavish literary, or philosophically accurate goal.
On the subject of art for art's sake I'm of the mind that making art is an urge or appetite which wells up in us and it's point (if any) is merely its creation. A subjective desire to create which is probably derivative of our need to question the universe, a bi-product of evolutionary adaptation. Perhaps that's for another discussion though, being as it is a quickly formed explanation.
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyCouldn't it be because it was more realistic for the main characters to be men? I mean, let's face it, the vast majority of hackers are men (I think!) and he even put a woman in their team (although not a main character). In the second world war society was pretty much sexist and since most of the main characters are in the military it seemed normal to me.
My (slight) beef is that he doesn't develop female characters (even Amy Shaftoe) nearly as well as he does male ones, which gives the impression that he considers the female human experience more different from the male one than it actually is, enough to give the impression that he's got a similar sort of "us/them" mentality genderwise to the one you al "Zodiac", so I'm certainly not making blanket sexism-accusations against Stephenson.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHe translates it as "crafts", which I also think is more precise (or art as in "mechanic arts"😉. Athena was not the goddess of art (as we understand the concept today), but more of crafts. Artisanship, if you will.
'Techne' means 'art', doesn't it?
After reading this discussion, I don't feel so bad about not being able to slog through the book.
The book starts very well, then slows down but picks up again later on. I found it an relatively easy read, for a 900 page book.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by StarrmanSorry, I missed this before my previous post. I agree entirely.
I'd be more inclined to use 'skill' or 'craft', art lends itself to aesthetic consideration and I think the intention is for there to be some utility or functional aspect, even if that is, in the case of a painter, to provide glory to god, social commentary or obligation to one's landlord.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think the richness of English is in its immense vocabulary, not its grammar which is kind of blunt and direct. There are many examples that small subtle differences require different words (e.g. shimmer/flicker/glimmer/etc...).
'Kunst' means both 'art' and 'skill'; it's an interesting nicety. Insisting on two different words for each meaning impoverishes English, in my opinion.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by StarrmanThus spaketh the...Artist! 😵
On the subject of art for art's sake I'm of the mind that making art is an urge or appetite which wells up in us and it's point (if any) is merely its creation. A subjective desire to create which is probably derivative of our need to question the universe, a bi-product of evolutionary adaptation.