Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest aironepony

 

This shit may be written using what appears to be English on the surface, but is in fact a different language encoded using the structures and words of English. It is in reality pure jargon, normally used to allow cliques of academics to live the life of riley at taxpayers expense. It is a fog of obfuscation designed to make people think something valuable is being done, when in reality it is a load of socialist hippies on tax funded holidays.

83891[/snapback]

 

Literary criticism can be no more than a reasoned account of the feeling produced upon the critic by the book he is criticizing. Criticism can never be a science: it is, in the first place, much too personal, and in the second, it is concerned with values that science ignores.

 

The touchstone is emotion, not reason.

 

We judge a work of art by its effect on our sincere and vital emotion, and nothing else.

 

All the critical lambasting about style, content and form, all this classifying and analyzing of books in an imitation "botanical" fashion, is mostly redundant jargon.

 

...................... :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Guest aironepony
BOLLOCKS

 

KB :sun:

83974[/snapback]

 

 

My point, precisely.............

 

Have you thought of taking up literary criticism? I think that you could be verrry good............ :thumbsup:

Link to comment
....Have you thought of taking up literary criticism? I think that you could be verrry good...

 

Aha! Shame! You resort to sarcasm .... the lowest form of wit

 

COBBLERS!

 

but no, I haven't thought of literary criticism - it is, like all other criticisms - a job for parasites.....

 

 

KB :sun:

Link to comment
Literary criticism can be no more than a reasoned account of the feeling produced upon the critic by the book he is criticizing. Criticism can never be a science: it is, in the first place, much too personal, and in the second, it is concerned with values that science ignores.

 

The touchstone is emotion, not reason.

 

We judge a work of art by its effect on our sincere and vital emotion, and nothing else.

 

All the critical lambasting about style, content and form, all this classifying and analyzing of books in an imitation "botanical" fashion, is mostly redundant jargon.

 

...

 

Sincere art, is the same as sincere science - they are both forms of primary research - the search for some kind of truth/beauty in the things around us.

 

Much, both in art & science, masquerades as genuine research, but in truth is merely a cynical expending of grant-bought time, with no real aim other than box-ticking to assure the next cheque.

 

You do both art & science a diservice if you say they may be judged exclusively by either subjective or objective criteria. The view that art can only elicit a response from the emotions & cannot be viewed objectively is one reason why our public galleries are filled with dross & why most people feel disconnected from it (I can't understand it, but art is subjective, I'm told it's good, it's in the art gallery; so it must be valid). The view that science is purely objective disallows the fact that we have limited knowledge & that scientists have imagination. To my mind Richard Feinman was a great artist as Paul Cezanne was a great scientist. Subjective/objective?... both are fundamental in any sincere work - without either, art or science is less.

 

KB :sun

Edited by Baldini
Link to comment
Guest aironepony
You do both art & science a diservice if you say that either may be judged by only subjective or objective criteria. KB :sun

84035[/snapback]

Are there other criteria?...................... :thumbsup:

 

 

Everything is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation. The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too. Everything ideological possesses semiotic value.

 

 

..................... :thumbsup:

Link to comment
...Are there other criteria...

 

My writing did not make my meaning clear. Hopefully I have corrected in my edit. Re ideology/signs - I think I understand what you are saying but do not understand what point you are making?

 

KB :sun:

Link to comment

:2c: we lost one of our great artists this day. pro hart..a great bloke. and a guzzi rider.; :mg::thumbsup: to pro hart..rest in peace.

Sincere art, is the same as sincere science - they are both forms of primary research - the search for some kind of truth/beauty in the things around us.

 

Much, both in art & science, masquerades as genuine research, but in truth is merely a cynical expending of grant-bought time, with no real aim other than box-ticking to assure the next cheque.

 

You do both art & science a diservice if you say they may be judged exclusively by either subjective or objective criteria. The view that art can only elicit a response from the emotions & cannot be viewed objectively is one reason why our public galleries are filled with dross & why most people feel disconnected from it (I can't understand it, but art is subjective, I'm told it's good, it's in the art gallery; so it must be valid). The view that science is purely objective disallows the fact that we have limited knowledge & that scientists have imagination.  To my mind Richard Feinman was a great artist as Paul Cezanne was a great scientist. Subjective/objective?... both are fundamental in any sincere work - without either, art or science is less.

 

KB :sun

84035[/snapback]

Link to comment
Guest aironepony
You do both art & science a diservice if you say they may be judged exclusively by either subjective or objective criteria.

KB :sun

84035[/snapback]

 

Ah, that's nearer to a statement; not one that I would personally endorse though.................. :thumbsup:

 

My writing did not make my meaning clear. Hopefully I have corrected in my edit. Re ideology/signs - I think I understand what you are saying but do not understand what point you are making?

 

KB :sun:

 

84044[/snapback]

 

Never mind, the sun's shining.................. :thumbsup: BTW...what time is it?

Link to comment
...not here it **** ain't...

 

KB :sun:

84058[/snapback]

 

Nor here. Took my bloody Triton to bits to fettle it two days ago and it's still in bits because I can't get anything outside and out of the way to work on it: it's persisting it down.

 

Oh sorry. I thought for a moment this was what's your weather like and it's what time is it. What a blunder!

Link to comment
...not here it **** ain't...

 

KB :sun:

84058[/snapback]

:sun: subjective or objective observation?

 

I bet it is shining ;)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...