Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #37
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Saturday, April 12 1997   Volume 02 : Number 037

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 02:05:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1903 accepted (Those Wacky Aliens)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 1903
> Those Wacky Aliens
> IdiotBoy
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  12 / 19 = 63.157895%
> Yes:  7    No:  3     Present:  2   ...Proposal accepted.
> 
> 
> Vynd bribed Tammany A$ 5 to vote YES.
> Mohammed bribed Tammany A$ 5 to vote NO.

Vynd eyes Mohammed across the proposal strewn table.  Cigarette smoke
drifts in clouds across the room, and in the background one can hear
murmered conversation, with an occasional bark of guttural laughter,
quickly supressed...

Vynd says, "I see you dime, and I raise you.....  a nickle."

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:42:02 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: This Might Be Gizz

Malenkai the Platonist wrote:

(snip,   snip)
>The question is then, how to explain this feeling in a reasonably
rational
>way that some art quality is not 100% subjective

Here we must first define the term quality.  If you're talking about
quality as partt of the definition of art,  as in "that indefinable
quality that -is- art"  or the craftsmanship and skill used in producing
a specific artifact called "art".

If we're talking of the first type of definition,  then obviously, 
subjectivity plays a large part,  if not totally.  But in the second type
of defionition,  subjectivity can almost be totally removed.  Whether you
like Rembrandt  or Andy Warhol or Peter Max,  their craftsmanship is not
disputed.  Even if you don't like rock music,  almost everyone would
agree that Inas-Godda-Davida sounds better when perfromed by Iron
Butterfly than Snowgod's basement band.

> You can always say, objectively,
>that one capacitor in a circut has more capacitance than another.

I think here that Malenkai has a point,  despite eir Platonistics
leanings.  "Good art"  whether it's to your taste or not,  endures.  Many
styles and individual pieces of art were originally panned as "faddish"
or immature;  only to be hailed as mastyerful generations later.  The
lithograpphs of Latrec come to mind.  And I am still not a fan of
lithographic art.  I wouldn't know a Monet from a Manet without a
catalog,  but both artists endured.

> Admittedly, there is a large component of subjective "taste" to skew
the model, but I am arguing there
>is *some* non-zero onjective component, and that component is
information delivered.

This leads me to a tangential thought that may help in arriving at some
form of objective definition of "art".  It is not new,  I have seen it
elsewhere,  but Malenkai's argument here gives new rise to it;  and it
might help support eir argument.

Art is by its nature interpretive.  No two people see the same painting, 
nor hear the same music.  They interpret the meanings based on a number
of factors,  not the least is education.  It seems to me most of what we
call "art" and all of what might be called "good art" has the ability to
tell something,  fully intended by the artist,  about that artist.  It
also tels the person something else,  not necessarily intended by the
artist.  The "information"  imparted by a piece of music or the subject
of a painting transcends the surface message and tells us all something
about ourselves.  Even the fact that we ignore the information and the
message tells us about ourselves.  We are defined by our tastes as much
as our actions.

I'll close with a personal note to Malenkai.  No,  I don't read
everything  Right now,  I don't read any of the Proposals,  and I only
skim commentary on the Proposals to see if anything interesting is being
said.  When I was a full Player,  I did read everything.

Habeus Corpus
BMW,  PORSCHE
(Bandwidth Monster Waster,  Personnel Observing Several Comicly Hecklinmg
Entities)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:16:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: This Might Be Gizz

> agree that Inas-Godda-Davida sounds better when perfromed by Iron
> Butterfly than Snowgod's basement band.
	I didn't think Iron Butterfly did it particularly well, myself... 
not to knock the song, or the band, of course.  Maybe if snowgod had enough 
to drink...

- -- Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:10:50 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: This Might Be Gizz (But is certainly not headwear) 

Habeous Corpus Wrote:

>If we're talking of the first type of definition,  then obviously,
>subjectivity plays a large part,  if not totally.  But in the second type
>of defionition,  subjectivity can almost be totally removed.  Whether you
>like Rembrandt  or Andy Warhol or Peter Max,  their craftsmanship is not
>disputed.  Even if you don't like rock music,  almost everyone would
>agree that Inas-Godda-Davida sounds better when perfromed by Iron
>Butterfly than Snowgod's basement band.

I object.  My basement is currently flooded and the muting effects of 3
feet of water lend a lovely sound to Inas-Godda-Davida that cannot be
achieved even by Iron Butterfly.  In fact, if they attempted it, they would
certainly be electrocuted by their guitars.  You see, snowgod's basement
band has a definite advantage here, that of it's acousticity, which,
objectivly or subjectively, is the greatest form of art on earth.
Especially when underwater.  How dores this tie in to malenkai's bandwith
wasting Giz?  Hell if I know.

snowgod

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #37
***************************************