Theme: Deception

(useful for the analysis of art)

—“Pseudoprofound bullshit titles made abstract art pieces appear more profound. “On this basis, one may expect the presence of bullshit to be widespread in the abstract art world.”—Rolf Degen @DegenRolf —“Oh, shocking, words can generate meaning! And meaning increases value: Wow! Who ever would have guessed?”—Jason Powell@KillerkattArt

Actually, it’s not ‘meaning’ it’s ‘sentiment’. Not only can we use words communicate meaning (reason), but we can load (sentiments), and usually by means of suggestion (deception). The ‘big lies’ are all constructed by this method, and postmodernism institutionalized it.

—“I feel like your comment highlights why strictly anglophone philosophers are poorly equipped to analyze art.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

I studied at one of the best theoretical art schools in America, and art theory and criticism was my first (and still best) work. One can make truthful (technical) claims. And one can make experiential claims. And one can make political claims. Or one can conflate them (lie). The optimum analysis of any work, set of works, movement’s work, or civilization’s work, is to produce all three analyses and put them in competition with truth(meaning), beauty (aesthetics), excellence (craft), to discover what influenced the artist (context-puppet).

..............Truth(meaning)...........
............./..............\..........
..Beauty(experience) --- Excellence(craft)

And compare the set of influences and context-puppets to one another, to understand the total meaning of the work whether technological, emotional (self), political (political), or context (universal). I can state any and all of those analyses of any work. As should any student.

.........Political...........
......./...........\.........
..Emotional --- Technological

Past->……Universal…..<-Present

Now the next step is to explore the difference between creators who understand their CRAFT as a set of those techniques, for evoking human experience (actors, directors, and editors the best current examples). And those who merely fantasize that they’re not self-pleasuring.

playing > student > laborer > craftsman > artist > innovator.

And the next is not to pander to them, or the pretense that postwar art is critique (undermining) is any different from the idiot in the meeting who reminds us of some obvious pedantry for attention and contributes nothing except friction to development of innovations.

Subtractive <—– Current Condition —–> Addative

It’s not that I’m Anglo, it’s that I’m ELITIST. If Elitism is synonymous with Anglo, Which I think it is, then that’s fine with me. I haven’t seen anything out of the continent that is anything other than simpering Rousseauian want for return of the lies of the church.

—“I don’t mean to knock your style or education. I just feel that if you need to construct a box with predesignated specific language that requires others to get in your box to talk about something then the result is insular and alienating.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

You mean, like every single other discipline in the world? Like, literature? Scriptwriting? The play? What do you think they teach you in art school? Truth is insular and alienating – that’s why we have it. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t need it. Truth provides the DECIDABLE, not PREFERABLE. Here is what I was after: is it art (additive) or is it defecating in public for attention (subtractive)? What is the demarcation between additive and subtractive in art? I know you’re a good person. This is my job, and you just provided me with an opportunity to educate others.

—“Are you sure that your personal categories of “additive” and “subtractive” tells us anything?”—“—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

Do you think I’m so absolutely exasperatingly, frustratingly, and annoyingly, (and arrogantly) persistent in driving to first causes without knowing the first causes? 😉 If it isn’t decidable I say so. If it’s decidable I say so. Irritating. I know… lol

(useful for the analysis of art)

—“Pseudoprofound bullshit titles made abstract art pieces appear more profound. “On this basis, one may expect the presence of bullshit to be widespread in the abstract art world.”—Rolf Degen @DegenRolf —“Oh, shocking, words can generate meaning! And meaning increases value: Wow! Who ever would have guessed?”—Jason Powell@KillerkattArt

Actually, it’s not ‘meaning’ it’s ‘sentiment’. Not only can we use words communicate meaning (reason), but we can load (sentiments), and usually by means of suggestion (deception). The ‘big lies’ are all constructed by this method, and postmodernism institutionalized it.

—“I feel like your comment highlights why strictly anglophone philosophers are poorly equipped to analyze art.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

I studied at one of the best theoretical art schools in America, and art theory and criticism was my first (and still best) work. One can make truthful (technical) claims. And one can make experiential claims. And one can make political claims. Or one can conflate them (lie). The optimum analysis of any work, set of works, movement’s work, or civilization’s work, is to produce all three analyses and put them in competition with truth(meaning), beauty (aesthetics), excellence (craft), to discover what influenced the artist (context-puppet).

..............Truth(meaning)...........
............./..............\..........
..Beauty(experience) --- Excellence(craft)

And compare the set of influences and context-puppets to one another, to understand the total meaning of the work whether technological, emotional (self), political (political), or context (universal). I can state any and all of those analyses of any work. As should any student.

.........Political...........
......./...........\.........
..Emotional --- Technological

Past->……Universal…..<-Present

Now the next step is to explore the difference between creators who understand their CRAFT as a set of those techniques, for evoking human experience (actors, directors, and editors the best current examples). And those who merely fantasize that they’re not self-pleasuring.

playing > student > laborer > craftsman > artist > innovator.

And the next is not to pander to them, or the pretense that postwar art is critique (undermining) is any different from the idiot in the meeting who reminds us of some obvious pedantry for attention and contributes nothing except friction to development of innovations.

Subtractive <—– Current Condition —–> Addative

It’s not that I’m Anglo, it’s that I’m ELITIST. If Elitism is synonymous with Anglo, Which I think it is, then that’s fine with me. I haven’t seen anything out of the continent that is anything other than simpering Rousseauian want for return of the lies of the church.

—“I don’t mean to knock your style or education. I just feel that if you need to construct a box with predesignated specific language that requires others to get in your box to talk about something then the result is insular and alienating.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

You mean, like every single other discipline in the world? Like, literature? Scriptwriting? The play? What do you think they teach you in art school? Truth is insular and alienating – that’s why we have it. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t need it. Truth provides the DECIDABLE, not PREFERABLE. Here is what I was after: is it art (additive) or is it defecating in public for attention (subtractive)? What is the demarcation between additive and subtractive in art? I know you’re a good person. This is my job, and you just provided me with an opportunity to educate others.

—“Are you sure that your personal categories of “additive” and “subtractive” tells us anything?”—“—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

Do you think I’m so absolutely exasperatingly, frustratingly, and annoyingly, (and arrogantly) persistent in driving to first causes without knowing the first causes? 😉 If it isn’t decidable I say so. If it’s decidable I say so. Irritating. I know… lol