You so don’t get it. But you’ve been saying that for years.
Save me from retracing your past posts. Is there some abstract art that you do like?
I have been arguing all along that a certain degree of expertise in the subject matter is necessary to form an intelligent opinion. You need to learn, though, that there’s a very big problem with assigning words to your opponent in a debate. Characterizing what I said as somehow enfranchising only “special people” in the discussion is grossly incorrect. If you honestly think those statements were somehow identical, then you need to learn to say precisely what you mean and to listen to what your opponent says. Don’t play around with my words - it’s childish and dishonest. Make arguments to counter what I say, but don’t assign words to me and argue against them.
I think the fact that I’m having to explain something that simple to you is a pretty good signal that there’s no point in discussing this further.
Without feeling any particular rage myself, I wonder if, as a thought experiment, we substitued other petty acts of vandalism for this one? What if the kid had done some similar minor physical action whose larger consequences he had been warned about, but was undeterred from? Something easily done when no one is looking?
Like, say, unplugging an electric cord.
On, say, someone’s respirator.
Would we still be saying “kids will do dumb things, and have to learn the consequences?”
Sailboat
But what if it was Hitler’s respirator? What then?
I agree, some kids are delightfully dumb, others are just bastards. Lucky for the kid he did it in the quiet surround of an art museum and not with a key on someone’s car.
Of course. I’ve commented on one, and only one, piece of art in this thread. I also made a comment that it is more difficult to discern the artist’s skill in abstract art, but I did not go on to say that this makes it inherently inferior.
The premise that I attacked art in general, or specifically abstract art, is a contrivance.
Do you mean to tell me that you made an assumption about what I was saying without reading it for yourself?
So such a person would need a special understanding of the subject matter? Look, you might not like the way I interpret what you are saying, and that’s no surprise since we disagree, but I resent your assertion that the interpretation is dishonest.
And I continue to disagree. A common person without special training is entitled to form an opinion on a work of art. And, before you start in, that opinion may not be informed enough to be considered a critique, but it’s sufficient for one person’s view or the basement of some internet bulletin board. Art may not be made for the masses, but nor is it made for only a select few. I’d be quite interested if you disagree with that last bit.
I have no problem with you quitting the thread, just as I had no problem with you popping in to engage in an argument with me.
Like I say, you’re a liar and an idiot. I’ve held a consistent stance since my first post in this thread, and I even recapped for the slow-of-comprehension. I know that you’re capable of reading, so it’s not just imbecility that’s leading to you calling me a backtracker: it’s active dishonesty.
Bullshit. I also work with kids many times on a weekly basis, through work and through school. While I don’t have the advantage of working with a single child for years on end, I worked with close to 300 children in February in fourteen work presentations and two four-hour classroom observations. That’s a pretty typical month for me.
If you think that’s why I’m calling you a dummy, then you’re a dummy.
Not exactly: I’ve not disagreed (in fact, I’ve reiterated more than once) that this was a malicious act. He certainly knew better. What I doubt is that he had really through through HOW destructive it was. I think there’s a decent chance that his thoughts went like,
- This trip sucks!
- This painting sucks!
- I bet my friends’ll laugh if I put my chewing gum on it.
- Dude! I rock! (or possibly “Crap! I’m a dumbass, what’s wrong with me?”)
Twelve-year-olds are not known for their in-depth analysis, or their impulse control. They ARE known for acting on whims. That’s WHY it’s so important to teach them that acting on whims is unacceptable.
What a lovely thing it is, then, that I’m not justifying it. You’re usually pretty smart, Excalibre: where the hell do you get the idea that I’m justifying his actions? Please quote an entire post which can reasonably be read in such a manner.
Again: claiming that his actions should be evaluated within the context of his age group and developmental level is not excusing him. It is realizing that this one act may be indicative of testing boundaries, of adolescent impulse control problems, of other factors, rather than being indicative of a hopeless personality. Those who believe otherwise are simply ignorant. (Excalibre, you asked for a cite, but I’m not sure what sort of cite you’re looking for: are you looking for weblinks to Erikson, Piaget, and Kohlberg’s research and theories, or for links to research on vandalism by teens, or for links to research on gum attached to paintings? I can provide the first two but not the last, and will happily concede that this particular form of property destruction is not common among adolescents).
Daniel
Ah, OK. If you’d have made that clearer early on, we could have saved ourselves some venom. Then again, if one of us had asked…
Mea culpa, youa culpa, everyone a culpa culpa.
I never said it should be “inherently obvious.” My point was that many people make knee jerk comments about the genre and refuse to listen to why someone may appreciate a certain piece. Rather than just write it off as rubbish, listen to an explanation of the art form, then if you still think it’s shit, then so be it.
I
Dammit, I wasn’t finished with my last post.
I don’t know if you are directing the accusation of arrogance at me or not but if you were then I think you misunderstand. If I was willing to pay $50 for a painting that you thought was crap and wouldn’t drop $5 for it, I in no way would think you were uncultured, a moron, etc for not appreciating it as much as I.
I don’t think the true value of a piece has anything to do with it’s price tag.
Wouldn’t you like to be a culpa too?
Damn, now I’m gonna be humming that all day.
I have, but regrettably the drop cloth went out in the trash along with the rest of the consumables from that adventure in home improvement.
Agreed, on both counts.
It may not have been clear because I was joking about ‘qualities’ of this painting. I won’t apologize for making a joke out of it, but I’ll apologize for mocking you instead of just explaining.
No problem. I’ve come to the conclusion that 90% of flame wars on this board can be avoided if (generic) you just explain what you mean, and listen to what others are saying. Most of us just don’t do that, and problems arise as a result.
I’ve always had this issue with modern art. especially with Mark Rothco’s “paintings”-most of the time, they look like Rothco just flung buckets of paint at a canvas.
But now that it’s been explained, you know better, right?
Can’t we all just get along?
Well sometimes, but only after we spew sufficient venom first. 
Jim