Linguistic Deconstruction - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Linguistic Deconstruction
in Philosophy

Linguistic Deconstruction is basically the concept of analyzing interpretations, definitions, and connotations of language, to separate them from language. Its conclusion is that language itself is incredibly vague, perhaps even useless in communicating one's own thoughts. Jacques Derrida is  considered the founder of the philosophy of linguistic deconstruction. What are your thoughts on it? And yes, I realize the absuridity of someone agreeing with Derrida(myself) of asking you to convey your thoughts in language when I consider it useless for doing so lol. But hey... it just bolsters my absurdist position in a metaphysical sense that life is just plainly absurd, full of logical impossibilities, useleness, and paradoxes. I embrace the Absurd though ;)

I'll make my case for my position in the first comment.



Plaffelvohfen
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • edited August 13
    As I spend more and more time online, and more and more miscommunication happens not just from my own attempt at communication but I observe so much more from others where heated arguments(not debate arguments, but drama arguments) occur that could be boiled down to miscommunication, I find myself agreeing more and more with the linguistic deconstructionists that language is awful at its intended purpose: to effectively communicate with others. I'm sure you've experienced countless times where people misinterpreted what you've said, and observe it happening constantly between others.

    But, this goes far beyond mere observation. As I engage in more and more debates as well through my life, I find the meaning, feelings, interpretations in my head are literally impossible to communicate to others in any language I know. I know English, American Sign Language, and German. First, there's evidence to suggest, based on what I know, that English doesn't even have the same capabilities that ASL and German do for certain words. Words in both of those languages have meanings that simply don't exist in English, and vise versa: English has meanings, connotations, interpretations, etc that just don't exist in those languages. Then there's the enigma of my inner-thoughts where I have meanings that aren't present in any of the languages I know.

    It really is completely and totally Absurd, but it exists somehow. This is really odd, but somehow language is paradoxical, but exists, as do many other paradoxes. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • Side note:
    Though I said lots of absurd things exist I also recognize that existence itself is absurd.... which creates yet another paradox(and I can certainly make the argument on why existence is absurd, but many philosophers have already done so, and plus that would be off-topic to this debate)
    Plaffelvohfen
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    I've long hoped for mathematicians to create a precise artificial language that would convey messages in a completely determined way, leaving no room for interpretation. In that case, whenever people in a conversation do not understand each other, they could use that language with no ambiguity.

    But at some point I realised that it might be impossible. Language is, by its very nature, circular; you cannot define any word, structure, etc. without involving other words, structures, etc. In mathematics, you can define a set of axioms from which everything else is defined - but in language, you cannot define words-"axioms", since they will necessarily be determined by means of that very language.

    How do you separate a part of language from that language? Suppose I have the word "car". How can I consider this word outside the scope of the language? Sure, I can look at pictures of cars; I can listen to the sounds of cars; I can go to a car show and look at cars; and I can even drive a car. After a long exposure to cars, I can understand pretty well what the word means. But even so, how do I define it in a strict, precise manner?

    Our language is built on inductive, not deductive logic. As we learn the language, we observe the patterns around us and learn what words are associated with what pattern; over time, we learn so many patterns that we can deconstruct virtually any situation we observe into a set of language elements - but we never truly define any words.
    For the language to be constructed mathematically, we would need to go in the opposite direction: not from patterns to words, but from words to patterns. But without patterns, where do you get the words?
    PlaffelvohfenGeoLibCogScientistpiloteer
  • I believe that language evolves as our society evolves. However, socially, we do not all evolve at an equal pace. This leads to different dialects, absurdly different lexicons based on region, and every personal diction to be imprinted based upon their environment. In an age of digital communication, I find the point that language is a flawed tool to be alluring, but ultimately limiting as a description. After all, language is just a tool developed by a group of individuals to communicate. By its definition, it could be a very straightforward system in order to communicate. However, I believe the issues are based on mass regional differences and lapses in time of technology advancement that has led to the dilution of language to the point where it could be called flawed. Compound that with our digital age, we now have a new avenue to explore this topic, the massive changes based on how to communicate online.  
  • You can think using words (articulate knowledge/logic) or think without using words (inarticulate knowledge, instinct, intuition). One of the major things distinguishing us from animals is our ability to use words to think.

    Inarticulate knowledge doesn't articulate itself (obviously). We must use words to transform our inarticulate knowledge into articulate knowledge. However, if your verbal intelligence and/or your vocabulary are not of the required level you will not be able to explain something you know. It's also possible that you know something because your subconscious mind has picked up on some information that your conscious mind hasn't. A good example would be that you often intuitively know that someone is lying, but you can't explain how. The best teachers and professors are high in verbal intelligence, which is why they are so good at explaining things in a manner that is digestible.
    all4actt
  • I think that communication that is expressed in just the written word tends to be misunderstood more often than communication that occurs in person.

    It is more difficult to assertain the intent or spirit of the comment without being able to hear tone  of voice or see the persons body language when they are making their statement.  

    Many comments that maybe meant as humourous or sarcastic are often taken as serious when written, especially in the form of a text message. 

     Although some people do still have difficulty picking up social cues or changes in tones or body language even in a face to face conversation so misunderstandings still happen.

    Also, sone people just don't understand humor period.


  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited August 16
    Actually, Heidegger is considered the founder of pointing out the unreliable nature in all texts. This is a little different from the style that Derrida was known for which is deconstruction. Heidegger is also considered the founder of deconstructionism, and Derrida openly addmited that he got that technique from Heidegger. Deconstruction, as it was used by Heidegger and Derrida (and all the post-structuralists/post-modernists) could be used on virtually any founding principle, whether it's philosophical/scientific/religious/or social rule, or law, or order, or thought. It wasn't specific to text or linguistics, but could be used on texts or linguistics as well. Derrida also openly addmited that he wasn't concerned with being correct or making any specific points. It was almost like Derrida was just deconstructing anything and everything just for fun. It's pretty simple to do. When someone puts forth any kind of proposition as if it's fact, or deeply rooted in indisputable evidence, you just barrage them with "why"s? Eventually you get them to a point that they can't confirm is fact because their entire proposal will seem to be founded in something that is thought to be a founding truth, but is only assumed to be a founding truth. Once you get someone to say, "well that fact goes without saying", or "it has to be true, because otherwise..........", that's when you get to stand up and say, "Mwa ha ha biotch. If you can't prove that the founding principle in your assertion isn't actually true, than it can all be dismissed as undetermined. Then you get to twist the ends of your thin pointy mustache and pretend your some kind of intellectual deviant who can pull the rug out from underneath everybody. MWAA HAA HAAA!!! However, Noam Chomsky would cut that trick up into tiny bite sized pieces and serve it up like sushi, leaving the deconstructionaire looking like a moron. It's a pretty old trick now, and it doesn't take a lot of intellectual effort to see right through that trick. It's really just a philosophical trick.

    The linguistic side to Heideggers approach is a little more difficult to unravel, because it does seem to hold a little water. It seems especially more difficult when something is in text, as opposed to being verbally expressed. It's even more difficult when the author of a certain text is deceased. It pretty much goes like this. Anything that is verbally expressed, or written, is subject to miscommunication on the part of the person expressing it. Any concept can be expressed incorrectly, and the concept can even be altered or made hazy, or obscured, or even diminished from the original concept in the mind when it's formed into an expression. After that, any interpretation of that concept is subject to misinterpretation. That misinterpretation grows with every new interpretation of the original concept. But our hero Noam Chomsky who is sharp as a tack when it comes to linguistics (he's considered the leading professional in modern times), and he's also a warrior of objective reasoning, and he can cut straight through the the murk that Mr Heidegger has tried to leave us with. I personally take the middle road when it comes between Chomsky and Heidegger. Yes, all expression is subject to many layers of misinterpretation, but it doesn't render it useless. Journalism is certainly more of an accurate approximation than not being there to witness an occurrence yourself. Reading or hearing several different interpretations of an event is ideal when it comes to getting a more accurate approximation of an event, but even second hand accounts are better than nothing. 

    When it comes to mathematical algorithms or proven scientific studies, Heideggers approach is kinda impotent. He instead opted to question the validity of science altogether rather than confront it head on. Heideggers big issue was with the word "is". He pointed out how profound that word actually is, but how easily it is used without any thought of what it actually is trying to address. I actually used the word "is" six times in just this paragraph alone which makes it seem like such a mundane word. Although it may seem like a silly waste of time on the surface, Heidegger was able to construct a very dynamic, sometimes compelling, sometimes repugnant, but always controversial philosophy that has profoundly shaped modern society. He is considered the founder of post-moderism, but he and his philosophy predated the word post-modern itself. His philosophy starts as a question. What is "is". He goes on to point out that questioning what "is" is, is a question of what it means "to be". "Is", as a verb is part of the phrase "to be", or in other words, "to exist". He goes on to ask even more profound questions on what it means, or what it is to exist. But when it came down to deciphering what existence actually is, he concluded that science and math are useless here, and poetry and deep self searching are the only effective measures. That's pretty much where Heideggers philosophy nose dives into fantasy. Heidegger tried to create a third category of existence. So he asserted that there is existence, non-existence, and "beyond-existence", or other than existence, but not in the realm of non-existent. That's a non-starter for me because I would say that out of those three categories of existence, only one actually exists, which or course would be existence. I believe that the only thing that doesn't truly exist is non-existence. So long as something can be conceptualized, it exists in some form. It may not exist in a physical form, but even if it's only a concept, or an imagined incoherent impulse, it still exists in some form. Just the act of conceptualizing something can "cause" it's existence. If someone were to point out something that has never been conceptualized before, just to prove it's non-existent, as soon as they conceptualize it, it exists in some form.

     I think that to really get to the root of the idea of the unreliable nature in all texts, some background in the philosophy that it's derived from is paramount.

    GeoLibCogScientist
  • edited August 16
    @piloteer

    Yeah, certainly we could debate over who is the founder of deconstruction lol. It seems there isn't agreement on that even among the experts on this. I, of course, wasn't necessarily saying he is for sure the founder, that's why I linked to a source claiming he was. I was merely stating what the source said.

    Edit: I accidentally clicked "spoiler" instead of "quote" at first, and now I can't seem to get rid of the spoiler. There's nothing in it, so just ignore it. 
    Eventually you get them to a point that they can't confirm is fact because their entire proposal will seem to be founded in something that is thought to be a founding truth, but is only assumed to be a founding truth.

    Exactly why I'm a metaphysical subjectivist and solipsist lol.


    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • VaulkVaulk 618 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    Be careful, you're closing in fast on the great thinkers of our past who thought themselves into acceptance of creationism.
    GeoLibCogScientist
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    I'm already way ahead of you. I'm also behind the person who is the instigator in this formal debate on dart.

    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @GeoLibCogScientist

    Being a "metaphysical subjectivist and a solipsist" just because it's possible to use word porn to "expose" how any founding principle isn't actually rooted in anything but a social construction seems a tad impulsive. That tactic can just as easily be used on meta-subjectivists to "expose" the fact that they can never prove any and all truths are simply illusions. If your a solipsist, you must be aware that you can't actually prove that others don't exist, right? I understand using solipsism as a guiding principle to the extent of refusing to place others above yourself, but if your regards on this matter are subjective, you can easily be put in the same quagmire of having to say, "well that fact goes without saying", or, "well, it has to be true, because otherwise........." Deconstructionism is only a philosophical trick, but it proves nothing. Because of the very nature of the outcome of the technique of deconstructionism, the proponents of it adhere to some kind of anti-logic that is not far off from nihilism., and it seems they only do that to lend some kind of merit to an outdated philosophical trick. If we stretch it to it's own limits, we can find that even nihilism has no firm ground to stand on, and is contrary to its own self.

     I absolutely love post-moderism, and I realize there's a lot more to it than subjectivity. Its views on modern art is very compelling because it tries to legitimize forms of art that were not considered art before. But how ever much I love post-moderism, I also understand that it's true intention is to cherry pick certain aspects of it that most apply to you. I also understand why many leading proponents of postmodernism recommend not embracing it as a philosophy on life. It can really mess you up!!! Post-moderism is an artistic philosophy, but it's impotent when it comes to real life. It can also be debilitating when people embrace it as a whole and realize they have to fill in countless gaps that were meant to be left unfilled. Post-moderism cannot be used to make moral arguments against whatever terrible things humanity does to itself. It was created by a fierce proponent of national socialism, and that creator never apologized for his involvement in the Nazi movement. I find it fascinating how the Woodstock generation embraced the exact same philosophy that was used to empower the Nazi movement. So, I guess I'd say, have all the fun you'd like with post-moderism, but take it in with a grain of salt. Notice that post-modernists refuse to engage scientific studies, or objective philosophy head on, and instead attempt to use word porn to delegitimize any objective facts. When those facts are solidified with rigorous testing and scrutiny, the subjective post-modernists need to make their arguments even more abstract and even call into question the validity of existence itself to try and delegitimize any objective facts. Post-moderism is just David Hume for the masses. It's pop nihilism.
  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    edited August 19
    You say ......... Its conclusion is that language itself is incredibly vague, perhaps even useless in communicating one's own thoughts. Jacques Derrida is  considered the founder of the philosophy of linguistic deconstruction. What are your thoughts on it? 


    My reply .......Yet there are people who are gifted at using language beautifully and say an awful lot by skillfully utilizing language , the average person uses language functionally while others use it like a gifted artist with a brush , maybe it’s just the average Joe is not very creative in many things language included.

    The likes of Derrida come across as a tedious pretentious egotist ,Nietzsche said mediocre  thinkers hide their feet behind the glide and rustle of sumptuous robes because they don’t know how to walk 
  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    edited August 19
    @piloteer

    Heidegger said “The function of truth is to conceal “ complete and utter nonsense.

    Heidegger and his type of Philosophical posturing like Derrida’s is typical of philosophical bullshitters who pretend to a kind of wisdom that only very few people have, but that also means that only very few people are competent to challenge the nonsense they spout 

  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    edited August 19
    @piloteer


     You say ......I absolutely love post-moderism, and I realize there's a lot more to it than subjectivity. Its views on modern art is very compelling because it tries to legitimize forms of art that were not considered art before. 



    My reply ......As a full time artist I’ve seen that  post-modernistic philosophy is responsible for introducing a lot of pretentious meaningless nonsense into the art world. A whole new industry has opened up as in Art speak where artists use the most bizarre philosophically sounding nonsense to describe their work here  is one example of an artist statement using the new art speak buzzwords , it’s utter nonsense......


    Postmodernism is a pause in the history of art and exists to give us perspective on understanding that the “life=art” statement is currently evolving.  I guess you could call me a Post-Neo-Post Fluxus Explorer; an artist surviving in the indeterminate postmodern landscape. The banality of changing my clothes in the morning is profound in its nature, corresponding to the act of making art.  To sustain such a creative endeavor, you must be able to catalyze an idea, making sense out of “life=art”.

  • @Dee

    Post modernism empowers non-"professional" artists. It rejects any classical means of deciphering what "constitutes" art. Art is not for collegiate middle class white people only. It's for the masses!!!! 
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited August 20
    Dee said:
    @piloteer

    Heidegger said “The function of truth is to conceal “ complete and utter nonsense.

    Heidegger and his type of Philosophical posturing like Derrida’s is typical of philosophical bullshitters who pretend to a kind of wisdom that only very few people have, but that also means that only very few people are competent to challenge the nonsense they spout 

    I agree. Heidegger's philosophy was art driven, but his attempt to discredit mathematical theorems, or scientific findings was that those things were useless when it came to deciphering what "is". And he probably said "is" in that wicked snotty tone kinda like William F Buckley had. "IZ". Ghaa, it takes every fiber of my existence to not punch those kinda people. But I still do like some aspects of postmodernism.  Heidegger and Derrida were both "ga ga" for Nietzsche. They purposely made postmodernism to make Nietzsche look like a prophet. Nietzsche talked about the philosophy of the "final man", and he said that no objective truths would exist in it. That's why we now have subjectivity. Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky could make quick work out of making a postmodernist look foolish. 
  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    edited August 20
    @piloteer


    You say ......Post modernism empowers non-"professional" artists.

    My reply .....How it achieves that or goes about it to be honest I’m totally unaware off , I work daily with a group of artists and not one of us amateur or professional has ever mentioned empowerment or postmodernism 

    You say........It rejects any classical means of deciphering what "constitutes" art.

    My reply ......But no one knows what constitutes art they all just have their subjective views on the matter , normally it’s those that cannot or don’t actually do anything artistic that dictate what art is and is not , high end art is all market driven and described in the most ridiculous art speak terms to put an air of exclusivity around it 

    You say .......Art is not for collegiate middle class white people only. It's for the masses!!!! 

    My reply .....I agree and most working artists  do art  for the masses, I’m doing a public show this week with 200 artists exhibiting in the open air it’s great fun and the public come out in their droves for this show and buy art, most just want to buy a painting that clicks with them and the biggest sellers are landscapes, seascapes , cityscapes especially on rainy days and the odd abstract piece. That’s what I call art for the masses and they most know exactly what they want 
  • edited August 20
    piloteer said:
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    Being a "metaphysical subjectivist and a solipsist" just because it's possible to use word porn to "expose" how any founding principle isn't actually rooted in anything but a social construction seems a tad impulsive. That tactic can just as easily be used on meta-subjectivists to "expose" the fact that they can never prove any and all truths are simply illusions. If your a solipsist, you must be aware that you can't actually prove that others don't exist, right?
    Apologies for getting to this late, somehow I never saw a notification for it.  To address the above, I want to point out a firm distinction here. While I would say, indeed, I can't prove nor disprove the existence of anything outside my mind, I do not require absolute "proof" in order to justify belief. Rather, I require it for knowledge rather than belief. I make a firm distinction between the two. Everything I do in life is based on a belief something appears to be real. So while I recognize that, frankly, most things in life appear paradoxical(when you boil something down to a postulate/axiom, or a claim that cannot be proved or disproved due to the claim requiring circular logic, i.e to prove one's perception correct requires the use of said perception), I embrace the paradoxical, or "absurd". I'm also an absurdist. 

    I understand using solipsism as a guiding principle to the extent of refusing to place others above yourself, but if your regards on this matter are subjective, you can easily be put in the same quagmire of having to say, "well that fact goes without saying", or, "well, it has to be true, because otherwise........." Deconstructionism is only a philosophical trick, but it proves nothing.
    Indeed, it's not really meant to prove anything I would say. Rather, it indicates nothing can be proved nor disproved. I wouldn't call it a "trick" really. That seems to imply it is a falsehood. I'm not sure how one would argue that.

    Because of the very nature of the outcome of the technique of deconstructionism, the proponents of it adhere to some kind of anti-logic that is not far off from nihilism
    I'm not trying to do a deconstructionist technique here(I can tell you obviously would oppose such a thing), but I'm wondering why you consider it an anti-logic. I know deconstruction usually starts out with a "why" and continually goes down that. I'll only ask once and hope it appears clear to me.

    I disagree with nihilism in that I do believe there is merit in seeking out purpose in life and trying to find one. Primarily, if nothing else, for my own mental health. Certainly, believing life is purposeless can easily lead to mental health decline. Given that, as a solipsist, the self, my own conscience, and mind are what I accept to exist, I certainly don't want to think things which appear to be detrimental to my mind. So, if I started believing life is not only purposeless but also futile due to it being impossible to find purpose, well, I've found that to be detrimental to my mental health. So, for this reason, I find it a necessity to believe I can find a purpose, and somewhat attach purpose to the process of my achieving life goals. Again, though, everything I see myself accomplishing in this "life" is beliefs. I cannot claim knowledge of anything.

    If we stretch it to it's own limits, we can find that even nihilism has no firm ground to stand on, and is contrary to its own self.

    I agree with this to an extent. I believe with what I've stated so far, it makes me more of an absurdist than what most consider nihilist. Nihilism seems counter-productive to the self's mental health. Though some also argue absurdism is a type of nihilism, others argue it's a type of existentialism. Once more this comes to a point where language seems to confuse. I've met many people, both experts, and self-described nihilists, existentialists, and absurdists, who all argue different things in regards to these three philosophies. Some consider Camus an existentialist and absurdist, but Camus himself denied the label of existentialist. I mean, what each of these philosophies is is, ironically, up for philosophical debate and has been since their beginnings lol

    Since I see no reason to have ideologies and terms that overlap too much, I prefer to think of the three philosophies as distinct, even though certainly many would disagree. This is how I see each philosophy:

    1) Existentialism: the self exists with a purpose and it is known
    2) Absurdism: The self doesn't inherently have a purpose, but recognizes the need to pursue one or believe in one while recognizing it's not possible to know a purpose is there.
    3) Nihilism: The self doesn't have a purpose, never will, and shouldn't pursue one.

    And yeah... this may be an oversimplification of these or even misrepresentation, but ironically this comes back to my point of language being somewhat useless since I can't seem to agree with others what these terms mean. If language is meant to properly communicate, I've found many instances where it just simply doesn't. This being one of those times: the use of those terms.

    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @Dee

    I wish you luck at your art show, and would be delighted to see some of it if you're willing. I do likes me some surrealism. But not Salvidor Dali. Blechhhh!!!! That guy was so overrated it's sickening. I also like cubism, like Picasso or Delaunay. But I can't deny that Warhol is my favorite, and he's considered the apex of postmodernist art. He actually used a realist approach, but purposely made it look like adds in magazines or newspapers because he started out as an add artist. Advertisements were not considered art before Andy Warhol. A critic wouldn't even consider seeing, let alone critiquing an advertisement. He legitimized the art in adds and the media and demonstrated how those people are equally as good as known artists at the time. He also used public figures faces in repetitive silk prints to demonstrate that the images of those people no longer belonged to those people, but to the public. He used images of horrific car crashes to show people that even though they didn't want to see them, they couldn't look away. That's brilliant!!! His art was a critique of art culture itself. The reason you probably don't hear postmodernism in your art circle is because a lot of people believe we've moved on from postmodernism, but we don't know what phase we're in now. That's the funny thing about social philosophies, they often don't get named until they're coming to a close, or have already passed.

    As far as your idea of non-artists dictating what constitutes art, I'd counter that with a question. What's a non-artist (or person who doesn't do art)? If art is expression, then are we not all artists in some manner? Maybe some of us are not as good at it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not artists. I don't mean this in an offensive manner, but I believe that "high end" elitism bleeds into any set of people who consider themselves "artists" when others are not. I'm sure you would recognize that if art is for the masses, it should be inclusive, even infinitely so.         


  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    edited August 21
    @piloteer


    You say .....I wish you luck at your art show, and would be delighted to see some of it if you're willing. 

    My reply .....Thank you very much it’s a 3 day open air event and great fun , here is one of my watercolours recently bought by a lovely couple from California 


    You say ......do likes me some surrealism. But not Salvidor Dali. Blechhhh!!!! That guy was so overrated it's sickening. 

    My reply .....I love Dali yet detest Warhol, isn’t it wonderful how we all differ so much?

    You say ......I also like cubism, like Picasso or Delaunay. But I can't deny that Warhol is my favorite, and he's considered the apex of postmodernist art. He actually used a realist approach, but purposely made it look like adds in magazines or newspapers because he started out as an add artist. Advertisements were not considered art before Andy Warhol. A critic wouldn't even consider seeing, let alone critiquing an advertisement. He legitimized the art in adds and the media and demonstrated how those people are equally as good as known artists at the time. He also used public figures faces in repetitive silk prints to demonstrate that the images of those people no longer belonged to those people, but to the public. He used images of horrific car crashes to show people that even though they didn't want to see them, they couldn't look away. That's brilliant!!! His art was a critique of art culture itself. 

    My reply .....I thought Warhol was a conman and a very good one at that , he was a one trick pony as in he used repetition and mass production and turned it into an art form.

    I love that .....”His art was a critique of art culture itself. “ ......A very lucrative critique at that , actually the art culture he created would be one as worthy of criticism to me anyway 

    You say .......

    As far as your idea of non-artists dictating what constitutes art, I'd counter that with a question. What's a non-artist (or person who doesn't do art)? If art is expression, then are we not all artists in some manner? 

    My reply ......To me if you claim to be a car mechanic and I take my car to you to repair I expect you to repair not just give an opinion on what constitutes good car maintenance.

    If you tell me your occupation in life I equally expect you to be pretty adept in using the tools of the trade as in brushes , palette knives , chisels etc ,etc 

    In renaissance’s times Artists were seem as tradesmen and indeed the apprenticeship was long and hard and one had to be very well trained to be deemed an Artist , Vasari the renaissance genius is credited as elevating the arts from a trade to what it became 


    You say ......Maybe some of us are not as good at it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not artists. 

    My reply .....Would you apply the same logic to our Mechanic  , carpenter or stone mason or are they still Mechanics , Carpenters , and Stone Masons?


    Regards the non artists I speak of  they mostly cannot paint , draw or sculpt they mostly intensely dislike what’s called traditional art in favour of abstract art and installations .

    It actually a bizarre turnabout artists I know who are brilliant at what they do as in traditional landscape / seascape paintings are ignored yet ones who do abstract art are lauded and elevated by certain clicks in society pushed by academic art theorists.

    I give lessons to Art college students who get an art degree and yet in four years at art college rarely pick up a brush or paints , one student told me in her final exam she was told if  she included a painting in her final submission she would be deducted points , installations and ideas are what the tutors want as submissions.

    Colleges worldwide now do degree course in what’s termed Art speak which basically means talking the game up, a visitor to a high end gallery is given a description of a piece by a gallery owner described in terms it would take a team of philosophers a month to decipher.........

    Here is an example from the yearly hilariously titled  Turner prize show ......

    “MY PRACTICE EXAMINES HESITATION AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING, WHERE THE OBJECT IS NEITHER THE OBJECT OF OBJECTHOOD NOR THE ART-OBJECT. IT IS RATHER THE OBLIQUE OBJECT OF MY INTENTIONS. …”


    Absolute B S Turner must be doing body flips in his grave .......

    Do you notice now how certain artists refer to their work as “their “ practice”.

    Here is a question for you give me your thoughts please , as an intelligent person if you walked into a gallery and the gallery owner described a work as above would you fall to your knees laughing or stroke you chin and knowingly nod your head in appreciation of this superb description?


    This is typical of talking the game up the bottom line is most people do not know what the Artist or gallery owner are bleating about but they do know it ain’t gonna be cheap if the description is anything to go by 

     

    You say .....I don't mean this in an offensive manner, but I believe that "high end" elitism bleeds into any set of people who consider themselves "artists" when others are not. 


    My reply ......It’s not in the slight bit offensive and ask whatever you wish it’s a good conversation.


    But one could say that of bankers , bakers , teachers the difference being that in the case of the art show I’m doing this weekend I along with some of the best  in Europe will be displaying my work and anyone including your  aunt Betty or next door neighbor may hang if they pay the small fee involved , we are and will remain totally inclusive..


    The high end elitists in the art world look down on us for being so inclusive and being so open to the public 


    You say .....I'm sure you would recognize that if art is for the masses, it should be inclusive, even infinitely so.         


    My reply .....I agree , but yet high end art is certainly not 



    You say .......The reason you probably don't hear postmodernism in your art circle is because a lot of people believe we've moved on from postmodernism, but we don't know what phase we're in now. That's the funny thing about social philosophies, they often don't get named until they're coming to a close, or have already passed.


    My reply .....Most I think really don’t care as it has little impact on their real life experiences 

  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited August 22
    @Dee

    That is a magnificent painting. Did you do that? It's lovely. What city is that a depiction of? 

    Some peoples art is there profession, but that doesn't make art exclusively a profession. Some people create art without ever intending to show it. My Grandfather was an engineer, so obviously he was sharp as a tack when it came to being a mechanic, but being a mechanic was certainly not his profession. What people can do, and what they do for work are two separate things. Just like breathing is not a profession, art isn't either, it's just the things we all do. I'm not arguing that everything needs to revered because we are all artists, but it is my belief that all life is nothing more than art and entertainment.

     My preferred method of artistic expression is the audible kind. I love everything from Beethoven to Sonic Youth. I like hip hop, and modern indie, like EDM, or IDM, and psychedelic disco. In my mind, David Bowie was the ubermench that Nietzsche spoke about. I play guitar, because I wanted to sound like David Gilmour from Pink Floyd, but I think that I really sound more like a dying goose........................on acid!         

    What are your thoughts on Banksey? That's some good postmodernist art.   
  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    That is a magnificent painting. Did you do that? It's lovely. What city is that a depiction of? 
    Thanks a lot yes it’s one on my watercolours I paint 90 percent watercolour as I love the medium , it’s incredibly difficult to get right but years of practice do pay of 

    Some peoples art is there profession, but that doesn't make art exclusively a profession. Some people create art without ever intending to show it. My Grandfather was an engineer, so obviously he was sharp as a tack when it came to being a mechanic, but being a mechanic was certainly not his profession. What people can do, and what they do for work are two separate things. Just like breathing is not a profession, art isn't either, it's just the things we all do. I'm not arguing that everything needs to revered because we are all artists, but it is my belief that all life is nothing more than art and entertainment.
    Thats a fair point , it’s just I like most working artists see art as profession first as a lot of work is commission work which is not  work one would do by artistic choice  

     My preferred method of artistic expression is the audible kind. I love everything from Beethoven to Sonic Youth. I like hip hop, and modern indie, like EDM, or IDM, and psychedelic disco. In my mind, David Bowie was the ubermench that Nietzsche spoke about. I play guitar, because I wanted to sound like David Gilmour from Pink Floyd, but I think that I really sound more like a dying goose........................on acid!          

    I’m like you P and a huge Bowie and Gilmour fan , the man is a god 
    What are your thoughts on Banksey? That's some good postmodernist art.   

    I love Banksey and I agree 

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch