3 ms·

Just because someone like you is both and artist and hacker doesn't mean the analysis of the two as distinct tendencies does not have any validity. Part of wha

Just because someone like you is both and artist and hacker doesn't mean the analysis of the two as distinct tendencies does not have any validity. Part of what is frustrating about your reply (which I received a lot over at esr's blog) is that we're actually on the same side. While I'm invoking the distinction you're deriding - nevertheless I'm arguing that those who embody more one side than the other should try to balance their approach... and in fact become more like you - should you in fact be someone that has fused those tendencies in a balanced way. So what are you arguing against here exactly? As for the conflation between artists and philosophers - it was a necessary simplification because I don't have another hundred thousand words worth of time to explicate the commonalities and the differences as I see them. I'm doing a phd in analytic philosophy - so I have some understanding. For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in one form or another. If you want to disagree with that claim - go ahead. But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent.

wazoox 16y ago
> For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in one form or another. I'd say that Philosophy, like science, produces narratives to explain the world. This is very different from art, which never pretended to provide any explanation. As such, I don't think that non-verbal art generally produces an ideology. An artist, usually does, though, but not through his/her art, through additional, parallel works or discourses. See for instance, Dali's or Berlioz' books; or simply talk about music or painting with a musician, or a painter. The art narrative definitely is outside the scope of art itself. I suppose most verbal art (litterature, poetry, etc) can carry an ideology. I don't know if the idea system is part of art itself, though. We could debate that an artist' impressions are used to utter his/her idea system without being part of it per se. I suppose here a strict formalist approach to art. Some people would disagree, however I don't think any other approach to be mainstream nowadays. Your description of art and artists strangely rely upon obsolete 19th century notions, I don't know if it's an elaborate trick or a lack of knowledge of modern art, but it hampers your dissertation; these "romantic views" were more or less dead in 1917 both with Duchamps' fountain and dodecaphonism. > But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent. Sorry to have hurt you. I couldn't resist the urge to cry with the trolls. The writing of this piece is way too much casually conversational and magazine-y to be taken too seriously.
- grovulent 16y ago
  Okay - fair enough. I'll leave the discussion about art/philosophy/ideology there as it's too huge for this venue. But I appreciate you taking the time to explicate your view. I can't resist however pointing out the delicious irony of your last sentence though. It's okay that you took its style to be an indication of poor quality. I'm interested in attracting readers whose high propensity toward intimate behaviours allows them to look beyond various surface signals and engage with the purely semantic content of the piece. If you did in fact engage the piece in that way - then that makes your final comment so ironic that the thought alone brings me much pleasure in contemplation. Those who did will know exactly what I mean.

wazoox 16y ago

> For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in one form or another. I'd say that Philosophy, like science, produces narratives to explain the world. This is very different from art, which never pretended to provide any explanation. As such, I don't think that non-verbal art generally produces an ideology. An artist, usually does, though, but not through his/her art, through additional, parallel works or discourses. See for instance, Dali's or Berlioz' books; or simply talk about music or painting with a musician, or a painter. The art narrative definitely is outside the scope of art itself. I suppose most verbal art (litterature, poetry, etc) can carry an ideology. I don't know if the idea system is part of art itself, though. We could debate that an artist' impressions are used to utter his/her idea system without being part of it per se. I suppose here a strict formalist approach to art. Some people would disagree, however I don't think any other approach to be mainstream nowadays. Your description of art and artists strangely rely upon obsolete 19th century notions, I don't know if it's an elaborate trick or a lack of knowledge of modern art, but it hampers your dissertation; these "romantic views" were more or less dead in 1917 both with Duchamps' fountain and dodecaphonism. > But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent. Sorry to have hurt you. I couldn't resist the urge to cry with the trolls. The writing of this piece is way too much casually conversational and magazine-y to be taken too seriously.

grovulent 16y ago
Okay - fair enough. I'll leave the discussion about art/philosophy/ideology there as it's too huge for this venue. But I appreciate you taking the time to explicate your view. I can't resist however pointing out the delicious irony of your last sentence though. It's okay that you took its style to be an indication of poor quality. I'm interested in attracting readers whose high propensity toward intimate behaviours allows them to look beyond various surface signals and engage with the purely semantic content of the piece. If you did in fact engage the piece in that way - then that makes your final comment so ironic that the thought alone brings me much pleasure in contemplation. Those who did will know exactly what I mean.