5 ms·

There's room for many kinds of art in this world. Minimalism has earned its own space.

by fiblye 6y ago

082349872349872 6y ago
On maximalism, english wouldn't be suitable, but I wonder if there are any agglutinative languages productive enough to generate a potentially infinite one-word poem? (the opposite would be an infinite number —easily done via implied cyclicity[1]— of single-grapheme poems, which probably requires an asiatic script) [1] are there any mobius-strip spin 1/2 fermionic stories? they'd reconnect, but with a twist, so every other reading has a different interpretation...
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  There is a potentially infinite one-word poem in English actually, so long as one is allowed hyphens: "police" can be both a noun or a verb. 'Police-police' are police who police the police. Police whose job it is to police the police-police are police-police-police, etc. Any number of recursions would be possible. Regarding your idea of fermionic stories, I think King's Dark Tower series might be close, though I may be misunderstanding the concept...
  - psyc 6y ago
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Meaning that buffalo in Buffalo whom other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo, also buffalo other buffalo in Buffalo that still other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo.
tgv 6y ago
That requires a lot of goodwill from the reader: "I'm going to try to find this interesting because it's supposed to be a poem." Suppose you find a scrap of paper with the text (which I'm sure you haven't seen before): I withdraw and wait. This is time that doesn't get lost: each minute becomes future. I am an ocean of waiting, in a waterproof envelope of now. (*) Or you'd find a scrap of paper with the text lighght Isn't there a difference? I can appreciate the attempt in the latter, I think the "cricket" one is at least funny, but can it withstand comparison with Shakespeare? It's not a coincidence that the the article starts with the mention of Oulipo: it's word play, the joy of expressing under extreme constraints, rather than poetry. (*) Source: Eb (English: Ebb) by M. Vasalis, in a loose translation.
- fiblye 6y ago
  Here are two paintings. [1] https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-charity-e1535002340741.jpg https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-c... [2] https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg Painting [1] demonstrates a mastery of light, shadow, and color. It's complicated. It's full of detail. Anybody who walked by this in an art gallery would surely think, "This person is a great artist" and move on. Painting [2] will most likely be called a great painting by most people, but that's because most people have seen it at some point and know who painted it. This person has a massive reputation as one of the greatest artists of all time. People who walk by this in a museum will stop and snap a picture and take a minute to really look at it because, hey, this guy is super famous, so he must be great. But [2] is clearly painted much faster than [1] and has far less fine detail. A person who doesn't know anything about painting [2] or the artist behind it will probably say something like "anyone could do this. Even I could do that"--but it was a revolutionary style at the time because people didn't do it. [1] was merely fitting into a more established framework of art and was far less likely to blow minds, even though a typical person without foreknowledge might be more likely to compliment [1] on being a "good" painting than [2]. And many might know this, but [1] was painted by the artist when he was a child. [2] was painted by him as a full-fledged artist as an adult. The reduction in realism and complexity in favor of abstraction was an intentional progression for his work. These simple poems don't need to be as complex as Shakespeare. They're not trying to be. They serve an entirely different purpose. People are still writing long, epic poems even today, but it's a vastly explored field of art and demand for new material in that style is quite low. Not every one word poem is going to be mind-blowing, but some definitely grab some interest. There are plenty of people, even well-read people, who find Shakespeare tedious. There are people who think a page with nothing but "cricket" is fluff. Both kinds of art can coexist.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > Both kinds of art can coexist. But do they? In your typical museum, what kind of art do you find in the post-WWII section? I've been to a few, and to say it doesn't compare to what came before doesn't even begin to describe it. As for the "mind-blowing" quality - you can only turn a urinal on its side so many times before the trick gets old. Where do you go after that, after you've heroically broken with all the accumulated knowledge of past artists in whatever is the opposite of "standing on the shoulders of giants"?

There's room for many kinds of art in this world. Minimalism has earned its own space.

by fiblye 6y ago

There's room for many kinds of art in this world. Minimalism has earned its own space.

On maximalism, english wouldn't be suitable, but I wonder if there are any agglutinative languages productive enough to generate a potentially infinite one-word poem? (the opposite would be an infinite number —easily done via implied cyclicity[1]— of single-grapheme poems, which probably requires an asiatic script) [1] are there any mobius-strip spin 1/2 fermionic stories? they'd reconnect, but with a twist, so every other reading has a different interpretation...

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
There is a potentially infinite one-word poem in English actually, so long as one is allowed hyphens: "police" can be both a noun or a verb. 'Police-police' are police who police the police. Police whose job it is to police the police-police are police-police-police, etc. Any number of recursions would be possible. Regarding your idea of fermionic stories, I think King's Dark Tower series might be close, though I may be misunderstanding the concept...
- psyc 6y ago
  Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Meaning that buffalo in Buffalo whom other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo, also buffalo other buffalo in Buffalo that still other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo.

tgv 6y ago

That requires a lot of goodwill from the reader: "I'm going to try to find this interesting because it's supposed to be a poem." Suppose you find a scrap of paper with the text (which I'm sure you haven't seen before): I withdraw and wait. This is time that doesn't get lost: each minute becomes future. I am an ocean of waiting, in a waterproof envelope of now. (*) Or you'd find a scrap of paper with the text lighght Isn't there a difference? I can appreciate the attempt in the latter, I think the "cricket" one is at least funny, but can it withstand comparison with Shakespeare? It's not a coincidence that the the article starts with the mention of Oulipo: it's word play, the joy of expressing under extreme constraints, rather than poetry. (*) Source: Eb (English: Ebb) by M. Vasalis, in a loose translation.

fiblye 6y ago
Here are two paintings. [1] https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-charity-e1535002340741.jpg https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-c... [2] https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg Painting [1] demonstrates a mastery of light, shadow, and color. It's complicated. It's full of detail. Anybody who walked by this in an art gallery would surely think, "This person is a great artist" and move on. Painting [2] will most likely be called a great painting by most people, but that's because most people have seen it at some point and know who painted it. This person has a massive reputation as one of the greatest artists of all time. People who walk by this in a museum will stop and snap a picture and take a minute to really look at it because, hey, this guy is super famous, so he must be great. But [2] is clearly painted much faster than [1] and has far less fine detail. A person who doesn't know anything about painting [2] or the artist behind it will probably say something like "anyone could do this. Even I could do that"--but it was a revolutionary style at the time because people didn't do it. [1] was merely fitting into a more established framework of art and was far less likely to blow minds, even though a typical person without foreknowledge might be more likely to compliment [1] on being a "good" painting than [2]. And many might know this, but [1] was painted by the artist when he was a child. [2] was painted by him as a full-fledged artist as an adult. The reduction in realism and complexity in favor of abstraction was an intentional progression for his work. These simple poems don't need to be as complex as Shakespeare. They're not trying to be. They serve an entirely different purpose. People are still writing long, epic poems even today, but it's a vastly explored field of art and demand for new material in that style is quite low. Not every one word poem is going to be mind-blowing, but some definitely grab some interest. There are plenty of people, even well-read people, who find Shakespeare tedious. There are people who think a page with nothing but "cricket" is fluff. Both kinds of art can coexist.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > Both kinds of art can coexist. But do they? In your typical museum, what kind of art do you find in the post-WWII section? I've been to a few, and to say it doesn't compare to what came before doesn't even begin to describe it. As for the "mind-blowing" quality - you can only turn a urinal on its side so many times before the trick gets old. Where do you go after that, after you've heroically broken with all the accumulated knowledge of past artists in whatever is the opposite of "standing on the shoulders of giants"?