PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Music is my religion at this moment. If you practice the same simple pattern over and over for hours, you can hallucinate on it.

if music was the religion of every man and woman, we wouldn't have this discussion, at least...

garyb wrote:cubism isn't an ideology?

then why is there a manifesto?

As much as it isn't exclusive of other art forms it isn't an ideology...it's the same as impressionism, expressionism, fauvism. They all express not a view of the world but a way of expression, often a technical innovation.

Picasso has been moving along many of those -isms not because he changed his general views but because he was researching. The same thing could be said on Miles Davis. None of them would have never questioned the validity of previous art forms. In these cases manifestos are more a form of self-presentation, maybe food for the art critics, maybe publicity or just a way to be recognized and, like every artist hopes, noted.

Ideology is something that aspires to be spread to everybody and to permeate any corner in the universe, in a totalizing and often violent way, an artistic concept is most of the times very happy in its uniqueness, individuality or for small groups of adepts. I'd say two opposite dimensions.

stardust wrote:creationism
atheism
catholicism

All these things are just the dialectic thesis and antithesis poles.
And yes I agree they represent these ideologoid isms rather than the clustering type of isms.

What I stated was about that elevating a part for the whole to give ethic direction, These isms are not compatible with me.

I pretty agree, I feel uncomfortable too with absolut-isms!

But sometimes there are some -isms, of the ideological type, that are just created by other -isms. For example, I've already recalled it in another thread maybe, "atheism" is a word that appeared for the first time among the criminal behaviors as stated by the catholic church. The simple fact of not believing in a certain ideology, was labeled as such. Now, saying that atheism is an ideology is the same thing as saying that who doesn't believe in donkeys flying over Hollywood is a Nonflydonkeylliwoodist and wants to impose that tho the whole world....frankly it's a bit too much...isn't it?

stardust wrote:well the atheism in the original meaning of the believe that there is nothing divine is no ideology for sure, a believe of agnosis.

The use of this attitude to make political statements in an existing society is ideological.

And I agree this is sophism

Not believing is not a belief.

Everyone believes in something. Atheists are just more focused on reality rather than mythology and spiritual conjecture. Religion could be considered a philosophy; one based largely or partly on false assumptions. You don't need any religion to be moral and some of what passes for morality according to religious teachings is hogwash. One of the most odious things about organized religion is the tendency to try and convert people be it on a conscious or subconscious levil. I suppose everyone has the right to their religion, I just don't like to hear politicians and public figures mentioning god in a matter of fact way as if it is obvious to everyone that there is such a thing. Atheists do not have a way to casually slip atheism into any conversation. I cringe when I hear the word god because it is always in the context of god being real and not imaginary. Notice that most of the time they say god rather than Jesus. This I believe is in deference to people who are not Christians yet there is no such consideration for atheists.

A typical situation is when someone who survived a disaster is interviewed:

"Our house and everything we owned was destroyed but I just thank god that we survived. He was looking after us."

God just blew your house down! Now you are financially ruined thanks to god!

stardust wrote:

kylie wrote:

stardust wrote:you are totally right.
Any -ism is a -ism and does not match the reality.

atheism is an -ism, too, then.

exactly

Again we are getting into a endless argument loop.
The logic in the statement "Any -ism is a -ism and does not match the reality." is flawed. You have to prove first that any "-ism" doesn't match reality, which is totaly impossible.

What about the other statement?
You don't want to takle that one?

It is not.

Semantics... There is no meaning to "ism". It is like "ing".

alfonso wrote:

garyb wrote:cubism isn't an ideology?

then why is there a manifesto?

As much as it isn't exclusive of other art forms it isn't an ideology...it's the same as impressionism, expressionism, fauvism. They all express not a view of the world but a way of expression, often a technical innovation.

Picasso has been moving along many of those -isms not because he changed his general views but because he was researching. The same thing could be said on Miles Davis. None of them would have never questioned the validity of previous art forms. In these cases manifestos are more a form of self-presentation, maybe food for the art critics, maybe publicity or just a way to be recognized and, like every artist hopes, noted.

Ideology is something that aspires to be spread to everybody and to permeate any corner in the universe, in a totalizing and often violent way, an artistic concept is most of the times very happy in its uniqueness, individuality or for small groups of adepts. I'd say two opposite dimensions.

there's much circular reasoning here.

art is made of ideas. when the ideas are catagorized and studied, they are then an ideology. idea+ology ology=the study of
when one works oin a style, this is said to be an artist's studies.

dimension="a measuring of spatial extent" from "a measuring" in latin. i'm not sure what you mean by the last statement.

even communism, which is said to be for everyone, is only understandable to the trained and educated. i don't see any difference in art. cubists certainly wanted to rule the art world and have everybody buy their creations and style. Picasso was as ambitious as any man, ever as you note. i don't see what you are talking about, how can it be only for the initiates, and be a publicity move? all art is for everyone, even if only the truly initiated can fully comprehend it, just like communism. the manifestos, like the cubist, dada and surreal movements are from a large GROUP of established artists, they are not an idividual isolated ideal, which is not to deny the validity of individual, personal ideaologies. an ideology's validty and status as an ideology is not bound by the number of people who follow, believe in or study it. Picasso got his ideas about cubism from interaction with others such as G Brach and M Deuchamp and others. he STUDIED the idea, and the resulting pictures are his studies. the it is cubism. it's an idea. it is studied. it's an ideology.

BingoTheClowno wrote:Again we are getting into a endless argument loop.
The logic in the statement "Any -ism is a -ism and does not match the reality." is flawed. You have to prove first that any "-ism" doesn't match reality, which is totaly impossible.

.


nope. the fact that it gets ismed is proof enough. the original is. it isn't ism.

...and there is no need to prove such a thing. it can be proven that you can never get to your(physical) destination, and that you can never touch anything. practical experience negates that proof, or at least renders it unnecessary.

-btw all the proof needed that an ism is bad news is that it's use as a form was popularized by Thomas Carlyle and then such notable eugenisists Julian Huxley and G.B. Shaw, a few of the architects(carefully chosen word) of much of the mental illness that is the "21st century" or more properly "the New Age".

One of the definitions is ideas of a group. That could be anything therefore, it is meaningless basically.

that's like saying that "blue" is meaningless because one of the meanings is "a color".

reductio ad absudum is one of the logic fallacies that helps keep one from discovering the flaws in one's mentation.

enjoyed your reasoning, Gary

cheers, Tom
where is the what if the what is in why...

garyb wrote:
art is made of ideas. when the ideas are catagorized and studied, they are then an ideology. idea+ology ology=the study of
when one works oin a style, this is said to be an artist's studies.

Wrong. Ideology doesn't mean that. It means a general, comprehensive idea of the world. It is made of "Idea" and "Logos". Logos means word in popular Greek but mainly "Universal law", "divine principle" in the ancient texts, in the ancient Jewish philosophy it means "God". You have heard the sentence "At the beginning it was the Word" or something like that, I'm translating from Italian.

dimension="a measuring of spatial extent" from "a measuring" in latin. i'm not sure what you mean by the last statement.

"dimension" is commonly used to define also states of mind. When you say "he lives in another dimension" of someone that is in the same room you obviously refer to his subjective perceptions and not to his...location.

i don't see what you are talking about, how can it be only for the initiates, and be a publicity move? all art is for everyone, even if only the truly initiated can fully comprehend it, just like communism.

You forget a very basic distinction. The difference between "making" art and "consuming" it. artists want to be "bought", "appreciated", "admired", they want to be special. No way they want everyone to be like them.

an ideology's validty and status as an ideology is not bound by the number of people who follow, believe in or study it. Picasso got his ideas about cubism from interaction with others such as G Brach and M Deuchamp and others. he STUDIED the idea, and the resulting pictures are his studies. the it is cubism. it's an idea. it is studied. it's an ideology.

As I said before, your definition of ideology is not correct. Check the dictionary. Also the apple pie comes from an idea and you must study the idea (recipe) to make one, but I can't see that as an ideology.

garyb wrote:there's much circular reasoning here.

astroman wrote:enjoyed your reasoning, Gary

cheers, Tom

Gary has very flawed reasoning. To enjoy it would be insane. "Blue" is a specific color of course it has a meaning. It does not mean any color. "ism" isn't anything specific. Any fool could see that.

alfonso wrote:

garyb wrote:
art is made of ideas. when the ideas are catagorized and studied, they are then an ideology. idea+ology ology=the study of
when one works oin a style, this is said to be an artist's studies.

Wrong. Ideology doesn't mean that. It means a general, comprehensive idea of the world. It is made of "Idea" and "Logos". Logos means word in popular Greek but mainly "Universal law", "divine principle" in the ancient texts, in the ancient Jewish philosophy it means "God". You have heard the sentence "At the beginning it was the Word" or something like that, I'm translating from Italian.

dimension="a measuring of spatial extent" from "a measuring" in latin. i'm not sure what you mean by the last statement.

"dimension" is commonly used to define also states of mind. When you say "he lives in another dimension" of someone that is in the same room you obviously refer to his subjective perceptions and not to his...location.

i don't see what you are talking about, how can it be only for the initiates, and be a publicity move? all art is for everyone, even if only the truly initiated can fully comprehend it, just like communism.

You forget a very basic distinction. The difference between "making" art and "consuming" it. artists want to be "bought", "appreciated", "admired", they want to be special. No way they want everyone to be like them.

an ideology's validty and status as an ideology is not bound by the number of people who follow, believe in or study it. Picasso got his ideas about cubism from interaction with others such as G Brach and M Deuchamp and others. he STUDIED the idea, and the resulting pictures are his studies. the it is cubism. it's an idea. it is studied. it's an ideology.

As I said before, your definition of ideology is not correct. Check the dictionary. Also the apple pie comes from an idea and you must study the idea (recipe) to make one, but I can't see that as an ideology.

thanks for the challenge of my definition. i knew, but to be fair i checked the dictionary. the ology, is from LOGY, which is from Logos, The Word(which is with God in the text, not God). it is as you say, yet not as you say. biology, sociology and ideology ALL have the logos root in the suffix. a word can be synthesized using your baking anaLOGY quite easily, bakeology, which when studied properly, makes one a great baker. it's use as "the Science, theory or study of" is from the words meaning of "The Word" indicating knowledge of the Mystery which can only be found through study(AntonLaVey the founder of the church of satan was fond of saying that "satan does not require worship. he requires study", but that's another conversation).

my definition IS correct.

yes, artists DO want everyone to be like them in that they want everybody to "get" or at least "appreciate" their art. cubism IS a "general, comprehensive idea of the world", about how to veiw it to be precise!

speaking of precise, you spoke of the "ancient Jewish philosophy", which is complete misunderstanding of reality. "jew-ish" is similar to Judah, which as a tribe was not known for a philosophy. Judah is part of the trive of Israel, that is part of the Hebrew tribe, which is the one with the ancient philosophy. "jewish" is some later European concoction. if you talk of "Jewish philosophy", you'll certainly find yourself repeating basic Pagan Mysticism and there ya go, talk of the Logos and other Hermetic ideals...these things, while nurtured by those who claim "jewish", are not Judean in origin in any way shape or form.

those Colleges and Universities sure do seem to be teaching a wicked curriculum with quite a happy face....

no wonder things are so mean in the world.

braincell wrote:

astroman wrote:enjoyed your reasoning, Gary

cheers, Tom

Gary has very flawed reasoning. To enjoy it would be insane. "Blue" is a specific color of course it has a meaning. It does not mean any color. "ism" isn't anything specific. Any fool could see that.

ism is a suffix!
you have to add a prefix to make it specific!
you're right about what fools can see though!

if blue is so specific, then why are there an infinite number of blues? do you mean Navy, Royal, Forum or Sky blue?

even if my reasoning is flawed(hey, i'm only human!), why is it a crime to enjoy it?