Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Absurdism?

As my brain is still buzzing from the math test I doubt this will be nearly as coherent as my other posts, so I apologize for that. But it's clearing fast, and I'm realizing I don't care to write about anything. I could address the discussion Alyssa and I were having over absurdism, but that's much shorter than I want it to be. I do need a post however, so let's do that. Before we go into it I'll give you something to munch on. Why can these so-called absurdists only show the absurdity of the world by presenting their stories with an absurd premise? I thought logical people called that begging the question.


I'll assume you all noticed our discussion, Kunkle brought attention to it after all, and a few probably overheard us. For the benefit of those that didn't I will try to give a synopsis. It was something along the lines of, I was losing because I hadn't thought about the fight. I was asking what's the meaning of it and she recognized that it didn't matter if I knew the point if it meant something to them.

She's right, of course, it doesn't matter if I can understand the meaning or not. What does matter though, is the amount of effort put into the performance. Not just during it, but in preparation of it. Some may argue it took more effort to try and put emotions or feelings into animal sounds, and if you believe that I have no argument against you. There's no point, you believe it takes more effort to be animal than to be human. Were the gutteral animal cries the best their effort could produce? Couldn't they do better? Couldn't they do it human?

If you want to argue that animal sounds are better or equal to some glorious speech made so all can understand then I have nothing for you. By that fact, you believe that anything can be art. Drawing from that statement, then I propose that daily conversation is art as well. So why not talk to others in your animal language? It's no different, whether talking, discussing, singing, playing an instrument, or writing a novel you're attempting to deliver a message. And it's best if that message can be understood.

Maybe we're turning to an age where people don't care to have their messages understood. But then I propose that they've taken individualism to a dangerous level. Not an extreme, it's not very smart to deliver a message that won't be understood. People wouldn't buy it and you'd be forced to fend for yourself. Perhaps that's better, to teach people to think for themselves. Some people need to learn that skill, and maybe only those really needing to learn it are trying to turn art into this animalistic orgy of sounds. So perhaps I'll let you run your course, it's only you that will suffer from it. I don't intend to try and help you when you realize how much you've alienated yourselves from being human.

11 comments:

Jeff White said...

Go back to 1984.

Kevin said...

My head is still cloudy from the math test as well. I think we need to draw the line somewhere between what is considered art and what is not. We can try to put a meaning into the art that was created, but at some point it will all become too absurd to believe; though I think people still need to teach themselves what to think at some points throughout their lives.

Mr. Kunkle said...

One thing to consider-- and I don't even know if this was the intent of the poets/performers who did the sound poem-- is that of all the PODs I've presented in class, I bet this is the one people remember the most. It may or may not be art, but it facilitated quite the discussion and it was pretty darn memorable. Most artists, I think, would consider those signs of a successful work of art.

Unknown said...

While I was in Mexico, we went to a modern art museum. Throughout that time, I saw at least five dozen pieces of art. Only one of them struck out to me as meaningful. The others were just a random assortment of creepiness or compiled garbage.

In my opinion, most modern art is like a six year old girl wearing her mother's high heels and smoking a cigarette. Just because you try to be deep doesn't make you so.

Michael Flaherty said...

Sam that is the most bizzare similie I have ever heard

Unknown said...

Well I was planning on leaving it out but you know that you can't just beat the puppy and not kill it.

Daniel DeBoer said...

Do you want to discuss this Mr. Kunkle? Or did you just want to leave your mark?

AGray said...

Haha this is funny Danny I didn't know you had written this. Fun day.

Anyways, about what you think about "what does matter".. being the preparation or whatever you said, I don't think that's what really matters at all. I mean, say a gifted drawer can draw an amazing and flawless picture at the snap of a finger (it really is cool to see!); it's still art, it's still beautiful, it still has meaning to them, and it may have other meaning as well to somebody else. They're just exceptionally great at it. They may feel so strongly about something and be so spectacular at that certian art that their feelings and talents flow. They might not have to prepare, or take a long time at all. Why does art have to be judged by the time restraint? That doesn't make any sense. You can't judge if something's art, or criticize if something's art on preparation. That seems ludacris. How would you know how long it took, and why would you care? I mean maybe you do care, but that seems useless.

Maybe it doesn't have meaning to you, but maybe it did to them. Maybe somebody else sees it in a different light and thinks of it a completely different way. If you didn't like the performance done by the men with the animal sounds then fine. I don't think they would really give a dang if you did or didn't. But it must have been important to them to do it in the first place. They were expressing themselves in a different way. It may not be the "traditional" way of doing something like singing, or doing comedy but who the heck cares. Art isn't classified in a certain set collection of talents. There are more sides to art besides painting, drawing, singing, etc.

Personally I thought it was entertaining and I enjoyed it. I laughed at it and I wondered how in the heck they were able to do that. Who cares about how much time they put into it? If someone has to think that long about how long they prepared, and how they did it, that's kind of strange. They did it, and if somebody doesn't like it, they have the power to not watch it or listen to it. They were doing something they loved to do. That's what art is. Doing something what you love to do, and expressing yourself.

Alright Tata for now, bell's about to ring! Cya!!

Daniel DeBoer said...

Alyssa, learn the difference between preparation and time, first of all.

And as for them not expressing it in the "traditional" way, I addressed that in my post. Art is a message, messages are generally considered better if they can be understood. Now if you don't care if a message is understood or not, fine. But in that case we're judging from different standards so the conversation is pointless anyway.

AGray said...

Haha Really though, then what exactly is your definition of 'preparation'? I'm still not understanding why that is the 'checkpoint' of being art or not, and how anybody can judge it on that alone? And why is that the most important thing?

It could be that there are many people in the world who are able to understand hidden messages or feelings through art. And many people who are unable to understand just by looking/experiencing them. The minds of human beings are incredibly different. Some artists don't have a single 'message' in their art. It may be a feeling or emotion as well. You can't think one-sided on this by saying there has to be a line, and that line being.. blah blah.. because it's so abstract.

peace out

Daniel DeBoer said...

Preparation is how much thought is put in, not how much time. As your example showed, time does not equal thought.

As for what I consider art, everything. I do however have a distinction between good and bad art.

"And many people who are unable to understand just by looking/experiencing them."
Pray tell, how do you understand a message from art without experiencing the art first?

"It may be a feeling or emotion as well."
Those are messages as well (I guess I should put the buffer 'In my opinion...' but I won't)

On a final note, I just looked through the entire article, and you and Kevin are the only ones who have used the word line or even brought up the idea that there should be a line. I have always considered that anything someone wants to call art can be it. But once again, I do make a distinction between good and bad art.