school is out, but fresh in thought.
you're making sense of all you taught
and in your mind, you come across
some topics where you fear the loss
of little minds you vowed to teach -
strategies that just didn't reach
the goals you'd set (and some you'd not)
for that which you're supposed'have taught,
and now you think about next year
and how to make it that more clear
to little minds with which you're charged
to bring about their brain enlargement.
well, dear teachers (those who're still
reading this, my rhyming spill -
you obviously understand
the power of the rhyming stan...za.)
and so i offer, this, my skill
the power of the rhyming spill
to fortify your teaching tools
in places where you left them fools.
you tell me, teacher dearest do
and i will up and rhyme for you.
what do you want your kids to know?
rhymes can help their minds get goin'
email alison dot bal
dwin at gmail dot com and i'll
be happy to spill rhymes for you
exactly how you want me to.
to target what your kids will need
to get them where you're trying to lead them.
or message me on here, whatever.
i'd just like to rhyme forever.
(alison.baldwin@gmail.com)
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
stupid human tricks
how is it that we, as a species and as individuals, continue to do things that we know are bad for us? things that we don't want to do, even? how is that we cannot even manage ourselves? or do what we know that we want?
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Half an argument, part 2!
Because I am out of time, and feeling lazy now, this is directly lifted from the same Facebook wall of my coworker Sam that the previous post originally appeared on. As such, you'll find that some of my statements either come out of the blue, or are directly addressing the other party. It is late, so I will leave it raw like this.
Enjoy!
I am a big fan of "useful and reasonable" definitions over absolute ones, provided they don't twist the language so far as to redefine it (much). You're right: a system of value is required, and for me this must have some parameters related to some definition or approximate notion of what art is and isn't, so I suppose this element is swinging us back towards that debate.
I would argue somewhat vehemently (as I'm sure you're aware by now) that money is a far cry from objective, when it clearly has a vested interest in promoting media which will produce more money, not which will improve culture or humanity (which I pose as the more powerful motivation for artists producing art, in this comparison).
Part of me is automatically inclined, I must admit, to valuing the opinion or position of researchers and scientists over that of most other folks, as I consider the backing of reproduceable experiment to be a more sound justification for one's position than just about anything. In this sense, I suppose I am conceding the point of a priori proof with regard to distinguishing between fact and opinion. I couldn't give a whit if there's a universal test to distinguish the two on a minute level (unless of course someone were to miraculously produce such a test!).
What I consider a more reasonable and functional distinction is any robust a posteriori proof. As I understand it, the entire science of psychology is rooted in this method, which is why any reasonable research into psychology must be backed with a strong footing in statistics. Without this method of proof, despite being less 'perfect' than all that a priori hullabaloo, we would 'know' a lot less about the human mind; how it works, how it learns, and so on.
What's really neat within this vein is using statistical methods to prove that someone's observational claim cannot be true. This is where the refinement of the field takes place. Scientist (or philosopher) A posits that "something is true" based on having observed something in the real world that seems to be a trend. (Example to follow). Scientist B refines "something is true" by either presenting context-specific cases where it may be found not to be true, or discounts it entirely because it does not account for some data (inconsistent), and so the original idea must be adjusted or added to to account for the extra cases, or rejected in favour of one which more accurately descibes (predicts) real-world events.
Rough example: memory has been (and often still is) considered divided into long term and short term memory "banks." However, this notion has been found inconsistent with the experimental data, as it does not account for memory decay, false memories, and some other stuff, and so has been rejected. The void of how to define our memory processes needed filling, however, so someone suggested that memory is actually more like imagining. This is based in the observation that the same neural pathways fire when looking at an object as when remembering the same object. This has been further refined to separately desribe the operation of perceptual memory (instantaneous availability of information, basically; extremely short), working memory (how much you can keep track of consciously before it gets "rewritten"), and long term memory (pathways strengthened by associations and repeated use). This is, of course, still an imperfect realisation of our memory systems, and as such is constantly being refined by memory scientists, but it provides a more accurate (read: functional) picture of this aspect of our marvellous brainmeats.
Certain aspects of memory research I would consider "facts" (e.g., all human memory is based on the arrangement and interaction of nerve/brain cells), and others the "best available opinion."
A posteriori proofs are a fantastic way to learn about all kinds of aspects of the world. It seems to me that the position fact=opinion completely undermines the validity of all a posteriori proofs, but even a rough observation of the real world reveals the functionality of experimental proofs (which is, of course, itself an a posteriori observation; victory pump for circular reasoning!). In short (haha), I consider the position untenable because although the burden of proof is on those of us who would disagree, said proof is found (in abundance) in clinical observation, which is rejected by your statement in the first place. It sits as its own absolute judgement on the inability to have an absolute judgement about anything, yet is definitively presented as an opinion, and so renders itself a moot point.
Back to art and music. I don't think an unmade bed can be considered art unless it is expressing something of the world or the human condition with the intention of rousing some thought or reaction in the observer. (I do NOT believe in art by accident, but that's a separate point, for the moment). Most of the time, it is an unmade bed. Likewise, in terms of music, I stand firmly in my stance that plagiarism (even accidental plagiarism) can never be art. As such, I think the best case one can make for all the craptastic music out there being considered art in any capacity is the limited artistry in the arrangement of the words (the same words that everyone else already wrote) and their interaction with the music/chords. As you have pointed out, "all things of a kind" may be compared along the metrics defining that kind. And so, I consider the artistic value of this form of music about on par with the artistry employed by me in spicing the meat for my supper on a given night; the artistry of arranging ingredients in a plausibly palatable manner, according to taste. So, I concede, as you say, that it could be art, but on such a limited scale as to be scarce worth the breath to say so.
The danger in this concession, though, is opening the door to the thinking that it is even on the same scale as "good" music. I don't believe it is, and the comparison alone belittles the worth of music that has actually had some thought and artistic intent invested in it. To come back to "things of a kind," the works of Stravinsky and Michaelangelo are more of a kind, to my mind, than the works of Stravinsky and The White Stripes, despite using a different sensory medium in their expression. We are both once again leaning towards demanding a definition of what art is, however, so that's as far as I'll take that point for the moment.
As for video games, I'm not sure where I sit on the notion that a game can holistically be viewed as a work of art, though I agree both that elements of it (design, animation, etc) can be considered art, and with Jason's position that the "game" part of it (fulfilling objectives) cannot be.
Art as a refinement of presently held notions seems to me to be totally consistent with the production of almost any novel idea. A novel idea must surely refine the viewer's presently held notions, as they now consider something which they have never before considered.
The other side to this (still consistent with my definition there) is that there is no such thing as a novel idea. Anything which appears to be so is in fact built entirely upon previous notions, with perhaps some ties or associations never before conceived. (As an aside, this is one of my favourite things to think about, in terms of defining what a thought actually is; essentially, layers of abstraction built upon and strengthening each other through association). Again, those novel associations force the audience to refine presently held notions. The first time someone came up with the idea of a unicorn, was it novel? They just put a horn on a horse, of course. But anyone afterwards now had refined their ideas about horsey creatures; they could have horns!
By the way, I think you would appreciate a quotation that another friend of mine lifted from some forum somewhere: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
Enjoy!
I am a big fan of "useful and reasonable" definitions over absolute ones, provided they don't twist the language so far as to redefine it (much). You're right: a system of value is required, and for me this must have some parameters related to some definition or approximate notion of what art is and isn't, so I suppose this element is swinging us back towards that debate.
I would argue somewhat vehemently (as I'm sure you're aware by now) that money is a far cry from objective, when it clearly has a vested interest in promoting media which will produce more money, not which will improve culture or humanity (which I pose as the more powerful motivation for artists producing art, in this comparison).
Part of me is automatically inclined, I must admit, to valuing the opinion or position of researchers and scientists over that of most other folks, as I consider the backing of reproduceable experiment to be a more sound justification for one's position than just about anything. In this sense, I suppose I am conceding the point of a priori proof with regard to distinguishing between fact and opinion. I couldn't give a whit if there's a universal test to distinguish the two on a minute level (unless of course someone were to miraculously produce such a test!).
What I consider a more reasonable and functional distinction is any robust a posteriori proof. As I understand it, the entire science of psychology is rooted in this method, which is why any reasonable research into psychology must be backed with a strong footing in statistics. Without this method of proof, despite being less 'perfect' than all that a priori hullabaloo, we would 'know' a lot less about the human mind; how it works, how it learns, and so on.
What's really neat within this vein is using statistical methods to prove that someone's observational claim cannot be true. This is where the refinement of the field takes place. Scientist (or philosopher) A posits that "something is true" based on having observed something in the real world that seems to be a trend. (Example to follow). Scientist B refines "something is true" by either presenting context-specific cases where it may be found not to be true, or discounts it entirely because it does not account for some data (inconsistent), and so the original idea must be adjusted or added to to account for the extra cases, or rejected in favour of one which more accurately descibes (predicts) real-world events.
Rough example: memory has been (and often still is) considered divided into long term and short term memory "banks." However, this notion has been found inconsistent with the experimental data, as it does not account for memory decay, false memories, and some other stuff, and so has been rejected. The void of how to define our memory processes needed filling, however, so someone suggested that memory is actually more like imagining. This is based in the observation that the same neural pathways fire when looking at an object as when remembering the same object. This has been further refined to separately desribe the operation of perceptual memory (instantaneous availability of information, basically; extremely short), working memory (how much you can keep track of consciously before it gets "rewritten"), and long term memory (pathways strengthened by associations and repeated use). This is, of course, still an imperfect realisation of our memory systems, and as such is constantly being refined by memory scientists, but it provides a more accurate (read: functional) picture of this aspect of our marvellous brainmeats.
Certain aspects of memory research I would consider "facts" (e.g., all human memory is based on the arrangement and interaction of nerve/brain cells), and others the "best available opinion."
A posteriori proofs are a fantastic way to learn about all kinds of aspects of the world. It seems to me that the position fact=opinion completely undermines the validity of all a posteriori proofs, but even a rough observation of the real world reveals the functionality of experimental proofs (which is, of course, itself an a posteriori observation; victory pump for circular reasoning!). In short (haha), I consider the position untenable because although the burden of proof is on those of us who would disagree, said proof is found (in abundance) in clinical observation, which is rejected by your statement in the first place. It sits as its own absolute judgement on the inability to have an absolute judgement about anything, yet is definitively presented as an opinion, and so renders itself a moot point.
Back to art and music. I don't think an unmade bed can be considered art unless it is expressing something of the world or the human condition with the intention of rousing some thought or reaction in the observer. (I do NOT believe in art by accident, but that's a separate point, for the moment). Most of the time, it is an unmade bed. Likewise, in terms of music, I stand firmly in my stance that plagiarism (even accidental plagiarism) can never be art. As such, I think the best case one can make for all the craptastic music out there being considered art in any capacity is the limited artistry in the arrangement of the words (the same words that everyone else already wrote) and their interaction with the music/chords. As you have pointed out, "all things of a kind" may be compared along the metrics defining that kind. And so, I consider the artistic value of this form of music about on par with the artistry employed by me in spicing the meat for my supper on a given night; the artistry of arranging ingredients in a plausibly palatable manner, according to taste. So, I concede, as you say, that it could be art, but on such a limited scale as to be scarce worth the breath to say so.
The danger in this concession, though, is opening the door to the thinking that it is even on the same scale as "good" music. I don't believe it is, and the comparison alone belittles the worth of music that has actually had some thought and artistic intent invested in it. To come back to "things of a kind," the works of Stravinsky and Michaelangelo are more of a kind, to my mind, than the works of Stravinsky and The White Stripes, despite using a different sensory medium in their expression. We are both once again leaning towards demanding a definition of what art is, however, so that's as far as I'll take that point for the moment.
As for video games, I'm not sure where I sit on the notion that a game can holistically be viewed as a work of art, though I agree both that elements of it (design, animation, etc) can be considered art, and with Jason's position that the "game" part of it (fulfilling objectives) cannot be.
Art as a refinement of presently held notions seems to me to be totally consistent with the production of almost any novel idea. A novel idea must surely refine the viewer's presently held notions, as they now consider something which they have never before considered.
The other side to this (still consistent with my definition there) is that there is no such thing as a novel idea. Anything which appears to be so is in fact built entirely upon previous notions, with perhaps some ties or associations never before conceived. (As an aside, this is one of my favourite things to think about, in terms of defining what a thought actually is; essentially, layers of abstraction built upon and strengthening each other through association). Again, those novel associations force the audience to refine presently held notions. The first time someone came up with the idea of a unicorn, was it novel? They just put a horn on a horse, of course. But anyone afterwards now had refined their ideas about horsey creatures; they could have horns!
By the way, I think you would appreciate a quotation that another friend of mine lifted from some forum somewhere: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Some things art is not, and what it could be.
This was written in response to a fellow teacher's response to my friend Jason's post; a response to the responses that Ebert's response to Santiago's response to Ebert's original comment that "video games will never be art" produced. It is also in response to a debate conducted between myself and said teacher in which I was solidly and consistently trounced in my floundering attempts to back up my position. Another bit of evidence that my brain has been on standby for the past few months. What follows is a direct transcript from my response to Sam, the aforementioned coworker.
As regards our previous debate: one of the reasons I have for rejecting the stance that fact=opinion is that we are left suddenly impoverished for terms which distinguish that which can be backed up or shown by repeated experiment to be robustly valid from substanceless, uneducated or ill-informed blathering.
(A new link to check out, mostly because it's awesome, but also because it briefly touches on this point, is this 9½ minute beat poem from Tim Minchin. Of course, he's playing entertainer here, so it's not exactly a robust argument.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk
It is for this reason that I heartily disagree with Mr. Grohl's statement about what art is ["If you think you're [art] because you don't eat meat, you're [art]!"]. A statement which so boldly puts baseless opinion on equal footing with the best efforts of masters of their craft has no value (I humbly opine). I think it is an essential quality of art that while it defies rigorous definition, it very clearly comes in varying levels of quality. I am taking it as self-evident that this is the case, of course, and will happily argue the point in more detail if that particular torch is taken up.
Now, I have substantial personal investment in my side of this debate, as it pertains to music. I posit that, if one takes as given that popularity does not contribute to the artistic merit of a given enterprise (another point to potentially contend, if necessary), then the music *cough* of the White Stripes is, on a musically artistic level, somewhere around the bottom rung of the artistry ladder, as compared with that of Stravinsky, which is standing near the top, with a wonderfully informed view of the musically artistic world below.
The basis for this may begin with the psychological studies of the consonance or dissonance of tone pairs. Consonance and dissonance are perceptual phenomena, and we're dealing specifically with human perception here. Therefore, any fact produced concerning perception stands out as distinct from those facts about the rest of the world (i.e., the world is flat, not round), because it is perfectly conceivable that human perception of consonance or dissonance could change over time, though right now it seems very robustly rooted in vibration frequency ratios, to begin with. When one starts to get into the more interesting and daring musical enterprises, like jazz, these lines can appear to be blurred a bit, as jazz players and listeners love certain clashing sounds, but even this is based in concepts of teasing the brain by fulfilling or defying expectation, which has been put forth as a key factor in the enjoyment of music (this could constitute pages more of debate, which I would not mind in the slightest).
Back to my point about consonance vs. dissonance, though. I consider it a fact that the basic consonance/dissonance factor of any tone pair is based on its vibration frequency ratio (a perfect 5th is in the ratio 2:3, for example). This fact is based on opinion (either of participants in a study, or the interpretation of the scientists), and yet is more valid than any opinion to the contrary, as it successfully and experimentally robustly describes an aspect of the world. If you still consider it an opinion, it is crucial to be able to distinguish between opinions of value (informed opinions), and nonsensical gibberish, for a start.
From here, it is a process of refinement, which I contend is central to the value of most or all works of art. Why? Because to offer something that's already been done has no artistic merit. Like Ebert, Jason, and others, I'm still dancing around actually defining what constitutes art, but trying to nail down some idea of what it isn't, and with a supporting reason. In this case, it pares down to my personal opinion that plagiarism is not and will never be art.
I suppose if I were to present my own opinion of what constitutes art, it would be exactly that; refinement of presently held notions. Whether that means your cave drawing has more humour and a steadier hand than Grunk down the way, or you're a master of painting impressionism, art to me must present a refinement of some aspect of the present state of humanity.
So while there's lots of wiggle room in that definition (for people to take pictures of their poo and present it as art, for example), what I do not accept as being artistic (or indeed having almost any merit whatsoever), is the majority of popular music being produced today. If artistry is to be found anywhere in that scene, it is in the folks who are refining their ability to use music as a medium to manipulate and covertly subjugate the masses. These artists are the recording engineers and producers of shitty-yet-wildly-popular television shows like Britain's Got Talent, and their ilk. None of them are composers, and the music that they are producing is not art.
To insert my personal position on the matter, one of my main goals in life is to produce (compose and present) music which is both popular (that is, agreeable to the layman's ear, possibly even catchy), and holds some artistic merit in its form/construction and presentation. I want to bridge the gap between popular and good, basically, which I see as an ever-increasing gulf in present society, at least where the money-focussed "music industry" is concerned. Anything which is produced (let alone popularised) which does not refine the world of music itself I consider to be potentially damaging to the culture and society to which it is presented, and this effect is magnified the more it happens.
The same goes for over 99% of anime being produced today: if it has already been done (to death and then some), there is little-to-no artistic value in it.
As regards our previous debate: one of the reasons I have for rejecting the stance that fact=opinion is that we are left suddenly impoverished for terms which distinguish that which can be backed up or shown by repeated experiment to be robustly valid from substanceless, uneducated or ill-informed blathering.
(A new link to check out, mostly because it's awesome, but also because it briefly touches on this point, is this 9½ minute beat poem from Tim Minchin. Of course, he's playing entertainer here, so it's not exactly a robust argument.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk
It is for this reason that I heartily disagree with Mr. Grohl's statement about what art is ["If you think you're [art] because you don't eat meat, you're [art]!"]. A statement which so boldly puts baseless opinion on equal footing with the best efforts of masters of their craft has no value (I humbly opine). I think it is an essential quality of art that while it defies rigorous definition, it very clearly comes in varying levels of quality. I am taking it as self-evident that this is the case, of course, and will happily argue the point in more detail if that particular torch is taken up.
Now, I have substantial personal investment in my side of this debate, as it pertains to music. I posit that, if one takes as given that popularity does not contribute to the artistic merit of a given enterprise (another point to potentially contend, if necessary), then the music *cough* of the White Stripes is, on a musically artistic level, somewhere around the bottom rung of the artistry ladder, as compared with that of Stravinsky, which is standing near the top, with a wonderfully informed view of the musically artistic world below.
The basis for this may begin with the psychological studies of the consonance or dissonance of tone pairs. Consonance and dissonance are perceptual phenomena, and we're dealing specifically with human perception here. Therefore, any fact produced concerning perception stands out as distinct from those facts about the rest of the world (i.e., the world is flat, not round), because it is perfectly conceivable that human perception of consonance or dissonance could change over time, though right now it seems very robustly rooted in vibration frequency ratios, to begin with. When one starts to get into the more interesting and daring musical enterprises, like jazz, these lines can appear to be blurred a bit, as jazz players and listeners love certain clashing sounds, but even this is based in concepts of teasing the brain by fulfilling or defying expectation, which has been put forth as a key factor in the enjoyment of music (this could constitute pages more of debate, which I would not mind in the slightest).
Back to my point about consonance vs. dissonance, though. I consider it a fact that the basic consonance/dissonance factor of any tone pair is based on its vibration frequency ratio (a perfect 5th is in the ratio 2:3, for example). This fact is based on opinion (either of participants in a study, or the interpretation of the scientists), and yet is more valid than any opinion to the contrary, as it successfully and experimentally robustly describes an aspect of the world. If you still consider it an opinion, it is crucial to be able to distinguish between opinions of value (informed opinions), and nonsensical gibberish, for a start.
From here, it is a process of refinement, which I contend is central to the value of most or all works of art. Why? Because to offer something that's already been done has no artistic merit. Like Ebert, Jason, and others, I'm still dancing around actually defining what constitutes art, but trying to nail down some idea of what it isn't, and with a supporting reason. In this case, it pares down to my personal opinion that plagiarism is not and will never be art.
I suppose if I were to present my own opinion of what constitutes art, it would be exactly that; refinement of presently held notions. Whether that means your cave drawing has more humour and a steadier hand than Grunk down the way, or you're a master of painting impressionism, art to me must present a refinement of some aspect of the present state of humanity.
So while there's lots of wiggle room in that definition (for people to take pictures of their poo and present it as art, for example), what I do not accept as being artistic (or indeed having almost any merit whatsoever), is the majority of popular music being produced today. If artistry is to be found anywhere in that scene, it is in the folks who are refining their ability to use music as a medium to manipulate and covertly subjugate the masses. These artists are the recording engineers and producers of shitty-yet-wildly-popular television shows like Britain's Got Talent, and their ilk. None of them are composers, and the music that they are producing is not art.
To insert my personal position on the matter, one of my main goals in life is to produce (compose and present) music which is both popular (that is, agreeable to the layman's ear, possibly even catchy), and holds some artistic merit in its form/construction and presentation. I want to bridge the gap between popular and good, basically, which I see as an ever-increasing gulf in present society, at least where the money-focussed "music industry" is concerned. Anything which is produced (let alone popularised) which does not refine the world of music itself I consider to be potentially damaging to the culture and society to which it is presented, and this effect is magnified the more it happens.
The same goes for over 99% of anime being produced today: if it has already been done (to death and then some), there is little-to-no artistic value in it.
Friday, April 30, 2010
we're doing just fine
i wanted this, but i'm afraid to take it. it doesn't mean i won't. it just confirms that i'm pretty much still afraid of everything. and it makes me wonder how i do anything really. and how much more i could possibly get out of life if i wasn't doing every silly little thing afraid. and it makes me wonder how in blazes did i get this way, and how i can see where it's wrong and still, still, not be able to change it. salivating over it, even. bells everywhere. but everybody's more or less afraid, right? pretty much everybody's just squeaking by. or maybe everybody's doing just fine. we're probably all just fine.
Monday, April 5, 2010
a week's worth of silence
what would you do with a week's worth of silence?. is it even possible to find anymore, what with the hum of technology that is now the soundtrack of our daily lives. refrigerators, with their false voice of efficiency, break into kitchens and interrupt an otherwise peaceful atmosphere. fans force themselves on us from behind plastic hard drives. televisions are constantly turned on. noise is normal, and if it can't be heard than we inevitably assume something is wrong. why is it so quiet? who turned off the tv? why isn't everyone trying to talk at once?
a week's worth of silence would be to some unbearable, and hardly valuable. who wants to understand that time stands still, and it is us who barrel through it, without any awareness of where we're going or from where we came, only an unintelligent notion that there was a starting point way back 'there' and somewhere, in a perfectly straight line some distance ahead, is where it will end. our lives are merely series of perfectly straight dots that our egos mindlessly put together.
i have been by myself now for five days, and am a bit resentful of the sounds around me, though i also have to admit there have a few moments when i have been grateful for the knowledge that help is just a scream away...haha..... why is the fridge so loud? when are we going to make something more energy efficient? who do we hold accountable for this lack of service? ultimately, when it comes to things that we find ourselves without, the blame is on us.
even now, the music is blaring...
a week's worth of silence would be to some unbearable, and hardly valuable. who wants to understand that time stands still, and it is us who barrel through it, without any awareness of where we're going or from where we came, only an unintelligent notion that there was a starting point way back 'there' and somewhere, in a perfectly straight line some distance ahead, is where it will end. our lives are merely series of perfectly straight dots that our egos mindlessly put together.
i have been by myself now for five days, and am a bit resentful of the sounds around me, though i also have to admit there have a few moments when i have been grateful for the knowledge that help is just a scream away...haha..... why is the fridge so loud? when are we going to make something more energy efficient? who do we hold accountable for this lack of service? ultimately, when it comes to things that we find ourselves without, the blame is on us.
even now, the music is blaring...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)