|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 03, 2013 10:15 AM |
|
|
Right, reading the last two posts, we are back on track, special thanks to Sal taking some time to come up with something serious. Let's see:
Quote:
I see a lot of talk about art as consumer, as enjoyable activity, as pleasure, but where is the educational dimension of it?
The idea that art can be anything whatsoever is a symptom of a dying culture. We need a new art that, rather than merely echoing this cultural death, prepares for the culture yet to be born. One common error is to consider that what is good depends on what you happen to like, and one thing is as good as another. Relativism puts everything on the same level.
"My opinion is as good as yours. Nothing has any value of its own, but if someone likes it, it is good for them".
It doesn't take much effort to see that such a view leads to a catastrophic levelling down, a slide into cultural death. Because you ignore the educative purpose over the spectator. The first purpose of art is educative. If you argue about that, I will only tell you that this view is thousand times more beneficial for us than yours, which compares art as a substitute to a tasty spaghetti dinner, you consume and forget about.
The problem with this view is, that it completely disregards the change our society has been undergoing. THEN - up to the end of the 19. century - ART was something that would be paid and commissioned for ONLY by the wealthy and powerful, in ancient times either as praise of the gods or praise of a king or ruler or pharaoh or conqueror, later then also for the enjoyment of the rich and ruling - at least THAT is what survived. NO DOUBT the more wealth, but not JUST as wealthy class of all these societies had pieces of art in their homes as well - painted vessels of all kind, jewellery and trinkets, books or "scrolls", statues - people would DO THAT, and commercially so. Those workshops in the Renaisaance or in ancient Rome would do the same thing than what is happening NOW: they would - for their time - MASS-PRODUCE stuff, albeit with an individual touch.
Michelangelo started as an artist in the service of the Medici family. He was a FAMILY artist who was paid for creating something that the Medici could enjoy - you think the Medici wanted to be educated by what he did?
Leonardo Da Vinci worked for the Medicis as well. When he went to Milan, he would organize festivities for the ruling clan, later he would work for the Borgias, the Pope and even for the French court.
So all those pieces of art of architecture, sculptures and paintings, murals and so on weer possible only because the high and mighty commissioned them (while around them people suffered in bitter poverty). There is nothing educational in it - at least, if you are not religious or interested in technique.
The educational dimension came only with Protestantism. Art for art's sake? Not for the strenuous protestant. Based on the respective philosophies, especially the poetry had to be educational. There would have to be a moral.
I will make that short and say, that art for a minority of wealthy and educated isn't art, but decadent luxury, and a lot of all these immortal pieces of art are nothing BUT monuments of that - except that they also are testimony of the talents and even genius of the artists - but that is true for a smashing victory on the battlefield as well, and in the end there is not even much of a difference.
Now, I will not quote the rest of your post. The gist of it is, that you make a strong point for art having an educational purpose with the aim of making us "better" - but you forget that this is something absolutely INDIVIDUAL. EVERYTHING may have an educational effect on SOMEONE, and not everything has the same educational effect on everyone. In other words, you don't go deep enough.
For one thing, it's art, not education. That means, the educational effect has to be there like an afterthought or - it has to be an ENJOYABLE education. However, the main question is this: WHAT should art teach us - does ANYTHING suffice? For example - a really base porn will be quite educational in teaching us that there is a kind of dog-brain in us that simply reacts to a stimulus; a more "artful" porn may teach us something about the aesthetics of sex - all very educational.
Then there is the question of "what makes us better"? I, for example, adore Otto Dix. EXTREMELY educational in a Greek sense: he painted living tragedy, if you want to. In a way, that's not so different from a 3-minutes piece of Delta-Blues, say Robert Johnson's Love In Vain: Delta Blues
Same song 30 years later, arranged for "orchestra": Try again
Not your kind of art? But, hey, it's massively educational - and lots of people got a kick out of this, grabbing themselves a guitar or later founding a band, making music themselves.
But that's tragedy - now what about FUN? Your quoted 5-minutes of enjoyment Pop-song? Isn't THAT an art in itself? Creating 5 minutes of enjoyment for a lot of people? Educational? Sure. Having fun, enjoying oneself, can be quite educational, and it can make people better. It's all a question of perspective.
Art isn't anymore a privilege of the priviledged and that is FINE. It's like with the internet: there is a TORRENT of information available, and while in earlier times getting information at all may have been the main problem, not it is filtering out the (personally) important stuff from the unimportant. EXACTLY the same thing is true for art - and actually for the whole 21. century Western society. There is something for everyone, tastes are different, and your idea of what is educational or not and what makes people better is not any better than that of the next guy, which means everyone may choose, and no one is better than the neighbor.
@ artu
Quote:
There is no single consensus on what are masterpieces and there never will be, but there is a consensus on works that are aiming for these and cheap, fabricated stuff and there are things in the middle.
You AGAIN assume that the opinion of SOME people here has more weight than others, but since art is for consumption of an audience and not for assessing by some kind of judging commission, everyone has their own "taste", and what is a masterpiece for one is gibberish for another. I mean, it's fine if experts agree on the technical mastery of how something was produced and how much time and effort it took, but so what? I mean, the Pyramids are obviously something very special, but thing that they are TOMBS, and about how much work hours, blood sweat and tears those monuments have cost - as mentioned above, they could have fight a war instead, it wouldn't have been more expensive.
So sure, there IS technical mastery in planning and doing it, and the same is true for the Cathedrals and Domes, but they also came with a price, a high price, actually, and to quote Sal, that has its own educational value.
You sure have your own parameters - you mentioned them - but it's YOUR parameters, and, as you said, they are not even measurable.
It would have been a lot more educational then, NOT to build any Churches or commission artists for murals and stuff, but to build schools instead and educate the people instead.
For me, this has a lot of intellectual masturbation. You do not have to discredit things - and you do not have to feel guilty just because you like a silly TV show. You do not have to ask yourself whether you are losing it, just because you find yourself liking something, that your brain tells you, you shouldn't because it doesn't seem to meet your criteria for high art. It doesn't make you a silly person, succumbing to the taste of the masses - it should just tell you, that it is technically made so well, that it captures your interest, even though you may be biased against it.
Instead you should trust yourself and simply enjoy what is enjoyable for you.
So what about going the other way? If you like or enjoy something, why not look at what exactly it is that you enjoy or what captivates you - instead of letting your rational brain dictate to you what you should like and what isn't worthy of your refined taste, because it would seemingly lack something?
Art is meant to capture facets of LIFE (not as opposed to death, but as in human existence), as viewed subjectively by someone (easy example: van Gogh's paintings, which are painfully lurid which in turn gives an idea about how van Gogh may have perceived things), but the focus is NOT on the facet, but on the subjective view (I point again to van Gogh - the fascinating thing about his paintings is not the sujet, but his presentation, that is, his view, and the same thing can be said about a lot of painters).
Of course SOME facets may seem more rewarding while others may seem trivial or well-trodden, but that's not the point here. If you hear the Beatles's Penny Lane, this song IS basically London in 1966, or a captured momentary photo of it. The same could be said about the Kinks's Waterloo Sunset. These songs are like aural sculptures that tell you a lot about how it was in London, and how the general feeling was nearly 50 years ago. If that ISN'T art, there is no art.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 03:53 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:58, 03 Sep 2013.
|
Quote:
You AGAIN assume that the opinion of SOME people here has more weight than others, but since art is for consumption of an audience and not for assessing by some kind of judging commission, everyone has their own "taste", and what is a masterpiece for one is gibberish for another. I mean, it's fine if experts agree on the technical mastery of how something was produced and how much time and effort it took, but so what? I mean, the Pyramids are obviously something very special, but thing that they are TOMBS, and about how much work hours, blood sweat and tears those monuments have cost - as mentioned above, they could have fight a war instead, it wouldn't have been more expensive.
So sure, there IS technical mastery in planning and doing it, and the same is true for the Cathedrals and Domes, but they also came with a price, a high price, actually, and to quote Sal, that has its own educational value.
You sure have your own parameters - you mentioned them - but it's YOUR parameters, and, as you said, they are not even measurable.
First of all, that is exactly what everybody does in practice. What matters is your parameters, to know who to consult on what. If this was a thread about chemistry, we would all pay a post by Corribus more attention than others, if the topic was piano concertos in specific, Sal would have extra leverage, and then there are trolls we completely disregard. (And I must remind you, you are much more strict about that than me, not that it's a bad thing, I sometimes envy your ability to ignore, I have a compulsion to reply to things even if they are silly). Second of all, I dont think of experts as a commission of judges but rather like tour guides, you say pyramids are tombs, for a second imagine you didn't know that, and you are traveling Egypt for the first time and some tour guide informs you about that, you now have better understanding about what you see, why is that a bad thing? When I mentioned consensus, I didn't do it to point to a hierarchy, I did it to point to a subjectivity that is not endless but degreed, I think that's quite obvious by my context. And what I said was, it couldn't be measured scientifically. I dont want to play semantics, what measurment exactly is etc etc.. But you know the difference between liking a girl and loving a girl, right? There is no scientific metric for that either. The simplest way to put it is: Some differences may not be defined, but they are recognizable.
Btw, we do not differ too much on one thing, I also think the intention of the artist is not a very important aspect. When asked why he was writing Balzac used to reply "for fame and money." Was he sarcastic or was that the plain truth? Who cares, he was still Balzac not Danielle Steel. I even think the notion of "art for art", if it turns into a fetish, can backfire. I explained that with detail in hereQuote:
For me, this has a lot of intellectual masturbation. You do not have to discredit things - and you do not have to feel guilty just because you like a silly TV show. You do not have to ask yourself whether you are losing it, just because you find yourself liking something, that your brain tells you, you shouldn't because it doesn't seem to meet your criteria for high art. It doesn't make you a silly person, succumbing to the taste of the masses - it should just tell you, that it is technically made so well, that it captures your interest, even though you may be biased against it.
Now, that's the really personal part and you are refering to my main post. It's not about guilt. I have no problem with spending time on things that is not high art as long as there is enough time to do all. Put high art and pop art aside, to read (the title of the thread) and to watch are very different experiences. Reading improves and inspires us (at least me) in a unique way, it's not like looking at the screen no matter what you're watching, a silly TV show or a masterpiece of the cinema. And lately I just find myself watching things all the time, I read less and less.It's like that famous economic quote: Bad money sweeps out good money.
Quote:
Of course SOME facets may seem more rewarding while others may seem trivial or well-trodden, but that's not the point here. If you hear the Beatles's Penny Lane, this song IS basically London in 1966, or a captured momentary photo of it. The same could be said about the Kinks's Waterloo Sunset. These songs are like aural sculptures that tell you a lot about how it was in London, and how the general feeling was nearly 50 years ago. If that ISN'T art, there is no art.
Just think of the huge difference between Please Please Me (1963) and Abbey Road (1969), you can understand what I mean by tastes evolve, The Beatles is one of the fastest evolving bands ever. Ah, but there is no scientific metric to define that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 05:04 PM |
|
|
Artu, it's NORMAL, that you dig deeper, when you find something that is of interest to you. But that comes first.
I mean, OF COURSE you "waste time" with "cultural phenomena", provided you have the time, when they grab your interest, but it doesn't matter whether it's, err, Rihanna or Bach. The focus of interest may be different, the depth or wealth of information may be different, and you may even assign a different quality to information gained - but in the end you become a nerd.
Is there any difference between a Rihanna-nerd and a Bach-nerd? Certainly, but not a quality difference. Oh, sure, you may have to be more intelligent to fully grasp everything interesting in connection with Bach, and it may take you a lot longer, but on the other hand Rihanna still lives and may do a lot of stuff, so on the level that says we should be careful to dismiss others and their pastime and personalities - a nerd is a nerd.
If it was different - well too bad for the simpler people, right? Except that I don't believe that you can dismiss simpler people when it comes to art.
To each one their own, we are in the fantastic situation that there is enough art for everyone.
For the difference between PPMe and Abbey Road, well, that was rapid development of composing abilities, right? Not taste. It's simply an artistical development, like you will find it everywhere. It's just that after WWII things developed ever faster. And that is just mirroring personal development, especially of John Lennon.
No, we are not far apart, not really. I'm just consequential non-elitist, because in the end elitist art is privileged art, which is what we had, and if times hadn't changed we had nothing of all that. I may have to buy this with a wealth of things I find personally uninteresting, but I rather have a choice than nothing.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 05:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For the difference between PPMe and Abbey Road, well, that was rapid development of composing abilities, right? Not taste.
I consider the two organically linked.
Quote:
I'm just consequential non-elitist, because in the end elitist art is privileged art,
Elitism is a policy, elite is a category. You may have no elitist intentions but still be understood by a few or you can aim for an elite circle of people and end up vey popular. The objective of the artist do not the matter here. There are differences in works of art based on depth, skill, originality etc etc... Not exactly measurable, not exactly objective, but not totally subjective either and quite recognazible if you wish to put your mind to it. I wouldn't even call that elitism because it's open to everyone in today's world, at least in developed countries. (But being born as a duke would definitely help and is a good headstart )
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
So all those pieces of art of architecture, sculptures and paintings, murals and so on weer possible only because the high and mighty commissioned them (while around them people suffered in bitter poverty). There is nothing educational in it - at least, if you are not religious or interested in technique.
Sorry but I can't let it pass. You assume that once a work is commissioned, the artist breathes once and the artwork lands, from thin air. The fact that he is payed instantly annihilates his creativity, his culture, his tortured soul, his need to legate a message, his high standards?
How the Sistine Capella is not educational because it was commissioned? Michelangelo felt he was far, far above the multitude of ordinary people. And not just physically, up on his platform, but morally as well. That masterpiece is a daunting work of art. It’s not very accommodating to human beings, in many ways. It presents the image of God as a dream to which we aspire. It describes the dream of unity with God as one from which we’ve all been expelled, and we can only get back to it with a great deal of prayer and hard work. It is an open question about our fate and struggle. It has no price.
One last thing about art steps: I heard previously that what you enjoy and understand is the good art for you. I agree but this is limiting us in time and quality. In short it says: don't change nothing, what you understand is ok, what you don't, well...doesn't matter, skip it, art is to enjoy.
How wrong. The artworks you don't understand and enjoy, is not their fault, but yours. You are simply not ready yet to assimilate such message. Some can eternally live with poor understanding, others will work hard to improve.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 10:15 PM |
|
|
See, artu, that's what I call elitist.
Salamandre said:
JollyJoker said:
So all those pieces of art of architecture, sculptures and paintings, murals and so on weer possible only because the high and mighty commissioned them (while around them people suffered in bitter poverty). There is nothing educational in it - at least, if you are not religious or interested in technique.
Sorry but I can't let it pass.
Oh, you can, you just son't want to.
Quote:
You assume that once a work is commissioned, the artist breathes once and the artwork lands, from thin air. The fact that he is payed instantly annihilates his creativity, his culture, his tortured soul, his need to legate a message, his high standards?
No, of course I do NOT assume that. But the nackground, the SOCIETY, in which this was done, the PURPOSE it had, the people who commisioned it, the price that was paid ... the Pope, the Medici, the Borgias - they were all CRIMINALS. They exploited their people and their believers, and they simply bought the service of artists. Those artists did a good job, mostly, that is, but in the service of a criminal elite. If we would still live in this kind of society, you couldn't read or write, had no idea that these things exist and would be treated like crap - while the high and mighty would enjoy paintings of Jesus, ironically.
This art has something ... dishonest. It is GEARED for this effect, while the reality looked different.
Quote:
How the Sistine Capella is not educational because it was commissioned? Michelangelo felt he was far, far above the multitude of ordinary people. And not just physically, up on his platform, but morally as well. That masterpiece is a daunting work of art. It’s not very accommodating to human beings, in many ways. It presents the image of God as a dream to which we aspire. It describes the dream of unity with God as one from which we’ve all been expelled, and we can only get back to it with a great deal of prayer and hard work. It is an open question about our fate and struggle. It has no price.
Oh, I said, it's very educational - but in more ways than you would like, considering the background.
Quote:
One last thing about art steps: I heard previously that what you enjoy and understand is the good art for you. I agree but this is limiting us in time and quality. In short it says: don't change nothing, what you understand is ok, what you don't, well...doesn't matter, skip it, art is to enjoy.
I didn't say that. I said, if it doesn't GRAB you (either by the balls or by the brain) - then it's not worth studying it. For you. Because other things will grab you. That's not so different from everything else. There is no one who studies ALL the sciences AND music AND literature AND architecture AND ... You can't do everything, you can't study everything, you can't understand everything, and you do not need to try to understand something when you cannot feel any relation to it.
Quote:
How wrong. The artworks you don't understand and enjoy, is not their fault, but yours. You are simply not ready yet to assimilate such message. Some can eternally live with poor understanding, others will work hard to improve.
That sounds like it comes from some fanaticaal highpriest of some obscure dity in a more obscure movie.
I suppose you can say that because for you there are not so many artworks, so that you will be able to understand them all - something I'm sadly not able to, since I'm too limited for that, especially considering that there is more to understand in this worls than "artworks".
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 10:31 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
But the nackground, the SOCIETY, in which this was done, the PURPOSE it had, the people who commisioned it, the price that was paid ... the Pope, the Medici, the Borgias - they were all CRIMINALS.
Meh, this is non sense. The only way to create art and live from, was to sell your services to aforementioned. Now, if you only would read about this in particular, you will see that many artists, Leonardo and Michelangelo included, had extraordinary freedom range, both for works completion delays or for technicals to use. Without Medicis or Borgia, the "Renaissance" wouldn't be one, probably. The difference with our century is that Leonardo could stay home, paint and be payed for, while today a painter has to go work in some office for 8 hours/day, then pain in his free time, as it is too little payed. He even was payed for things he never completed, and this to say the respect he earned.
You assume that because the subject required is religious, there can't be interest or educational purpose outside the religious groups. Well, I am not religious but the religious harmonics in Bach, for example, are mesmerizing me. It is a quest for truth, for what we are, where we come from, where we go. Religion is the biggest mystery out, and one would be stubborn to ignore its educational power it just because his logic tells him there is no god.
JollyJoker said:
That sounds like it comes from some fanaticaal highpriest of some obscure dity in a more obscure movie.
When I used "you", was in general meaning: me, you, everyone. What is wrong in what I said? Art is made by artists, by creators. Some of them have a very unique connection with things we can only guess they exist. Some can see things we can not. Some can hear harmonies we can not. Most of them spent their whole life to search for those things. That's why they are creators and we are spectators. When you can't understand a creator, is you the problem. How arrogant to think that when an art is far outside your comprehension, is no good for you.
But, as nobody is forced to understand what he does not like, there is NO real problem.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 10:33 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:55, 03 Sep 2013.
|
JJ said:
Those artists did a good job, mostly, that is, but in the service of a criminal elite. If we would still live in this kind of society, you couldn't read or write, had no idea that these things exist and would be treated like crap - while the high and mighty would enjoy paintings of Jesus, ironically.
This art has something ... dishonest. It is GEARED for this effect, while the reality looked different.
I fail to see the relevance here. If tomorrow, we learn that Capitol Records or Paramount Pictures is actually owned by the mafia, does that affect the work of artists that's labeled under them?
Sal said:
Religion is the biggest mystery out, and one would be stubborn to ignore its educational power it just because his logic tells him there is no god.
Back then, maybe... Not anymore. It's outdated as a cosmological or ethical guide. Artists reflect their time, that's inevitable. There is a reason why Bach composed for the church and Debussy (or the Beatles) did not.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 11:02 PM |
|
|
I am not so sure. So many questions without answers yet, and not sure there will be at anytime. I don't believe in the bible, but when I see Mozart, Leonardo or Jolly Joker, there must be some unidentified fluid circulating outside and make some people very special.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 09:49 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
But, as nobody is forced to understand what he does not like, there is NO real problem.
You did of course consider that you CAN understand things and STILL or BECAUSE OF THAT don't like them or reject them, right? From understanding doesn't follow liking. It might just as well follow dislike.
You said, if there were no Medicis or Borgias there would have been no Renaissance, but you can say the same thing for everything, for example for Nazi Germany (always a popular example): without the second WW the world would be quite different now, for the same reason you cited - so is everything excused then?
If you think of it, then the paintings we talk about are BOOK ILLUSTRATIONS. FANTASY book illustrations, to be precise. You don't have to be religious to appreciate them, you can appreciate them as what they are, especially, of course, when you know the book they were made for.
Of course we are lucky, that we live in a time where we can see the restaurated work, The Final Judgment being genitalia-blackened for centuries, lending the work authenticity (the artist risked something, clinging to his vision), and generally it's not my intention to start a discussion about the merits of worldfamous pieces of art. The discussion isn't about those, but about the dismissal of others, since it's not me who's doing that.
Your point is simply, THAT is art, most everything else is crap, and THAT is the true sin. We live in different times, and naturally the art changes as well. Different instruments, techniques and possibilities are available - the invention of photography and film somehow and naturally changed the role of classic painting somewhat, making some styles somewhat redundant. Inevitably, the older the art is, the more interesting an aspect are the historical details, circumstances and implications, that somehow have nothing to do with the art as such, and the act of appreciation is somewhat different. I've studied history, which is only to say that I'm interested a lot in the subject of history, and it's also the angle from which I go at classic art. For me, it's first and foremost of HISTORICAL interest, which is to say, they allow to get a ... more lively picture of the time. They are, first and foremost, FOR ME witnesses. As such, the Ziggurat of Uruk, rebuilt in Berlin in a miniature, is as interesting as Stonehenge, the Pyramides or the Sistine Chapel, but it's more like a journey with a time machine. It's not really GRABBING me, artistically. Sure, some things are marvelous in the sense of the word, but the emotional connection is somewhat missing. It's somewhat DEAD, like visiting Rome or Athens, looking at the Akropolis or the Colosseum, invoking a time long gone. It's interesting - but it's also a billion lightyears away. In short: it's not my emotional language.
In my view, art, in its most intense expressions, is very intimate and very personal. It's like - as a man you may find woman generally interesting and even somewhat attractive, but you are generally not interested in ALL. You may have a period where you want to just fly from one to the next to take a taste, but eventually you will settle to explore things with more depth. But people are different. The woman you would like to explore is one I may not even register - and vice versa. Art is somewhat the same. It has to do with PASSION, and you cannot be passionate about everything - but everyone is, one way or another, passionate about Something, and who is to say that one passion is "better" and more worthy to explore than the other?
I repeat, THANKFULLY, we live in a time where there is a lot on offer AND everyone has the chance to explore things, and this has been so for only a short time.
Moaning about the demise of art and whatnot in the face of "mediocrity" of the masses and the sell-out of arts due to every layman dab ling around is misguided.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 04:34 PM |
|
|
With Renaissance art, the historical interest usually surpasses the artistic joy in me also. It's too Biblical. Of course, you can look through and see a more universal story of human condition in the pictures but the ambiance in Vatican turns that into quite an effort.
Oh and I've always seen this in the movies and wanted to do it myself but never had the opportunity till now:
Lightyear is a metric for distance JJ, not time
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 04:43 PM |
|
|
I'm glad you mention this, because philosophically spoken we finally have a metric that can be used for time AND distance, since it amounts to the same thing, come to think of it. 
And if that's not convincing - I just wanted to check whether you actually read the posts or just fly over them.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 05:02 PM |
|
|
If Google Translate produces sufficiently aesthetically pleasing translations that a professional translator can't compete with it 95 percent of the time, what's the problem? It's good enough for the people who would otherwise be paying for the professional translation. You can try to compete, but if the difference in quality between you and Google isn't great enough to justify the difference in price, according to the consumer's preferences, then you won't be successful. And there's nothing wrong with that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 05:03 PM |
|
|
Sorry deleted by error previous post, adding it from cache, and answering to Mvass at the end:
It is not misguided to defend its area of expertise, its way of life. If you take a look from historical perspective, the "high" art was the only art "consumed" until modern times. The fact is that the ones patronizing it (those who you call criminals) had a precise idea about the standards they desired. Today, with the medias increasing influence , the "popular" art is nibbling its part of the cake . Part which is today at about 95% of the entire art leaked in medias.
If my thing is to enjoy Shakespeare and not pop music, what are the opportunities to access to it on TV for example? Arte diffused 3 Shakespeare works last year. Only 3, this means about 6 hours. 6 hours is what I can hear daily as pop music, and this only on one of the 6 TV nationals. See the thing?
The fact that there is no metric to distinguish quality is irrelevant for the one studying that field. You say you are translator. Suppose that tomorrow, Google releases a little bit better translator than the actual crappy, and from then your job loses 95% of its applications. People will use Google to translate Keats for example, and everything else. When you will cry that this needs an human with a high culture and aesthetic taste, in order to choose one or another word and match the artistic original layout, you will be answered that there is no metric to justify your demand. One word is worth another.
All this to answer what is the point of such comparisons... well it does demonstrate how people view the arts... as such the arts have generally becomed devalued by mass commercialization. Real art is still a minority thing.
@Mvass: and who will judge about the aesthetics of the automatic translator? Certainly not the translators, right?
The same goes for pop music for example. You may say that is only personal opinion and is worth any other, but let me explain how I see a Beatles song (for example):
I take the score as I always ignore the advertisings when judging an art work. The fact that 4 handsome boys sing it has no interest for me, this is the advertising part, as well as what they evoke, then the hysterical chicks around, the cameras, the lights, the scene, the atmosphere, all this is not in the text of the work, right?. I remove of course the drums as from musical point of view, they do not quantify in stable hertz value, so there is no musical note reproduced. So what remains? 12 bars melody on a basic harmony. The modulations are limited to close tonalities and rarely go over 4 or 5, which obviously creates very limited colors. The melody as the harmony were obviously written on the trial and error principle: task is playing around with chords until you find a progression you like, singing until you have lyrics and a melody you like, and building the other parts from there. Those things are trivial, from my point of view.
And not trying to convince anyone, I am just explaining my point, you guys listen to what you like. But don't try to convince me that those things have any artistic value. For me it is nothing more than show, and require a lot of eye candies to produce desired effect. And I even enjoy Beatles a lot, without calling that art or even something close to it.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 05:25 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:26, 04 Sep 2013.
|
mvassilev said:
If Google Translate produces sufficiently aesthetically pleasing translations that a professional translator can't compete with it 95 percent of the time, what's the problem?
The problem is Sal knows Goggle can never do that and you don't. You'll need an AI with emotions and culture and a sense of music. Translating poetry is already a quite hard thing even for a human (a poet once, defined poetry as "the untranslatable"). Logic, without depth, can lead you to quite shallow comparisons.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 05:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You'll need an AI with emotions and culture and a sense of music.
Or an algorithm that's sufficiently good at identifying the context of words, and finding similar words in the targeted language.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 05:53 PM |
|
|
|
In theory yes, in practice not until you find a way to decipher then code emotions into AI. Very fictional.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 06:04 PM |
|
|
Why would you need to code emotions into the AI? Just identify the context in which words are used in the source language, do the same for the target language, and translate between the two. This wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't require anything like programming emotions into the AI.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 06:04 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:10, 04 Sep 2013.
|
|
Not just emotions, poetry is never translated word by word, you have to adjust the musicality of one language into the other's. That's especially hard if the languages are from different families (not like German- English but like German-Japanese). Plus, poems are usually full of indirect references, allusions, proverbs, culture related metaphors... Your AI must be able to comprehend these and sometimes even transform it for the translated language.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2013 06:52 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Sorry deleted by error previous post, adding it from cache, and answering to Mvass at the end:
It is not misguided to defend its area of expertise, its way of life. If you take a look from historical perspective, the "high" art was the only art "consumed" until modern times.
Well, obviously not - they made a lot pf pottery stuff with patterns and so on - for mass consumptions, for example. Quote:
The fact is that the ones patronizing it (those who you call criminals) had a precise idea about the standards they desired. Today, with the medias increasing influence , the "popular" art is nibbling its part of the cake . Part which is today at about 95% of the entire art leaked in medias.
Oh, please, how would you know what STANDARDS they had? They just wanted to stroke their ego.
Quote:
If my thing is to enjoy Shakespeare and not pop music, what are the opportunities to access to it on TV for example? Arte diffused 3 Shakespeare works last year. Only 3, this means about 6 hours. 6 hours is what I can hear daily as pop music, and this only on one of the 6 TV nationals. See the thing?
You don't really know what you are talking about, right?
[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-Shakespeare-Collection-Box-Set/dp/B000B6F8V4/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1378312359&sr=1-1&keywords=shakespeare]It's quite easy[/url]
Quote:
The fact that there is no metric to distinguish quality is irrelevant for the one studying that field.
Studying "quality" without a metric is a pretty silly idea, and that should be obvious.
Quote:
You say you are translator. Suppose that tomorrow, Google releases a little bit better translator than the actual crappy, and from then your job loses 95% of its applications.
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the day that will happen is the day when all art is created by computer. Won't happen - not in my lifetime, anyway, and if it happens there will be more serious problems.
Quote:
All this to answer what is the point of such comparisons... well it does demonstrate how people view the arts... as such the arts have generally becomed devalued by mass commercialization. Real art is still a minority thing.
Pardon? What was REAL ART again?
Quote:
let me explain how I see a Beatles song (for example):
I take the score as I always ignore the advertisings when judging an art work.
You do not JUDGE a music piece - you LISTEN to it. Quote:
I remove of course the drums as from musical point of view, they do not quantify in stable hertz value, so there is no musical note reproduced.
Yeah, well, you know, I always delete the blacks and whites out of a painting because they don't qualify as colour.
Dude, you are MUTILATING stuff, and then you judge it? You must be kidding! Quote:
The melody as the harmony were obviously written on the trial and error principle: task is playing around with chords until you find a progression you like, singing until you have lyrics and a melody you like, and building the other parts from there. Those things are trivial, from my point of view.
... don't try to convince me that those things have any artistic value. For me it is nothing more than show, and require a lot of eye candies to produce desired effect. And I even enjoy Beatles a lot, without calling that art or even something close to it.
Suddenly it's all very easy for me, and everything falls together. I'm going to end this nice little talk. Jesus Christ. The people you meet on the internet ... 
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
