My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

[jliat]

Mr. jliat says that artists must define the genre.

No I don't, i'm saying that noise artists MAKE the genre. This why the philosopher guy you gave a link to made a fatal mistake in thinking he knew what made poetry different to ordinary text. It might once have been but the likes of Ken Goldsmith - did otherwise.

Well, how can they define it if they disagree on what their genre is?

The act of disagreement is the very creative force, or one, of creating the genre. Like philosophy - the creation of concepts, how can you define philosophy if many philosophers fundamentally disagree with each other - answer-that is the process of creating philosophy.

In this case they can do that only socially, as a logically vague concept, by means of statistical universals.
That's how.

But they don't, and I've no knowledge of any genre or discipline being so defined. Your idea is so wrong. How do we define what art is...

Duchamp challenged the definition of art by his readymades. The trajectory of modern art, music was not defined by means of statistical universals. I cant believe you think it was or it can be.

If Masami Akita, Romain Perrot and Dominick Fernow can disagree on noise, we're both right at the same time, me and jliat

Nope - Romain pushes the envelope further. And you are wrong - certainly historically genres were never defined by means of statistical universals. Maybe they will be, but that would stop any future novel definitions...

No, not a trick question. I have an impression that our disagreement with jliat is quantitative rather than qualitative. He sees noise as defined by a narrower community, I see it as defined by a wider community - but NOT by anybody and their grandma, there still are limits, just not as strict, so you and I have a say too in addition to Masami Akita and Romain Perrot. Don't worry, Oliver still doesn't, not untill he passes Harsh Noise Wall 101

Nope i see the definition of noise the creative act of a group not from statistical universals being used by second rate accademics - second rate because they fail to know their subject. And its likey that these creatives will expand noise to the extent it becomes a new genre - like Romain recent acoustic work. Its how the arts work creatively, not by statistical universals.

Its how it works...

[melkobukva]

You are - again! - mixing up things that precede human classifications of things and human classifications of things that are based on percieved properties of things.

Turning my true statements into wrong statements by replacing one with the other.

Intensional and extensional contexts. We have to keep track of them.

Venus is the Morning Star. Venus is the Evening Star. Venus appears in the morning. The Evening Star does NOT appear in the morning. A corpus of sonically similar records is not a social convention.


Please answer the question.

Who has a say on who has a say on what noise is?

[WhiteWarlock]

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck
If a woodchuck could chuck wood?
does the sound of Woodchuck chucking wood
actually qualify as "noise" and is it any good?

[melkobukva]

He should use that lightsaber to chop up circular definitions.

[jliat]

You are - again! - mixing up things that precede human classifications of things and human classifications of things that are based on percieved properties of things.

Both apply to terms like 'noise', 'impressionism', 'minimalism', 'art'. And noise. Noise preceded humans, and is based on perceived properties, dissonance, loudness, randomness... etc.

Turning my true statements into wrong statements by replacing one with the other.

They are wrong - the terms above 'noise', 'impressionism', 'minimalism' were not created to define genres by statistical universals.

Intensional and extensional contexts. We have to keep track of them.

Track away. The only problem is whatever definitions you arrive at historically art has escaped them. I used the example of the academic who failed to know about conceptual poetry. "The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more."

Venus is the Morning Star. Venus is the Evening Star. Venus appears in the morning. The Evening Star does NOT appear in the morning. A corpus of sonically similar records is not a social convention.

This is a very good example. The evening star does not appear in the morning because the description 'evening' is different to morning, unlike daybreak. But the description 'star' is also wrong. Venus is not (as once thought) a star, but a planet. Two entirely different types of object.
So the morning or evening stars never appear as stars. And the nature of Venus, second planet from the sun was decided NOT by statistical universals or logicians!! but by astronomers. Moreover they now classify Pluto no longer as a planet. I suppose if Oliver said Venus was a star you would leap to his support.


It might well be that noise as a genre is over, jus as impressionism is. Now there are far more painters in the 20th C painting in that style, but art historically the genre is over. Much the same with noise, so Monet, Renoir et al could NOT ask "how do you get that impressionist look?" as they were creating it. Thus here we have similar questions, so the genre noise is probably now a mere style.
There is a massive difference between STYLE and GENRE in its practice. One is essentially creative the other imitation. And superficial imitation at that. In the case of noise what was once key ' a lack of skill' has been replaced by the 'imitators' as a 'need for skill'. The questions of 'how do I', 'is this noise'... betray the fact that it is now a mere style. Noise as creative genre it seems is over. To apply the term to those merely copying the style is as wrong to use the term impressionist on someone painting now. Duchamp was not a Renaissance artist. The term 'Modernism' has by critics been decided to be from the late 19th and mid 20th centuries. You cant be a modern artist now. Only imitate the style.

Please answer the question.

Who has a say on who has a say on what noise is?

Those who made it and the critics who discussed it. Not the general public's votes. And the critical evaluation of what the genre was can continue within those interested in it. Just as astronomy can re evaluate and refine. However one requires a knowledge of the genre, rather than some 'taken for granted' notion like the "poetry" mistake.


This is the case. Your question leads to infinite regress.

[melkobukva]

Noise preceded humans

Who has a say on who has a say on what noise is?

Those who made it and the critics who discussed it.

In exactly what sense did they make something that preceded humans?

[jliat]

Oh in the same way that we make sense of the world before we were here to make sense, i.e. there were once things we call dinosaurs which once were living creatures...

And that the idea that poetry isnt ordinary writing or that the Duchamp's fountain was just a joke. Pleasssseeeeessae

[melkobukva]

I asked about making things, you answered about making sense of things. Do you consider 'making' and 'making sense of' equivalent?

[xdugef]

stop making sense

[jliat]

I asked about making things, you answered about making sense of things. Do you consider 'making' and 'making sense of' equivalent?

"Noise preceded humans, and is based on perceived properties, dissonance, loudness, randomness... etc." Noise was made by things, volcanoes thunder storms and eventually people.

This is odd - you asked about "Who has a say on who has a say on what noise is? "

To which i gave the answer "Those who made it and the critics who discussed it. Not the general public's votes......"

Making the sense of things in this case are people.. you then switched to another statement made elsewhere, that noise like life and the earth itself preceded humans - who try to make sense of things.

So it seems here you didn't ask about making things but "Who has a say..." which is making sense... or trying to...

Admittedly this is not that simple as demonstrated by the "academics" involved in The Literary Universals Project In the English Department of The University of Connecticut who make fundamental mistakes, one presumes from ignorance rather than deception... nevertheless that can confuse and confound the gullible.

[melkobukva]

So it seems here you didn't ask about making things but "Who has a say..." which is making sense... or trying to...

Yes, and in response you pointed at people who make things:

Those who made it

This seemed confusing since you also stated that noise was already made before there were any people at all.

Noise was made by things, volcanoes thunder storms and eventually people.

Now I get it. Noise as a whole was made by people and non-people. So people who made noise did not make all of it, but some of it.
We're talking about people who made some noise. Correct?

fundamental mistakes, one presumes from ignorance rather than deception...

Not relevant to the topic, but since you keep bringing this up with remarkable persistence, I'll reply. Your counterexample does not indicate any kind of mistake. Singular counterexamples don't work against probability-based claims.

Moreover, the self-awareness of literature and its ability to deliberately subvert the genre conventions has been common knowledge since pretty much forever.

The frost already cracks and crunches,
The fields are silver with the froze...
(And you, good reader, with your hunches,
expect the rhyme, so take it - Rose!)

This is from a novel in verse published in 1832.
A decade later Nikolai Gogol published his famous poem in prose.
Ang gibberish avantgarde poems have been around for a century at the very least.
So not only does your counterexample fail, the very assumption that a scholar of literature can be ignorant of a fundamental trait of literature is nothing but naive to the point of being ridiculous.

[jliat]

I think you really should stop editing my responses in such a way as to alter their meaning...

“Those who made it and the critics who discussed it. Not the general public's votes. And the critical evaluation of what the genre was can continue within those interested in it.”

I also think its confusing or odd to think there was no noise prior to Humans - especially when I gave examples, lion's roar volcanoes waterfalls... you forgot about these.

As for the relevance to the topic of the errors made by "academics" involved in The Literary Universals Project In the English Department of The University of Connecticut – right on topic, first because you brought up douchebag academic parasites, secondly I was (as most) unaware of the Literary Universal nonsense until YOU introduced. Or did I use a singular counter example to any probability based claim. I used a whole body of contemporary poetry – in order to show this -

"A poetic section is defined as follows (from Fabb, “Verse”):
in effect poems are differentiated formally from non-poems (prose)
by having some kind of additional sectioning.
(Note that if this were not true, then all language would be poetry.)"

Nigel Fabb, University of Strathclyde 2016

Was untrue. “is defined” that's kind of definite? And the last line – 'not true' …

There are more general assumptions made by the group- that ALL literature is text, and it is read. Again not true. And when they stray into other areas their attempts are, if it was not for their being paid academics – laughable.

“That we find Duchamp’s Fountain amusing depends on a shared understanding (grounded in perceptual engagement with works of art over time) of the normative function of urinals and art museums; the value of Fountain may not be intrinsic to the work itself, as perceived in isolation; yet its ironic (amusing) value is readily grasped” - Zachary Norwood

(I suppose a 5 year old might see a urinal in a gallery as funny – but an academic undertaking a critique? - maybe...)

Here Zachary Norwood gets the urinal exactly wrong. It was much more than something intend as a affect, but one that challenged the idea of what Art was. Originally it wasn't even exhibited but rejected from being exhibited, then followed a series of publications regarding this work, the original never being publicly exhibited! And subsequent urinals were not 'readymades' at all but specially made to copy the original from photographs as Duchamp's work gained artistic significance – 33 years after the original was destroyed or lost. “Duchamp’s profile in art circles rose dramatically in the 1950s and 1960s” As the likely originator of conceptual art, conceptual rather than aesthetic, conceptual rather than affect, pace Deleuze.

“Duchamp described his intent with the piece was to shift the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation.”

And this was the significance of the work which influenced – if not created -conceptual art – in art severed its link with aesthetics and affect and began to investigate the nature of Art in and of itself.

Again a little later...

“ it has long been held that emotional response is the primary mover of value-attribution (Budd “Artistic Value”; Damasio “The Neurobiological Grounding of Human Values”

Well – simply NO. Within modernity there was a very intensive desire to use reason rather than emotion. Whilst some abstract expressionist painting were intensely emotional, what singled them out was not that, as that is shared with many other things – including theme parks, but their 'abstractness', flatness... non-representational nature. Just as one may get an emotional response from witnessing a launch of a Space X rocket, that is not its value. And to foolishly think so is to say its value is no different to a firework rocket, whose function is just that. And just what is the emotional response to validating works such as Rauschenberg's 'erased de kooning drawing, or the Work of Art Language....!

As for a 'scholar of literature can be ignorant of a fundamental trait of literature' – certainly- but its obvious these guys are not scholars, but examples of the very people you called douchbags in the humanities.

Maybe you are a literary student following these guys – your list of prior work excludes the – id say -significant work from 1759 in which such things as non-textual devices are used... you know it?

Anyway – I think that's about it. Its now about you editing my replies and last man standing. Altering assertions of truth and definitiveness to probability. I think the word is Mendacity. Though enjoyable.

[melkobukva]

I also think its confusing or odd to think there was no noise prior to Humans - especially when I gave examples, lion's roar volcanoes waterfalls... you forgot about these.

I mentioned volcanoes in the very post you're replying to. And where on God’s green earth did I ever claim there was no noise prior to Humans? This is actually very representative of what's going on in this thread. You consistently misrepresent what I said turning it into nonsense and then proceed to debate the nonsense you've attributed to me.

This is why I stopped trying to convince you of anything and focused on trying to better understand your point instead. Thought I was making some progress, but seemingly turned out to be wrong even in this regard

Maybe you are a literary student following these guys – your list of prior work excludes the – id say -significant work from 1759 in which such things as non-textual devices are used... you know it?

Tristram Shandy. No idea why you're bringing this up though. I don't suppose this is in order to back up my argument by contributing additional examples or something like that.

Sorry if I edited your response in such a way as to alter its meaning. Rest assured it was never the intention, here or elsewhere in this thread. Just trying to keep posts shorter, walls of text are difficult to read.

[jliat]

If you mentioned volcanoes why the ask the question latter,
no I think you are just trolling.

So do you make noise, how is it you know about the guys you cited? Student?

You can if you want to follow what i'm getting at go to the texts on my site. And I can if you like give you positive feedback from various sources... i.e. universities of repute, but then i'll get some - who do you think you are remark...

Youve convinced me of something.

Walls of text are difficult to read. A true lit critter! take care...

[melkobukva]

So you bring up Nigel Fabb whom I never quoted (or even read) to prove that Hogan is an incompetent douchebag.

And Fabb is supposed to be a douchebag, because avantgarde poetry does not conform with his definition of poetry.

Despite the fact that he explicitly states:

Definitions and categorizations have many functions, and which definition one uses depends on context and goals. In this book, I distinguish between what I call ‘poetry’ and what I call ‘prose’ on the basis of purely formal features, and in part because I suggest the distinction is psychologically realistic. I propose that the non-linguistic sections into which poems are divided are held as whole sequences of words in working memory. This need not be true of the linguistic sections into which prose is divided. The terms ‘poetry’ and ‘prose’ here need not sort texts in the same way as under other possible definitions.

and

Its goal is to differentiate most poetry from most prose, but it has some blurred boundaries: for example it does not fit prose poems, and it holds at a small scale – ordinary prose can be divided into paragraphs, chapters etc. which are larger sections not determined by syntactic or prosodic structure. So it is intended as a useful but not strict (or universal) definition

So you diss Fabb by misrepresenting him. And you diss Hogan by association.

Absolutely brilliant work, good sir!