The Problem with Definitions.

(Continued from)

Of course having established a definition of art, albeit a weak one, it still must be considered there is the fundamental flaw of subjectivity. Can art be defined by only the majority? A general consensus on what or what is not art? This seems to be the question raised by Duchamp's Fountain, a "found art" piece that was a urinal, laid on its back and signed "R. Mutt 1917". The piece is both ironic and iconic, in the sense that it was originally created in protest to general consensus of what defined art at that time. The irony is formed in that the piece is now iconic in the discussion of art, though it had originally thought to be simply trash. (It is even thought that the piece was lost some time later because someone mistook it for rubbish and threw it out.) However, the piece had made such a statement and created such controversy that it would be wrong not to accept it as art. As well, it also conforms to my earlier definition of art. It had an intended message, a statement that art could take the form of intellectual interpretation and not just physical form. It had an intended audience, the art community of that time. Finally, it had an emotional reaction, notably disgust and anger. So even though the Society of Independent Artists of 1917 had an idea of what construed art, it would seem that position has been redefined over time.

So does this mean that art can be defined by a group of people? Of course it can, but this does not mean that it is the only definition, nor does it mean that definition is applicable in all situations. So, defining art, it would seem, is open to some interpretation and is relativistic to the period and place. Of course this should not be surprising, especially when it is considered, that at its core, art is a form of communication. And, with all forms of communication, the signal to noise ratio has a significant impact on the message. This ratio becomes even more important in art as a lot of the forms, such as poetry, will use noise, such as metaphors, to build the intended message. Add on top of this, noise from outside sources, cultural differences or language translations for example, and the message can be very muddied. Many times the message is lost before it even reaches the intended audience. To me this would be an example of failed art as it is my belief that art, must have a purposeful message.

Sometimes it would seem that art can be meaningless, that it needs no message, it simply exists for the purpose of aesthetic beauty. Take, for example, coffee art, in my opinion it is very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing. It definitely fulfills the criteria of an emotional response and an audience, but does it have a message? In my opinion, I would say yes. To me the artist in this case is saying "look at my my skills to create something that pleasing." It says even more in the sense that it is something that is very temporary, it is intended mainly for a one person audience and it will be enjoyed for only a short period of time. I guess I would even speculate that ability to create something that is aesthetically pleasing is art in its simplest form. That is to say, something on which the artist and his audience can both say, "that looks beautiful", is a consensus on the message "is this beauty?".

Haven't had much to say.

It is already the 9th and I have been scratching my head wondering why I can't write anything. It hasn't been for a lack of ideas either, just a lack of ambition to say anything. When I haven't been looking after kids, I have been wasting most of my days playing Fallout3. When I have had a small chance to write anything, I just haven't been able to push myself to put it down. So I am just going to start writing and see where it leads.

First the important stuff. Fallout3 has really impressed me. A first person RPG, that allows for a very detailed creation of your avatar/character. The designers did a very good job of making an enjoyable post apocalyptic Washinton DC setting that flows very smoothly and feels almost real. I find the game follows the form very similar to that of the Never Winter Nights series, in that you have a direction of good or evil that you can choose to follow throughout your adventure. The world is absolutely massive for a single player game and a person could spend a significant amount of time completing the varied missions available to them. As far as downfalls to the game, I have only few complaints. The item creation and item repair system is a little convoluted. There are recipes that can be found or bought in the game to make items, however the effort to make vs reward from item is just not there. As well, the repair skill is a little useless since you require a near identical object to be consumed in order to repair an item. However if you find an NPC to repair your items, it simply requires caps (money), but even then the repair is always only partial. So this means if you make a unique item, you would have to make another unique item to repair it, or just be satisfied with the max 60% repair that an NPC can achieve. Finally, you can also gain followers in your missions, but generally the AI for them is useless, and you spend most of your time trying to keep them from dying. Overall though I would recommend this game to anyone who enjoys the RPG genre.

On to other things. Happy New Year to everyone. 2008 was one for the record books as far as suckage is concerned (in my humble opinion). I am actually having some difficulty coming to terms with the fact that it is already 2009. I suppose I will begin accepting it once September rolls around, only to be equally shocked next January. Maybe even more shocked, considering it will be 2010 and I will be wondering where the fuck my cyber implants are and why we don't have electric cars or affordable clean energy yet. I guess I can summarize by saying that the first decade of the second millennium, up to this point, has been a complete disappointment. Is it just me, or did all the really cool shit happen in the 90's and now we are just kinda getting more of the same in fancier packaging. Big plan for this year: get out of hospital, get out of Calgary.

Calgary continues to impress me with its ability to under impress. It is a city of people who have migrated here in the pursuit of greed. It is a place where nothing gets done unless it is overpriced and then it only gets half ass done. The majority of the people spend 90% of their time driving, but only 10% of those people actually drive in a fashion that isn't completely hazardous to everyone else on the road. The vision of the city seems to be more roads, but no maintenance. This is probably for the best, considering those roads are only to support a sprawl of houses that will empty in 10 years anyway. Besides, if you don't repair or clean the roads, that means people will buy more 4x4's which means more oil consumption, which means more money... I hate this city. It reminds me of a gigantic Lloydminster.

Well that is about it for tonight. I hope to write something more interesting tomorrow. That basically means I will probably write something in another two weeks.