Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Washing Machine
I just feel the 'you have to see it' thing can be applied to many things. One could argue that you can't fully appreciate an album without seeing it live.
|
and album is an album and it's presented as such, and it is different from a live performance. however, it if it is a stereo and you can only hear one channel, then i'd say you can't fully appreciate the album. more closely, i'd say the same if you're hearing it in a shitty mp3.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Washing Machine
The problem with this arguement is that it prevents any interlectual discussion of art. We are not always able to see these things in presence so to speak. Most of us wouldn't have be able to witness a Beatles concert.
|
intellectual discussions about things we don't know about are just wankery. it has been established that you don't know rothko, you only know the houseprints of prententious middle class people with cheap wallpaper. if you want to discuss cheap wallpaper, then you're qualified. if you want to discuss rothko
prints, you're qualified as well. but you can't seriously discuss rothko when you don't know what you're talking about.
it's like wanting to argue about shakespeare by just reading the cliff notes and not the plays.
now let's hear from a real intellectual:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Washing Machine
On the otherhand I don't wish to sound like im dismissing the 'experience' of art either. But I think its fair for me to hold opinions of certain elements of Rothko's work that I can see with my eyes.
|
your stereo has only one channel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Washing Machine
I have seen work by simular artists and it hasn't changed my opinion on them. Thats not to say either that at any given chance I wouldn't wnat to see Rothko in the flesh. Put plainly Rothko as far as I can judge is not my thing.
|
you're like a virgin talking about sex. virgin!
go get deflowered. then tell us.
