The Dark Knight Rises

[dado]

Again, I'm using a very specific definition here; namely, the one written by Joseph Conrad. He's a fellow who knew a tiny bit about what the fuck "art" is.

I don't get this. The point of defining art and using someone elses definition.

This whole art/not-art binary opposition is tiresome and easy to pick apart.

I don't care about Nolans Batman that much but it did something for me, left me a bit in awe without action or explosions. I watched Guess Who's Coming to Dinner before that and tought that movie was more entertaining than Nolan, but Batman spoke to me in a better way.

[ShogunRua]

Edit: Double post

[ShogunRua]

I don't get this. The point of defining art and using someone elses definition.

Evidently then, you "don't get" math, science, or any other academic pursuit. Defining abstract elements and manipulating them is the basic framework behind all of them. This is a concept we try to teach 12 year olds in school.

This whole art/not-art binary opposition is tiresome and easy to pick apart.

You can't pick anything apart before settling on a definition.

I don't care about Nolans Batman that much but it did something for me, left me a bit in awe without action or explosions. I watched Guess Who's Coming to Dinner before that and tought that movie was more entertaining than Nolan, but Batman spoke to me in a better way.

Good for you. Not sure what this has to do with my quoted text.

[dado]

Evidently then, you "don't get" math, science, or any other academic pursuit. Defining abstract elements and manipulating them is the basic framework behind all of them. This is a concept we try to teach 12 year olds in school.

I get math but I still don't really know what a number is.
There is a clear scientific method behind math and other natural sciences (and even that depends on paradigms), but not so much with humanities ( take postmodern approach for example). Art doesn't really fit with math does it?

You can't pick anything apart before settling on a definition.

That's discutable. I didn't really settle on any definition in my previous post yet you proceeded to pick it apart.

Good for you. Not sure what this has to do with my quoted text.

Sorry, I adressed something from you that I didn't qoute.
You mentioned that pure entertainment films use humor and fight scenes to awe. Guess who's comming to dinner adresses Conrads definition of art in a realistic, interesting and original manner. Yet, I found the later more entertaining in that fashion, and Batman less and more artsy.

[tef]

I get math but I still don't really know what a number is.

wat. A # is an abstraction meant to denote a discrete singular entity. Could be anything, indivisible by some standard. A $1 bill is worth 1 dollar, but it can be divided by other means. Conversion into cents, or by tearing it apart to make two pieces.

Wheeler had this really crazy idea that all electrons were really just one electron.

Also Joe Conrad sucks and stole all his shit from the atrocities in the Congo, get down.

[ShogunRua]

There is a clear scientific method behind math and other natural sciences (and even that depends on paradigms), but not so much with humanities ( take postmodern approach for example). Art doesn't really fit with math does it?

It makes sense to try a similar approach there, even if the subject is less rigorous. You always need definitions.

That's discutable. I didn't really settle on any definition in my previous post yet you proceeded to pick it apart.

But not on the basis of whether something is "art" or not. You need a definition of art before you can discuss whether something is or is not that.

You mentioned that pure entertainment films use humor and fight scenes to awe. Guess who's comming to dinner adresses Conrads definition of art in a realistic, interesting and original manner. Yet, I found the later more entertaining in that fashion, and Batman less and more artsy.

A completely meaningless jumble of words, especially since you still haven't explained what "artsy" is.

Also Joe Conrad sucks and stole all his shit from the atrocities in the Congo, get down.

Says the uneducated illiterate who thinks he only wrote "Heart of Darkness". If you think Conrad's writing "sucks", your views on literature are probably garbage. Go read some "Twilight".

[tef]

Says the uneducated illiterate who thinks he only wrote "Heart of Darkness". If you think Conrad's writing "sucks", your views on literature are probably garbage. Go read some "Twilight".

I hold a PHD and have read every book Conrad ever published. I've also read over thirty thousand others. You're dumb.

[ShogunRua]

Says the uneducated illiterate who thinks he only wrote "Heart of Darkness". If you think Conrad's writing "sucks", your views on literature are probably garbage. Go read some "Twilight".

I hold a PHD and have read every book Conrad ever published. I've also read over thirty thousand others. You're dumb.

At a rate of one book read per day, 30,000 books would take you well over 82 years to read. Even your lies are nonsense. And I don't care whether you have a PhD, even if it's not another lie. You're still an idiot.

[tef]

Someone's never heard about John Stuart Mill. You speak as if your taste were objectively correct and it isn't so. You also take shit way too seriously and never have anything valuable to add to any discussion.

I used to read 3-4 books a day, every day. I was raised by a demanding family. I'm also much older than you are.

[ShogunRua]

Someone's never heard about John Stuart Mill.

I have, and even read his works.

You speak as if your taste were objectively correct and it isn't so.

I never said they were. But saying Conrad "sucks" and "plagiarized his shit" is really damn ignorant. Had you simply said "I don't like Conrad's work", that would have been a different matter.

You also take shit way too seriously and I never have anything valuable to add to any discussion.

Indeed! Seriously, link me to any post that you have made in the last 6 months which actually discusses movies, instead of off-topic ramblings, bragging about how brilliant and awesome you are, or other assorted nonsense.

I used to read 3-4 books a day, every day. I was raised by a demanding family. I'm also much older than you are.

You're still defending your ludicrous claim that you have consumed over 30,000 books in your life? What were they, picture books? Assuming they were normal-sized, 400 page books, you were apparently reading 1200-1600 pages every single day?

So at a (very fast) rate of 3 pages per minute, you were spending anywhere from 7 to 9 hours a day reading, every single day?

Reading 3-4 books a day, every day, would still take you 27+ years to read 30,000 books. What were you, consuming literature at that rate while still in your mother's womb?!