I thought it might be fun to offer up a few samples of ArtSpeak and then translate them for your edification:
HOW ORIGINAL! = ( I've never seen this level of crap before.)
HIS USE OF SPACE IS EYE-POPPING! = ( He ran out of canvas.)
HIS COLOR CHOICES ARE UNBELIEVABLE! = ( Is that puke green or baby shit yellow?)
WHAT A SURPRISING TALENT! = ( I thought he parked cars at the Cheese Factory.)
WHEN YOU EXAMINE THE SUB-CONTEXT OF HIS NARRATIVE WORK, YOU'LL SOON DISCOVER THE DEPTH OF HIS EXPRESSION IS BASED ON NON-LINEAR VISUAL CUES. =
( This zinfindel isn't bad.)Okay, now....get out there and support your local art scene!
7 comments:
"Value is not intrinsic. It is not in the things and conditions, but in the valuing subject" ....
Ludwig Von Mises
So, if someone sees value in these scribbles, while someone else doesnt, how would you describe the one who ridicules the other's (subjective) attribution of (non-intrinsic) value to something?
non-von Mesian?
Objective. :-)
"..but in the valuing SUBJECT.."
L v M
if Idictionary entry, and how an adjective pertains to the noun from which it derives. (subject, subject knew how do do it, I would link "adjective" to its -ive). Just as an ape-like gesture is generally understood to describe a gesture that an ape might make, and a "humanly act" one likely to made by a human, a subjective valuation is likely to be one made by a subject.
in a non-sophist sense, that is :)
or was the von Mises quote incomplete or otherwise just too arcane for a poor old drunk?
WTF?
meant to read
if I knew how do do it, I would link "adjective" to its dictionary entry, and how an adjective pertains to the noun from which it derives. (subject, subject-ive.)
"WTF"? You've been doing that morning drinking again, haven't you. Guiness and a chocolate doughnut? :-)
Instrinsic and subjective don't exhaust the two sources of value.
Intrincisism suggests values in here in an object, irrespective of the value ot man.
Subjectivism suggests that values are whatever the valuer chooses, whatever the facts of the matter.
Objectivism recognises that the value inheres in a union of object and subject: that (to paraphrase John Locke, "the value of anything "consists in its fitness to supply the necessities or serve the conveniences of human life."
The Von Mises quote was perfectly accurate as a quote, but wrong in content.
Von Mises was a great economist, but a poor philosopher. He considered ethics altogether outside the domain of science, and was explicitly Kantian in his epistemology.
Fortunately, however, he was s student (through Bohm-Bawerk) of Menger (who was a student of Aristotle) and it was from Menger that his economics derived, and Menger's Aristolean framework that he followed in his economic thought.
So when he talked economics he was hard as nails and sane as a hammer. But when he started on philosophy, he became however more like a mlkmaid in June.
PC said...
Guiness and a chocolate doughnut?
I think that you got DWM's taste wrong there. It is should be waikato beer and not guiness.
Seeing as I did von Mises' quotation gracing your home page, I mistakenly concluded that you must agree with it. Silly me.
But meantime it is nice to know that I linger not alone in my ignorance.
Guiness and chocolate doughnut? -what a waste of serious drinking time (an observation lost at least not on FF.)
Post a Comment