The ultimate world of classical art!
The Blog is a new form of internet diary popular in recent years. Here i will discuss pressing matters for the art lover in the modern day.
23/09/1999, "On Music":
Music is widely considered an art. I fear it is not. The paintbrush requires deft understanding and precision and allows reality to be rendered and falsehoods too. Musical composition is closer to mathematics than the arts, a set of tones to comfort a non pondering mind. Since I heard Beetohven's symphony in C Flat Major as a youth I have understood the fundamental fact. Music fucking sucks and those that listen suck too!
25/09/1999, "Is Art Real?":
Does art exist, in the form of paintings, sculptures, constructions, video, film or music? If it exists, that is you can witness it, then it is real; according to the sense we generally use when we say something is real in every day language. Arts’ subject matter may not be ‘real’, as is the case with abstract art or pop music. Nonetheless it exists, you can touch it, feel it, see it, hear it etc, so it is available to our several sense. In terms of the natural world, all art is a fabrication, made by humans hands and imagination. But then so are all the contents of civilisation. Everything you know that was made or created by mankind is a fabrication, from things like houses, to walkways, to legal systems, institutions, to marriage conventions, all are conventions we live by and conform to because without them we could not live relatively harmoniously in our modern organised societies. These different things may not be art, but they are the products of human innovation and creativity. In these instances bringing order and regularity to civil society and hence to you and I. So it depends what you mean by ‘art’ and ‘real’. Take music for example. Is the music you listen to real? Does it exist? Did it take not just artist but also recording technicians, stage hands, men and women who arranged the thousands of seats you and your friends sit on during the show? Or if you didn’t go to the show and instead brought a CD or listened to it on your radio is it real? Just like the complexity of a music show, art has similar if unique requirements to be prepared, so as to be made available to the public, to you and I. Is a pop love song real? is the repetition of words in modern pop music real? Does it ‘speak’ to you? has it got a ‘message’ do you ‘get it’? If not then it is still art, no matter what form it takes, it is just that it doesn’t appeal to you, and that’s okay. But, it does not stop it from being art, nor does it stop millions of other folk enjoying it and ‘getting it’ whether its opera, classic music, pop music, painting , sculpture or any of the many things humans create to express their individual creativity. So art is in all instances is expression of individual creativity. Most humans enjoy singing, or dancing, doing clever things like balancing or acting the fool. These may not all be expressing of art per se, but thy point to our human desire to express our unique selves. And that is what artists do, they produce art whether you consider it art is but an opinion, and you have every right to your opinion, but that does not stop it from being a fact that others can experience and enjoy. Where you draw the line between what you consider what is art and what falls outside its domain, is a matter of opinion. And in that you are not alone. Many experts and critics have varying opinions as to what defines art. So some decry modern pop music as not art, but simply popular commercial inane brain candy. So we may be divided on how we define art, but exist, it does.
14/11/1999, "FUCK YOU":
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
25/11/1999, "help":
Some one hacker my blog. I did not write this. Ignore above post.
25/11/1999, "Why is anything real?":
"Why is there something instead of nothing?" I know this is a very simple form of your question but bear with me. Basically, you have 4 options for reality: 1) everything is an illusion, 2) the universe created itself, 3) the universe is self-existent, or 4) there is a being who is self-existent and who created the universe. Really there are only 2 options because option 1 and 2 are easily debunked. Very quickly option 2 can be dismissed because if there ever was a time when there was absolutely nothing, there would still be nothing because nothing cannot do anything and nothing especially cannot create universes. In order for a universe to create itself it would have to not exist and already exist at the same time in order to create itself. But what is more is that for a universe to create itself it would be like a rabbit appearing on stage without a magician and without a hat. Something from nothing. This is nonsense and illogical. When you say something is self-existent you also have to say that, that something is eternal and unchanging. If option 3 is true then what is it about the universe that is self-existent and eternal? Is it your phone? Is it your professor's chalk he writes with on the blackboard? Is it you? All these things undergo change and therefore are not eternal and unchanging therefore are not self-existent. Some scientists will say "well we haven't found this eternal self existent thing (that exists within the universe) yet but we are pretty sure it exists." Option 4 is not illogical. Some people claim it is because they say if everything requires a cause then God requires a cause and therefore there is an infinite regress. The law of causality actually says that every effect requires a cause not everything requires a cause, and that is what people get wrong they assume everything is an effect and therefore requires a cause. It is perfectly reasonable for a self-existent (and therefore eternal/unchanging) being to exist. Philosophically, you can call this being the First Cause, but Christians refer to this being as Yahweh.