From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1014 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, March 25 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:55:48 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >RichardDutcher@aol.com >But where can I go if I want a little more passion and color in the >conversation? Is there another forum I don't know about? Mormon-l. Go to Smartgroups.com and do a search. You'll love it there. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 03:17:35 -0500 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Richard Dutcher wrote: >But where can I go if I want a little more passion and color in the >conversation? Is there another forum I don't know about? Well, the thing to do is start your own list. It's pretty easy and there are many places to do it for free. I don't think I've ever had a post bounced by Jonathan, but Ben bounced several back in the day (I used to post slightly more frequently than the almost-never rate that I currently manage). And I never really minded. As a libertarian, like Thom, I detest censorship -- but the only type of censorship I'm worried about in a moral sense is the coercive stuff. You know, censorship by the government or, really, anyone pointing a gun at you. Since the AML and its corresponding List are privately operated, with participation an entirely voluntary matter, I'm not too worried about the imposition of rules. They migiht not be the rules I would have chosen, myself, but the moment the rules become too restrictive I can leave. Start another forum. Or participate in multiple forums, including this one -- as many list members no doubt already do. The AML-List is still operating pretty much according to the vision of Ben Parkinson, and I think his vision has turned out well. But maybe someone has a better vision for a forum devoted to Mormon Arts, and that would be great. My libertarian streak admires the marketplace of ideas above all, and different types of forums are just as critical to this marketplace as different types of ideas. Will another forum become more dominant or influential in the future? Maybe. But the fact that it hasn't happened yet indicates to me that the AML-List is serving a valuable purpose, at least for now. (I suppose one could argue path-dependence here, since this list was the first devoted to its topic -- but I've seen so many lists come and go, that I doubt path-dependence is much of a long-term factor for any online forum.) So, who'll volunteer to start the unmoderated, free-for-all, Mormon Arts Discussion List? MAD-L, anyone? Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:47:31 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices In a message dated 3/21/03 10:57:41 PM Mountain Standard Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << It would help me to explore options if I knew what sorts of discussions Richard tried to have but were censored. I'm trying to imagine what he would say that was bounced back. I can't imagine it veering far off topic. Were his thoughts expressed too caustically? I can't imagine he resorted to name calling or personal attacks without substance behind them. What exactly was censored? >> I've been censored not so much for what I have said, but the way I've said it. I consider sarcasm a tool which, if used sparingly (and in times of cold or famine), is very sharp and effective. One example of a rejected post that I only partially remember was a response to someone who responded to one of my posts and said she was tired of hearing writers defend their storytelling by claiming to use the scriptures as their guide in deciding what kind of stories to tell and how to tell them. While acknowledging God and the prophets as the authors of scripture, she said something to the effect of "Just because Heavenly Father does it, doesn't mean it's right for us." Whereupon I wrote back and recalled the words of Christ to follow him and do His works (and the works of Abraham, etc.) and then I added something like: "Surely Jesus didn't think we'd take it literally. Silly Jesus." So I'm not sure if the moderator found me guilty of saracasm or blasphemy. Or both. A more recent example. Jon Enos wrote: << Richard Dutcher and I were friends at the Y and both moved down to LA at about the same time. I made out with his wife, Gwen (on stage) and he made out with my sister (on the living room floor) before he and Gwen even met, so I guess you could say we go back a ways. >> I wrote back: "Fortunately, I was able to get away with a lot more on the living room floor than Jon was on the BYU stage. I'd say more...but that would be indiscreet." So, in this case, I probably ventured beyond the borders of good taste. Still, it was funny, and (as the venerated theologian Rehctud Drahcir said) that excuses everything. Richard Dutcher [MOD: For what it's worth, I don't recall what the issue was with the first post listed above. The problem with the second post was mostly lack of relevant content at a time when AML-List volume is running high. I have no objection to "fun" rejoinders like this from time to time--it's part of what makes the list tone conversational--but they often simply go into the overflow pile when volume is high, and then, in many cases, simply never make it out again.] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:35:44 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art jeffress@xmission.com wrote: > I would propose that "Things everyone agrees is art" is an empty set, but I > would also contend that "Things no-one agrees is art" is also an empty set. > Since a binary definition of art really cannot ever create a useful working > set usable by large numbers of individuals, I would argue that a binary, > art/non-art, definition is a meaningless concept. It does create a useful working set usable by large numbers of individuals. The boundaries are fuzzy and shift constantly (based on the observer--does this mean art has quantum characteristics?), but there is a set of generally accepted items which the vast majority of us label art. Every person has his own idea of art, so a general definition is really irrelevant for the indivudal. But when we get together to discuss art, we need to have some idea of what it is. To say, "Everything," or "Everything any person ever considered art," (the same as "Everything" if your assertion is true), we have no topic to discuss. There is a general consensus on what art is, even if the boundaries are fuzzy. And I believe (so far) the "frame with intent to display" definition comes closest to approximating that boundary. Every so often, someone comes up with a creative explanation of why some bizarre item should be included as work of art, but for the most part, such things are considered briefly as the aberration they are, then we get back to discussing "real" art among us. The things that fall outside my useful definition but are considered art by somebody tend to be rare and of limited significance to the general discussion of art in the world. The whole purpose for defining art in the first place is so we have some idea of what we're discussing, right? What other reason is there to define art? "Art is everything" means we have nothign to discuss, or rather we might as well admit that we are discussing the universe, not art. Which means Jonathan should stop bouncing off-topic posts--everything is on-topic. > Too many objects that were never created with the intent to be displayed as > art are now on display in museums. And these are not just collections of > items on display for historical interest. Many everyday objects created at > the time for utility, are now admired for their aesthetic appearance. You are forcing a presupposed definition of "museum" on me. Museums display things of educational interest. Often that's art. But hardly exclusively. I do not accept the definition, "If it's in a museum, it's art." Even if the aesthetic appearance is being admired. > I once visited a museum that had a collection of 18th century carpentry > tools. These tools were aesthetically interesting, having been obviously > created with great care and skill. These tools were clearly not created with > the intent for display as art, but rather as tools used for a trade. It just > so happens that the same characteristics that made the tools useful, also > made them aesthetically pleasing to look at. Which still doesn't make them art. They are in the museum for their educational value. Even if I accept the "found art" category you present below, the finder still didn't frame and display it with the intent to make it art. It's of educational value. > Next consider the entire field of found art. This field specializes in > looking at art in the everyday and even the random. I have seen a smashed > cardboard box covered with tire marks on display. And a gas pump covered in > barnacles recovered from the bottom of a harbor displayed as art -- this one > amazingly beautiful. These objects were not created with any artistic > intent. Sure, someone found artistic properties in these objects and put > them on display, but the only intent was to display found items as art. > There was no intent in the creation of these objects. I suppose I could accept an amendment to my definition that doesn't require the original creator to have the intent. But it ain't art until _someone_ frames it with the intent to display it as art. I would consider it an inferior branch of art, at least for discussion (the main reason for defining art in the first place). The "artist" (finder) is not attempting to communicate anything with us like originally created art does, beyond, "Here's something pretty I found I want to share with you." What's to discuss there? Either, "Yes, it is," or "No, I think it's ugly." Maybe, "Why do you think it's pretty?" But then the finder stops being an artist and becomes the audience interpreting the art, because he's subjectively finding meaning in the art like the rest of us. An artist creating original work can objectively state what he intended to convey in his art. No one can convey the objectively intended artistic meaning of a tire track on a crushed box, other than a vehicle ran over it. > Next consider the slushpile of any magazine that accepts unsolicited > submissions. Here you have hundreds of objects all created with the intent > to make art. But under your binary system, most of these objects will never > get the privilege of being framed as art in the covers of the magazine. > Instead, most of the manuscripts will be soundly (and deservingly) rejected. > In spite of the intent to creat art, most of these objects will never be put > on display, will never receive the opportunity to endure Michael's scrutiny > for violations of the third-person limited point of view. But I've always left the loophole in my definition that the art doesn't have to actually be displayed. Only that the intent was there. Anyone who puts pen to paper and creates a manuscript has already framed it with intent to display, whether they die before submitting it, or get cold feet and never submit it, or submit it and no one accepts it. The intent to display was always there, whether the actual act of displaying ever happens or not. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1014 *******************************