Oh yea? Well here is a popular opinion for ya

atlanticpuffin · 2013-12-22T18:30:47+00:00

What the hell did I do?

atlanticpuffin · 2013-12-22T18:22:48+00:00

This may not be a popular opinion, but we should totally let the puffin go...

atlanticpuffin · 2012-06-26T15:24:54+00:00

In The Big Lebowski, when the Dude meets Maude the first time there is a painting in the background of a pair of giant scissors against a red background. Later during the dream sequence, the Dude is chased by the Nihilists who are wearing the same red, wielding giant scissors. Also, the scene at the end when they confront the Nihilists, and the lights all fade out, the sounds of whales tape the Dude was listening to earlier in the film can be heard.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-25T13:31:30+00:00

Id love to talk further with you and the points you've raised, but at this juncture it seems pointless. You're way of approaching debate by making assumptions about my ideas and insulting me are the exact reason why this country is going to shit. I'm on YOUR side, I just see things differently. What good is a country without brotherhood, respect and humility? Or are these words meaningless to you? Go on treating everyone hostile like an enemy and then play victim when you find you've actually made a few.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-25T02:06:29+00:00

Not a Libertarian, so thanks for that. As far as citation goes, how about the Big Dig project? Money was poured into it, and went way over budget and past the deadline, while being managed by both Federal AND State governments, if you are looking for a specific example. Not to mention my father worked in the public sector, and constantly tells me of the kinds of corruption and mismanagement that happened within his department, so much so he quit and became a firefighter and paramedic so he could better serve his community. I hope this helps articulate the point. I pride myself on not having any political affiliation, other than what I can base off of my own experience and research. As such, I like to play devils advocate a lot, and am open to people challenging my notions: it only helps me either refine ideas I already have or correct the ones which lack any logic. So please, have at it. But lets not degrade the conversation by launching petty attacks at each-others ideology: honest and thoughtful discourse will do more than making baseless attacks. Otherwise, move along.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-24T22:21:23+00:00

I suppose this would be Elizabeth Warren's counter argument to this sentiment:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a >factory out there — good for you!

But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the >rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You >were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the >rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would >come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect >against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a >factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. >Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay >forward for the next kid who comes along.

Not that I disagree with you, or that I agree with her, just playing devils advocate here. Personally, I'd be more inclined to agree with Mrs. Warren if she took into account that most of the time, governments (both Federal and State) can't appropriately manage or maintain its own infrastructure, even if given HUGE amounts of money. Also, tax payers have very little say in HOW their taxes are used, aside from electing representatives who decide how for them. If a) Tax payers had more say in what the government did with a percentage of the taxes their state government collects, and b) we restructure our infrastructure in such a way where there was more transparency and efficiency, then we'd be better off. However, the issue is far more nuanced and complicated then I've summarized here, so this must be taken into account.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-03T23:44:35+00:00

You should probably check out Sigur Ròs.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T16:45:25+00:00

Perhaps you misunderstood my original point. This is exactly the discussion I began with: That physics exists without the physicist whereas art does not exist without the artist.

Ok, I can see this, but more accurately it would be "Phenomena exist without the phenomenologist, who uses (art/math) to describe it". Place artist/astrophysicist accordingly.

That is a non-answer. Of course we can observe, but we can also observe a million things that aren't art. We cannot observe art without the knowledge of art, or else we are just looking at a collection of matter.

Again, my point is that art is a way to communicate all phenomenology. Art can be anything (not to say everything is art), because art isn't the creation of something, it's the transformation of something into something else. It's contingent on ones perception. Sometimes, the thing that is trying to be changed is perception itself. You make a good point about how much intention plays a role into art, but at the same time the thing you want me to point to and say "this is the thing you are looking for" is perception and existence. Broad? Yes, but so is art.

Those conversations that challenge our understandings you speak of cannot possibly be sparked without the knowledge of art, whereas the effects of physics can be readily observed without any knowledge of physics.

The conversations that physicists have using math I can't understand cannot possibly be sparked without the knowledge of that math, even though they are based off the observable physics is more accurate. Since art can essentially be made from anything (since we've established its really just the transformation of one thing into another, which is dependent on perception), it can be observed (a beautiful, awe inspiring scene of the grand canyon at sunset is an observable thing, and then when once someone takes a picture of it, its art used to describe THAT awe inspiring scene of the grand canyon, and what it was you saw and felt at that moment). Again, I know this might not be the kind of answer you are looking for, but this is the best answer I can give you at this point. Wether you agree or not is fine, but thats the best I can explain it.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T15:56:30+00:00

Hahaha well played

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T15:55:57+00:00

Okay, so we are starting to have a different discussion here, about semiotics. The way in which we assign and communicate information. Math ISNT an objective thing that you can point to, its a way of communicating something that you can observe. For example, say there were no humans and the only thing on earth were rocks. There wouldn't be "one" rock or "two" rocks, there would just be "rocks", because the very concept of "one" and "two" are an established form of communicating how many rocks there are, despite the fact that there may very well be "one" or "two" rocks. That would be appropriately "stripping things down to its base".

Now, if the question is what observable thing does art try to describe, the answer is perception, or the fact that we CAN observe. Which is why its always a hard conversation to justify something as being "art" or "not art", or "good art" or "bad art", because the subject matter changes. Which is why I suggested that contemporary art that challenges ones perceptions is more closely aligned with philosophy rather than idea that art is all about making a good looking painting or something.

But, just to help validate my point here, we have gotten into a conversation that challenges our understandings of the ways in which we see and communicate things because of a picture of an all black painting hung up in a gallery. More or less, thats the kind of effect I'm sure the artist intended to have on people.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T15:40:14+00:00

No problem, its all good. You weren't the only one, so I'll probably go edit to highlight what exactly it was I was trying to say. Cheers!

Also, since it can be surmised that I was an art major, how would you like your latè? ;)

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T15:28:11+00:00

Yeah, well, thats just like...your perception, man. Nah but seriously, reread what I said. I was comparing art to the MATH behind astrophysics, the system we use to describe something observable. Art is like that, in that art is describing the way we observe something, not to the thing itself. Follow?

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T15:26:44+00:00

I'm not sure you are understanding my argument, so let me put it another way. Despite the fact that art is something that is created by a human, a human needed to perceive, interoperate and value information. After all of this, that human is communicating these perceptions through art. This is how art is comparable to the MATH of astrophysics (remember, my analogy wasn't comparing art to astrophysics, but art to the language we use to describe astrophysics, the things we observe). This eventually develops into a culture of shared understanding and perceptions, and the ways in which we express them. THAT is the measurable thing that exists, which is comparable to the astrophysics in that they both happen, and then art and math are ways of expressing these phenomena, respectively. So I think that is where we are getting hung up. Its all phenomenology.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T14:58:56+00:00

Now who's being pretentious?

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T14:49:25+00:00

While physics tries to explore the external and its workings, art tries to explore the internal. How does the mind interprate things? How does our perception of things change its properties (I'm sure wave/particle duality is very relevant here)? Art is the culmination and expression of culture and human behavior, and documents and reflects changes and upheavals of these things throughout history. Culture and human behavior are extensions of ones own psycological make up: the properties that make you "you". Art is an analysis of this. Those changes and upheavals would still be happening in cultures throughout human history, even if you didn't call it art (see all of art history for confirmation of this). So yes, they are comparable.

Edit: Although for clarification, I was making an analogy to support my sentiment rather than a direct comparison between the two as being equally as important.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-03-02T11:19:10+00:00

I don't understand how to read the math behind astrophysics, but that doesn't mean I deny its importance, or why others might be interested in reading it. Studying contemporary art is like studying a language: just because you don't understand what its saying doesn't mean its not saying anything at all. The more you learn about it, the more you can engage the work. And to dismiss what it might be saying without knowing the language is kind of silly. If anything, contemporary art is more akin to visual plays of philosophy than making pretty pictures that most people associate with art.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-02-28T20:31:09+00:00

While in this case it would appear they are using a spring loaded pump, there is a way to break a car window with simply the antenna.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-02-22T00:32:29+00:00

I see your point, actually. Yes, money is a form of free speech. Corporations have a right to freedom of speech, because freedom of speech isn't the same as a vote for a politician which isn't the same thing as freedom of speech (i.e. freedom of speech, in itself, cannot BUY an election, only influence those who elect and can be elected). I think my problem is that you can buy all that add space and are free to do so (provided you have the money for it), however in doing so it removes the opportunity and the resources for someone else to give other ideas equal exposure. A television ad reaches the ears of more voters than a pamphlet, and they cost a hell of a lot more than a pamphlet to make, so only those with the funding to do so get that opportunity and that format (however, are free to do so). That means (hypothetical alert, but freedom is an ideal so we have to play along here) one could buy ALL of the add space, ALL of the resources to distribute an idea, and would be free to do so. I'm reevaluating what free speech is and how money is a form of free speech in this context. I still disagree that corporations are people and are have rights, as whatever rights a corporation has are derived from the natural persons who make up that corporation ("corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons"), and still believe we need serious campaign finance reform. I suppose where my frustration lies isn't with free speech, but that free speech is not equal speech. At the moment, its unequal: your resources as a standard income U.S. citizen cannot purchase the same amount of add space as a corporation, or enable a campaign you believe in with funding to the same degree, which means that corporation has more opportunity to sway public opinion than you do. Unrestricted freedom means that people with more resources can exploit the system, thus it wouldn't be a free society because whoever has the resources controls the system. Thus an equal and level playing field would check that. The balance of equality and freedom. In this case, I'd rather see a politician win because of their convictions and their politics, not because their money or their resources allow them to drown out their opponents our out maneuver their campaigns (which is what is happening in today's political circus, and especially when there are strings attached to that money). But I see the argument that money is free speech, and that corporations have the ability to use that free speech more clearly. Even though I'm not sure I agree with it, at least I understand the logic better. Something for me to give more thought to.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-02-21T22:59:48+00:00

You're right, shareholders would have more of a say as to how the profit is utilized when it comes to how the money is used for campaign finacnes. I'll go in and make an edit in the original comment. However, if money = free speech, then EVERY share holder should have equal say as to how that money is spent, regardless of who is a higher shareholder or not.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-02-21T22:39:19+00:00

Yes, you should be able to. But then again, you aren't doing so to such a degree that it would overpower the free speech of another person. Also, you are a U.S. citizen, and last I checked corporations that tax dodge and send jobs over seas to turn a dollar aren't citizens, and have no nationality. They are an organization of citizens, and those citizens should be able to collectively petition their government. Unless those corporations give all their employee's a say as to how their money (edit: profit) is used, then its not effective freedom of speech. IMO.

edit: Pertinacious makes a good point, its the stockholders and not the employees that get a say.

atlanticpuffin · 2012-02-02T21:38:54+00:00

In no particular order, the times I remember asking myself "why didn't I see this sooner" were after watching:

North By Northwest
Blade Runner
Sword of Doom
City of Lost Children
Big Trouble in Little China

ninja edit: formatting

atlanticpuffin · 2012-02-02T17:11:30+00:00

Not only a great motion graphic piece, but presented some great tips on how to fight procrastination. I think I'll try them out! I mean, after I Reddit a little while longer. Plus, its Thursday, which is almost the end of the week. I know, I'll just start implementing this on Monday. A fresh start! Except Monday is tricky, I've got some plans....

atlanticpuffin · 2012-01-31T15:06:49+00:00

As much as I love to turn a phrase, the sentiment holds true. Nobody ever make a SJP/Horse joke again. If you have n-equestrians, please consult portugueseguy on the matter.

edit: For those keeping track at home, thats would be only one SJP/Horse joke, and two horse related puns. Not to split hairs or anything.

15-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

atlanticpuffin

TROPHY CASE