What in fuck's name is a "Hogan legdrop"? How can it put 14 people in hospital? And what the hell has it got to do with this thread!?

Mark wrote:What in fuck's name is a "Hogan legdrop"? How can it put 14 people in hospital? And what the hell has it got to do with this thread!?

Dude!
You gotta know who the Hulkster is.
I can see being slightly confused about the legdrop. It is a maneuver where you run up against the ropes in a wrestling ring and jump in the air. While in the air you bring your legs up to a sitting position so that when you land your leg slams onto the person you have down on the mat. I'm not sure if Cancer meant that one leg drop took out 14 people or 14 leg drops took out 14 people.

Like explained in a previous post, it's like how I title my art. Irrelevant title to the contant. Sort of like any Don Cab song, or any math rock band for that matter. And it was one leg drop that took 14 people to the hospital.

Cancer wrote:Like explained in a previous post, it's like how I title my art. Irrelevant title to the contant. Sort of like any Don Cab song, or any math rock band for that matter. And it was one leg drop that took 14 people to the hospital.

But then why bother? If youre trying to mislead, well, that kinda seems like cowardice to me. Why not just number your art if you dont want perception to be informed by the titles? Why deliberately throw the folks who might actually try to care about your shit off the trail? Does the idea of having people actually get a hold of what youre trying to say bother you? Or is it more that you arent really saying anything?

endofanera wrote:

Cancer wrote:Like explained in a previous post, it's like how I title my art. Irrelevant title to the contant. Sort of like any Don Cab song, or any math rock band for that matter. And it was one leg drop that took 14 people to the hospital.

But then why bother? If youre trying to mislead, well, that kinda seems like cowardice to me. Why not just number your art if you dont want perception to be informed by the titles? Why deliberately throw the folks who might actually try to care about your shit off the trail? Does the idea of having people actually get a hold of what youre trying to say bother you? Or is it more that you arent really saying anything?

It's probably because in my art, I'm not really trying to make a point. To me I enjoy doing it, I enjoy taking an idea and creating an image from said idea. What someone else gets from it might be something completely different. Regardless, what they think means nothing to me. If the response is negative or positive, it's not going to change how I draw or what the content of the picture is.

Cancer wrote:Like explained in a previous post, it's like how I title my art. Irrelevant title to the contant. Sort of like any Don Cab song, or any math rock band for that matter. And it was one leg drop that took 14 people to the hospital.

Did Hogan do the legdrop himself? I mean his legs aren't long enough to go across 14 people and I highly doubt that he could get the air to do it if they were just stacked up on top of one another. Maybe if he was in the top rope but even it would be a feat and a half unless they were babies. You weren't insinuating that Hogan is the kind of guy that would purposely send babies to the hospital were you? I mean he is a self proclaimed "Real American". I guess if he was a Republican and the babies were minorities, then I could see him doing it. Please explain.

Cancer wrote:Like explained in a previous post, it's like how I title my art. Irrelevant title to the contant. Sort of like any Don Cab song, or any math rock band for that matter. And it was one leg drop that took 14 people to the hospital.

Nonsensical titles are a take on an obfuscation play common in contemporary artists. Playing with and violating the "conventions" of art (typically only the trivialities of art presentation, but still...) has become a way to imbue art with an additional (though meager) layer of intellectual activity that I find... silly, if I can use the term.

Once the staid conventions of 19th century art presentation had been sufficiently violated (notably by the Dada movement and other surrealists), such moves have had little significance. Taken to an insulting extreme, one is left with gallery-hung graffiti artists and schmucks like Mark Kostabi, whose art is neither thought-up by him, nor executed by him, nor even genuinely "his" in any way that can be discerned. His art, as such, is playing with the conventions of the art market. I believe history will beat him into the dust.

I find this obfuscation an avoidance of the part that really matters: Making things that are good of themselves. If one wishes to be thought of as an artist, but is incapable of making art that can bear the weight of attention on its merits, then the proposed artist has no choice but to distract the audience with tricks like this. It is a shame that it sometimes works.

If the subtext of the nonsensical title is that the title is unimportant, I can only agree. But by making a point of the title, the artist is placing undue emphasis on it, negating this premise. In this case, the title may very well be the only thing that matters, if only because the confusion it may briefly elicit is the only engagement the artist has with the audience.

It would be more genuine to avoid titling altogether, or to use a numbering system as seen in so many artists' work. But this would defeat the novelty gambit, and it may be the only one open to an artist whose work cannot support the attention it would receive if exposed as art unburdened with this artifice.

No, what matters are not these externalities and trivialities of presentation. What matters is content. In the case of professional wrestling, I would suggest that its value to viewers depends on their interest in watching men grab each other, and this comprises several classes of enthusiasts. They draw from it different content, but it is there for them to draw from.

well since I never have some deep meaning to my art, such as "my girl friend didn't hug me last night, so I drew some dead flowers expressing how I feel and called it tears cause rust", what does it matter what the fuck I call it? Nuber 4, Nothing, or magical bowl of spaghetti VS a hippies arm pit? Who cares. I'm not trying to redirect the attention from the art to the title. I'm just giving it a name, and moving on.Plus silly names fit my art, since it's silly to begin with.

steve wrote:There are also some bands (Dead Meadow come to mind) who are capable of evoking an authentic essence which just-so-happens to sound a lot like other bands (Blue Cheer, Crazy Horse, Uriah Heap, Black Sabbath, Budgie...), and I like them despite it. That it sounds like other stuff is unimportant to me, because I get the feeling that the intent underneath the sound is genuine expression rather than mimicry.

i was with you up until this point. i agree with your argument--that music is much more than sound, and that this is all much more than music--and would place myself in camp #2 as well. however:

"evoking an authentic essence" sounds great, but nobody knows what that means; probably because "authentic essences" don't exist. "you just have to feel it, maaaan." ok. then we really are "fucking about architecture," or whatever it was that Zappa said, here.

who decides what musical "authenticity" is? the canon: music writers, journalists, historians, and other cultural arbiters. their decisions are internalized, consciously or unconsciously, and incorporated when we pass our own judgments on things--when we feel something evoking an "authentic essence." lots of people probably feel that way when they hear Interpol; maybe because they haven't heard the other bands you mentioned, or read the same internet message boards. is their feeling/response therefore any less "authentic" or genuine? is the music? of course they're "hearing" something i'm not, because music and our experience of it is always contextual. authenticity, in the sense you're using it, is a sham notion. i agree that thinking and writing about music can be productive and fun, but appeals to authenticity put a stop to all that (much like the christian who breaks out a bible during a debate).

and who's to say "genuine expression" can't be done with mimicry and pastiche?

steve wrote:

Cancer wrote:Like explained in a previous post, it's like how I title my art. Irrelevant title to the contant. Sort of like any Don Cab song, or any math rock band for that matter. And it was one leg drop that took 14 people to the hospital.

Nonsensical titles are a take on an obfuscation play common in contemporary artists. Playing with and violating the "conventions" of art (typically only the trivialities of art presentation, but still...) has become a way to imbue art with an additional (though meager) layer of intellectual activity that I find... silly, if I can use the term.

Once the staid conventions of 19th century art presentation had been sufficiently violated (notably by the Dada movement and other surrealists), such moves have had little significance. Taken to an insulting extreme, one is left with gallery-hung graffiti artists and schmucks like Mark Kostabi, whose art is neither thought-up by him, nor executed by him, nor even genuinely "his" in any way that can be discerned. His art, as such, is playing with the conventions of the art market. I believe history will beat him into the dust.

I find this obfuscation an avoidance of the part that really matters: Making things that are good of themselves. If one wishes to be thought of as an artist, but is incapable of making art that can bear the weight of attention on its merits, then the proposed artist has no choice but to distract the audience with tricks like this. It is a shame that it sometimes works.

If the subtext of the nonsensical title is that the title is unimportant, I can only agree. But by making a point of the title, the artist is placing undue emphasis on it, negating this premise. In this case, the title may very well be the only thing that matters, if only because the confusion it may briefly elicit is the only engagement the artist has with the audience.

It would be more genuine to avoid titling altogether, or to use a numbering system as seen in so many artists' work. But this would defeat the novelty gambit, and it may be the only one open to an artist whose work cannot support the attention it would receive if exposed as art unburdened with this artifice.

No, what matters are not these externalities and trivialities of presentation. What matters is content. In the case of professional wrestling, I would suggest that its value to viewers depends on their interest in watching men grab each other, and this comprises several classes of enthusiasts. They draw from it different content, but it is there for them to draw from.

Unless I am going completely insane, this seems ENTIRELY at odds with the points that you made regarding audio-art/music.



It's possible that I am being stupid.