Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
I'm saying that that the tripod is pedestrian if competent in its execution and utterly unimaginative in its conception.
I'm not sure if I've seen it, so OK, sure.
But that doesn't make something 'not art'. There's plenty of unimaginatively concepted art out there.
-
But the quality of the idea? Come on.
Yeah but you can say that about umpteen pieces of art. Lots of statues and portraits are faithful representations of various kings and queens sitting. Busts are even worse. Royal artists often faithfully recreated the members of the royal family (some adjusted their artworks to make them look better). The only expression involved was the lack of one on the model's face. They're certainly artists producing artworks, some very famous ones.
-
There is also a big question of skill here. The sculptural output of Weta Workshop is not of good quality.
I'll respectfully disagree.
-
I have an absolute right to travel within the speed limit according to the road conditions.
Surely if one of the road conditions is 'blind corner ahead', then you should slow down. It's not just about bikes, there might be people walking on the road, an accident ahead, stock etc. As someone stated, you have to travel at a speed that means you can stop in the distance you can see. Otherwise you'll find something around the corner and hit it.
Yup. But I was talking about maintaining a roading system (and that 'other stuff' is covered under seperate headings.) And rather than talking about cars - you should be looking at trucks...
Wait, you want cyclists to pay to maintain a road that you're arguing they shouldn't be on?
If you were walking in the middle of a lane and milord's coach bowled you into the ditch, he was at fault, and you were exercising your rights.
That's a nice story, but I think in reality if the lord came through with horses, you got the hell out of the way, or got barrelled. Helps when the lord often owns the road you're walking on (despite the fact that you might have built it).
-
Also, there's a difference between sculpture and set design. (Demarcation issues, as the guild of philosophers sez.)
Well, one of the people I'm thinking of spent about 10 years doing art work. Scuplture, painting etc. Like many artists, it was her full time hardly paid job on the side. She went to work for Weta because while a lot of the work wasn't strictly 'art', it was a chance to put her skills to work and actually get paid for it.
'Art' is a big tent, attempts to exclude people from it (particularly with quasi snobbery like people who make works for entertainment shouldn't also make public art works) are silly.
-
It's always fun to drop in and sneer at the people who have an interest in these kinds of discussion, though, no?
Oh that wasn't a sneer. :P
If you're now wondering if you took one of my classes: I'm the one with the beard, if that helps.
Ah no, I went to Otago.
The lecturer (Colin Cheyne) was actually one of the better lecturers I ever had, he used to walk about the 150 or so students with a microphone and get the class to debate the issues. It was a great change from high school, it was the great debates of higher ideas that university promised you.
Just the topics (and methodology) under discussion weren't for me. I wanted there to be a reasonable chance of some answers by the end of the course, philosophy seemed to present itself as finding as many way of coming to no conclusion.
I happily went to history with its "here's what we think we know... BUT" direction :)
-
I assume this is a compliment.
Umm, yup sure, OK.
I quite enjoyed PHIL 101 in my first year, until I realised halfway through that (for me) that it was all going to be silly discussions with no point. Happily never took it again.
-
It was funny how the bouncers didn't really look past the word "firearms" before letting me in.
Because we want people who might have firearms drunk?
impregnating my wife threw the issue into sharp relief
You old romantic you!
-
It's like a thread taken over by a PHIL 101 tutorial group out of control.
-
The likes of Andrew Drummond, Neil Dawson and Bill Culbert aren't exactly starving in garrets. They're just producing stuff that looks a lot more interesting than that Weta sculpture.
I have no particular comment to make on the actual sculpture as presented, but the idea that the people working at Weta aren't artists is wrong. I know a couple of people who slaved away on the various movies and got their jobs precisely because they had fine art degrees.
No doubt because it's produced at Weta it might tend to be a certain style of artwork, but that doesn't mean it isn't done by an artist - Weta employs many.