New Anti Zorn Initiative

[Dan Warburton]

[bkudler]

But even if you take the entire project as non-musical/extra-musical/etc. it still comes off as trolling, and to be honest, pretty shallow.

I can understand why you think it's trolling if the content of the piece is supposed to be about Zorn or music. However, how do you see it as non-musical trolling?

As a dude who has spent a bit of time reading/thinking about linguistics and philosophy of language I am totally at a loss as to exactly how starting a sentence with "Can you...?" leads you to wonder if it's impossible to give a command while speaking.

This is a great criticism. After watching the performance I agree. I don't see how the piece could lead one to think that. This is the kind of criticism this work warrants, rather than saying "the music doesn't sound good" or "why is he attacking X artist" etc... We are ready to have a discussion with this kind of criticism.

a piece of philosophical work isn't bad unless there are spelling errors and grammatical problems etc...

Man, you really think this?

In both Dan's comment and Wombat's there is a searching for some way to critique Chamy's work, which, to my mind, is a problem. The reason I am able to enjoy Chamy's work is because I don't really look at it as music or performance art or art really, I sort of look at it as epistemology, critical theory, and art theory through the medium of performance.

1) critique != good/bad evaluation

2) you don't look for ways to critique "epistemology, critical theory, and art theory"?

I guess I didn't put this in the right way before. I'm trying to say that there are very different ways to critique art and to critique theory or philosophy and that there are two different ways something can be good or bad. If one sees a rock band and they are out of time, the singer is singing out of key, and the songs have fundamental structural errors or something, it is way different from seeing Godsmack or Puddle of Mudd play live, where technically everything is "good" but yet something is very "bad" about their music. In this way I think a piece of theory or philosophy is in one way bad if the writing is poor etc... and bad in another way if the point is invalid. In the first case I would say the piece is bad in the other case I would say the piece is wrong or invalid, I think this is an important distinction that doesn't carry from the musical example to the philosophy example. Think of it as the difference between an algebra problem being wrong because one multiplied wrong from one step to the next or because one divided one tried to add two different variables. In each case the problem is incorrect --bad-- but the first is very different way of being bad, which is better bad, I'd say. I don't think critique necessarily is a good/bad evaluation. I critique work I think is good all the time. It then follows that I do look for ways to critique "epistemology, critical theory, and art theory." I just think saying this piece is bad because the sounds being made are bad etc... is irrelevant.

[Dan Warburton]

Gee, I wish I had as much as time to waste as you do, to watch and write about such vapid twaddle.

[bkudler]

Gee, I wish I had as much as time to waste as you do, to watch and write about such vapid twaddle.

how much would it cost for you to say that on my outgoing message?

[diegochamy]

As a dude who has spent a bit of time reading/thinking about linguistics and philosophy of language I am totally at a loss as to exactly how starting a sentence with "Can you...?" leads you to wonder if it's impossible to give a command while speaking.

it lead me to wonder if it's impossible NOT to give commands while speaking.