#what else could he possibly loose? which is an interesting and contradictory thing to say considering he keeps 'winning'

[5ro4]

Dark makes no sense [Spoilers of the whole show]

I thought Netflix’s Dark season 3 was disappointing, boring and made no sense. From its first few chapters I was wishing for it to end already, but it kept going, simultaneously being a convoluted exposition dump while actually explaining nothing, then pulling an ending out of nowhere long after I had stopped caring.

It’s kinda hard to find proper criticism for the series last season; most people just praise how it’s the best possible ending and everything makes perfect sense, so I decided to write my thoughts and criticism.

I’ll clarify that I enjoyed seasons 1 and 2 a lot. They are convoluted in a good and interesting way, where everything seems to fit nicely together, to have been properly planned all along, and it carries the promise that the deeper mysteries that remain will be explained later on.

But then season 3 happens. I still think overall it’s a good show, interesting and worth watching, but season 3 is disappointing and the show as a whole is certainly no “perfectly written masterpiece”.

Massive spoilers from now on.

Even if it made logical sense, season 3 is bad.

Most of the charm of the first 2 seasons is watching how every action fits in a single linear timeline and how every cause had an unexpected consequence that makes the timeline more and more complex while maintaining perfect coherence. It’s hard to follow, but it’s doable.

Then season 3 ruins the charm by making everything so convoluted it’s impossible to follow and unsatisfactory to even try.

Complexity is enjoyable up to the point where anything can happen. Why would you still care then? How could you? A mystery is intriguing because it needs to be explained by the rules of the world; the rules you know and are able to follow. If the explanation could be “a witch did it”, then none of the mysteries would be intriguing.

So we have a character that dies, and it’s intriguing because we know he’s alive in the future, so how can this be possible? Well, there’s actually 2 parallel worlds, so he’s alive in the other world. It’s a surprising twist, but the rules have been broken; now almost every mystery can be explained by the existence of a parallel world.

But then a character dies in both worlds! How can that be? Well, in the second world there’s actually two intertwined timelines, so they died in one of them but no the other.

How are you supposed to care about anything that happens from this point onward? No mystery is that mysterious when the possibility of a convoluted explanation involving multiple worlds and timelines is always there. And why even bother trying to make sense of it when they could pull out a fourth timeline or a third parallel world at any moment (and they actually do)?

Character’s motivations are impossible to follow because everyone is lying and being double-crossed by alternate reality characters all the time.

Half of the characters you are following now aren’t even the original characters but their versions from another world or another timeline inside that second world, so it’s really difficult to keep caring about any of them.

I’m not even going to attempt to criticize any of the fine details or possible loose ends because when characters can jump between timelines and realities at any time and all of them are either lying or being lied to, I’m pretty sure that by watching the show 3 times and reading the wiki you could find some plausible explanation for any small inconsistency, but at this level of complexity who even cares.

However, I think there are major, big picture flaws that somehow seem to have gone over most people’s head.

1.- The end is the beginning, therefore every action is an explanation for itself.

Most of the plot and almost the entirety of season 3 could be summed up as: A ton of people do nonsensical things because they know their future selves did those things, so they must repeat them because time is linear (except in the end it isn’t).

The bootstrap paradox is the cheap way this show has to explain any mystery and any character motivation: It happened the first time, so it must happen the second one too. Since this is a loop with no beginning, there is no need for any action to have had a logical explanation at one point.

It becomes useless to try to understand why any of the main mysterious characters do anything or what their plan is, because it can always be explained (and often does) as just “this is what happened the first time, so it must happen the second one too”.

There’s a point where one character is compelled to kill himself just because a character from the future saw him kill himself, so he must kill himself now so the future is consistent, even though there was never an actual reason for him to kill himself.

This is cheap and lazy because you can have any character doing any mysterious thing and no explanation is needed. Why do Noah and Helge drop dead kids at specific times and locations? Because they are just repeating what their future selves did, and since the loop has no beginning, no original reason exists.

2.- Adam, Eve and Claudia’s plans and motivations make no sense.

Adam and Eve’s motivations, and to some extent Claudia’s, are extremely unclear. They are the ones who explain to everyone else how time and parallel worlds work, except they are always lying and opposing their younger selves, and they are actually wrong about how all of it works.

This makes it hard to actually know what their actual motivations are, since the show doesn’t clearly show when and how they arrived at their current understanding of the world. It’s somewhat clear what they are trying to do, but not why they are trying to do so or what makes them so confident about their knowledge.

The show presents Adam and Eva as opposing forces trying to control time, while Claudia helps one or the other at different times for different reasons, yet most of the time all of them are actually doing exactly the same thing: Trying to make everything happen as it happened the last time.

So the story goes something like this: Following Adam’s instructions, Young Jonas tries to change the past by preventing himself from being born. Claudia stops him, tells him he must fight against Adam and therefore he can’t stop existing, so he must let history repeat itself. Jonas works alongside Claudia and somehow eventually ends up becoming Adam, whose plan, according to the Dark Wiki (dark-netflix.fandom.com) is to keep the cycle going.

This makes no sense, but that last part is actually wrong, at least to some extent, which shows that even the people writing the wiki don’t really know Adam’s motivations.

By the end of the show, it’s clear what is the ultimate thing each of them are trying to accomplish: Adam wants to destroy both worlds, Eve wants to keep the cycle going to avoid Adam destroying the worlds, and Claudia wants to save her daughter in at least one world. None of them seems to actually care about the apocalypse, although that was supposed to be the main conflict to avoid.

But how did Adam and Eve reach those conclusions? That’s never properly explained and their whole development seems nonsensical and contradictory: They try to change the past as their younger selves, they grow old trying and realize it’s impossible, so they turn around and try to prevent their younger selves from changing it.

At every chance they had to actually change the past someone appeared to stop them or convinced them not to do it, yet they somehow end up with the belief that time cannot be changed, while simultaneously doing their best effort to ensure time is not changed.

This is a total contradiction. Either you think time can be changed and try to do so, or you think time can’t be changed and do nothing about people trying, since you don’t need to prevent anyone from doing what you believe to be impossible.

Adam’s plan is to kill Martha and her baby, since her son is who ultimately will put the whole cycle in motion. If he is successful, he will create a paradox where the cycle was never put in motion therefore none of them exist, and thus they will cease to exist*. To do so, he needs to make pregnant-Martha go through a time travel portal because quantum shenanigans say that’s the only way to remove her baby from existence.

* “A paradox happens therefore we suddenly stop existing” makes no logical sense, but since it’s a common trope, let’s ignore it for now.

Eva knows of Adam’s plan and disagrees. For some not properly explained reason, she would rather have and infinite loop of people repeating their same miserable lives rather than ending the loop and making them disappear,  thinking this is equal to them never existing, although they clearly existed. There might also be motherly instincts mixed in; the love for the son she is never shown having a conversation with before turning him into a murder machine to prevent him from not existing.

Eva’s plan is pretty stupid and evil, while Adam’s plan is contradictory, since he is preventing people from changing the past or creating a paradox in order for him to create a particular paradox as a last resource after failing to change the past.

Meanwhile Claudia is trying to repeat the timeline with the intention of actually changing everything at some point, but I don’t care to try and guess what her plan actually was all along.

3.- There’s no way Claudia could get her final revelation.

The characters are supposedly repeating the same cycle over and over, so nothing should actually change, but let’s say it can somehow because they explain something about moving grains of sand.

Concluding that a third world must exist because “there’s always a third dimension” is already a wild logical jump, but even so, how could she ever conclude that the third world was an original one that got destroyed and divided into two parallel realities, and that the reason was the clockmaker failed to make a time machine? It is completely impossible for her to conclude such things.

4.- The creation of the two worlds makes no sense.

So, there was an original world. A clockmaster tries to make a time machine, but instead destroys his world creating… two parallel worlds with 3 timelines that are interconnected in an extremely convoluted loop without beginning? And neither of those worlds actually spawns from the moment he activates the time machine, since he is intercepted years before that by those world’s time travelers?

This is a total cop-out that’s not a better explanation than “magic”. A dude made a machine that destroyed the world and spawned 3 seasons of a completely arbitrary but conveniently interconnected mystery thriller.

5.- Time rules are inconsistent

There’s a scene in which time is proven to be so deterministic that Jonas is literally immortal. He can't be killed because that’s not the place and time where he’s supposed to die in. This is both dumb and inconsistent.

The concept makes sense to a certain extent: If the character is alive in the future, it means he didn’t die in the past. However, that only works as long as the character is not trying to kill himself to prove a point. It only works somewhat elegantly in the show because Jonas accepts it as truth and doesn’t try to push it further, but what if he didn’t? What if he kept trying to kill himself just because he knows he can’t? Would knives break and guns keep getting jammed? It’s dumb because it implies time is a sentient being that will go out of its way to prevent things that aren’t supposed to happen from happening.

Also, it’s inconsistent because it’s latter confirmed that the past can in fact be changed.

6.- Conflicting beliefs are held at the same time.

Eva devotes her life to ensure everything happens as it should happen while simultaneously being 100% sure things will happen in the present as they happened in the future and there’s no way to avoid that. She is dumbfounded when Adam doesn’t kill her the moment he was supposed to kill her.

I’m pretty sure Adam and Claudia hold these same contradicting beliefs at one point or another, simultaneously believing the past can’t change while making their best effort to ensure it doesn’t change.

7.- Time stopped for a brief moment.

Claudia literally says that time stopped for a brief moment when the clockmaster activated his time machine or something.

Think about that. She’s telling you that time stopped during a small  period of time. She's using time to mesure the lack of time.

Also, how could she ever know if time was stopped and for how long (hah), and how does it make any sense that her plan is to do something while time is stopped.

8.- Deep meaningful answers for the gullible.

This is not a plot hole, just a criticism to the writing and the development of the plot: Almost every time a character makes a crucial question to the character that holds the answer, they either don’t respond because of the bootstrap paradox (“my future self didn’t explain it to you so now that I’m in the same situation I won’t explain it either to avoid changing the past”) or they quote a philosopher or something in an attempt to seem deep while giving a non-answer that’s completely unrelated to the current conversation.

This is an actual conversation from the show:

- Why are you storing barrels full of nuclear waste inside an underground cave? - What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean.

OK! No more questions then!

9.- Blind trust in the wrong person.

This is also a relatively minor nitpick I just want to get off my chest.

Characters, particularly Jonas and Martha, blindly trust anyone who appears before them and tell them they have been lied to, even after discovering that the last three people who supposedly revealed the truth to them was actually lying too.

This could still be believable given the circumstances until we get to the point when they would rather trust a total stranger over their future selves. Why would you trust anyone over your future self? Even if they are lying, you will become them in the future; their plan will be your plan, no matter how hard is it to understand now. Yet Jonas doesn’t require any proof from Claudia before trusting her completely over Adam.

10.- Why are Jonas and Martha needed to stop the cycle?

This is never actually explained beyond some vague idea of them being at the center of everything. Claudia could have traveled to the original world herself. Jonas could have done it too without taking Martha with him.

How do they even tune the machine to take them to a world that no longer exists?

11.- The whole time tunnel with Jonas and Martha?

???

12.- The resolution is a paradox, and thus impossible.

In order to stop time travel from ever existing they need to travel in time and prevent time travel from being created, thus making their existence a paradox, which makes them slowly disappear in a cloud of gold dust.

I know this was done for the visual spectacle, but still.

So much struggle against determinism, so many exposition dumps, so much care to make every piece fit perfectly in the timeline, just for the final resolution to be a blatant paradox. Pretty, but not really fitting.

Even though multiple universes with multiple timelines are shown to exist, somehow the rules of time only allow for a single timeline to exist in the end, even if that timeline contains an impossible paradox.

[whumpbby]

I finished typing and now I feel I have to preface it with a: this is all a monologue about Jedi and Force and Lucas’ inability to show the good story he wants to tell - just a warning. This is in no way meant to contradict the other post with that quote floating around or argue against it - just my own rambling coming to a conclusion I keep struggling with when it comes to SW universe and the ways it makes no sense to me and how I feel deep in my bones that Lucas is a crap storyteller.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t know why, but for all the interesting concepts Lucas talks about, Anakin’s fall never sat well with me. In time I came to the conclusion I would respond better if the Jedi culture surrounding it wasn’t so contradictory to itself.

And if he wasn’t so heavily leaning on the concept of the ‘pure love’ that is unconditional and undemanding and ‘unselfish’. Tldr: that love does not exist outside of poetry and romance dramas and imagination. Like every other emotion humans feel, love is conditional.

Take the first trilogy - I got that. The Jedi were largely missing and there was not much lore-wise, but the vibe it gave was measured and peaceful and mindful, and all the things that stood against the Empire - that represented the Dark Side in a very concise way. It wasn’t too nuanced, so we could buy it in this very simple ‘princes kidnapped b ya dragon’ story. This is as good as Lucas gets.

But then the prequels happened and Jedi became this weird, extremely specific, but conflicting idea. They are not supposed to take sides in politics - except when they do. They are not supposed to kill - except when they do, with freaking relish. They are not supposed to love or hate or allow emotions dictate their ways - oh, except when they do. And they can have sex - just not sex with someone they want to settle down with (oh boy, is that a signifier of a story written by a guy or what?). All seems to be ‘except when they do, as long as it can be adequately justified to make them look good’.

And I do have an issue with the idea of ‘Anakin was too old to join, he was already attached to his mother’ which is, when you think about it, is insane. Learning to control your emotions and letting go of your wants, Buddhist way, fine.

Aiming to train children to not be attached to their parents? What? How young a child has to be for that attachment forms? How is a meditation and repeating mantras going to help a 5-year old who is missing their mom at the temple? How do you even expect to train a child out of missing their mom??? How is it NOT better to get an older child that can reason above the instinctual and hardwired need for their mother? 

But let’s say Anakin’s attachment to his mother was ‘selfish’ from the beginning - but, that’s the thing, was it? Was it really? They were slaves and she was his only family, okay, obviously that made his attachment stronger and more layered than, say, a normal middle-class Coruscanti kid who could love their mom without constant fear that any day they can be separated forever by someone who didn’t give a shit. In that sense, yes, Anakin was desperately attached to his mom and afraid of loosing her - there was fear in him. Right, I’m there with you, Yoda.

But the movies show us that the way Jedi seem to approach these hard subjects is by not approaching them at all - oh, well, we can’t take him in. He had a difficult childhood and there are issues attached, get him out of here.

In a galaxy full of races and issues and the Force being tied to any and all creatures in any and all circumstances - this was the hard line Jedi were drawing. In essence, either only accepting kids young enough to not remember their parents (and I see absolutely no issues whatsoever that could happen here, nope) or with childhoods perfect enough not to have any issues whatsoever. Anyone else? Adults that discovered Force when they were older? Kids like Anakin with hard childhoods? Creatures that were either culturally or chemically wired differently enough that the tight reins Jedi held over their emotions weren’t possible for them? Nope. Go away. You are a bad person in the making.

If you spend a moment contemplating, you will realise this is such a white privileged guy way to think about it. And if you stick your head into the microwave for a couple seconds, you can almost understand how Lucas thought this is something profound and mystical.

No that I think about it... I always thought Sith were freaking clowns - their philosophy makes no sense, their ‘rule of two’ is hilarious, everything about them is just so badly designed and thought out, and who would ever decide to join of that creepy cult of their own volition? It made no sense!

But, as an answer to the egalitarian and contradictory ways of the Jedi - Sith make all the sense to exist. And let’s forget about the Light and Dark (that I don’t believe exist above the ways of personal emotional expression that in time trains the Force around a person in certain ways - like a person can train their brain in and out of anxiety ofr example), but focusing strictly on philosophy - yeah, being a Sith makes sense when any other way is barred form someone by no fault of their own. And barred with an excuse they are a bad seed anyway. 

“You fear/hate/desire hence you can’t access the Force with us” = “Well fuck you, then, I will access the Force in my own way, using these exact emotions!”

Like, Sith are clowns, but Jedi suck in their own very special way and their fall was just waiting to happen.

I get a strange feeling that Lucas created Jedi as a class of a warrior monk in DnD and then scrambled to create their enemies out of the simplest contradictions. Light-dark. Love-Hate. Peace-Fear. Etc. But because Jedi were so simple - once they started to gain popularity and he had to expand their lore and layer on the philosophy, he hit a wall. Or rather, the bottom of the kiddy pool. Because a ‘warrior monk’ is not an a ‘good’ class, but he wanted them to be mostly warriors, but also a force of good in the galaxy, because Star Wars is the same simple story repeated again and again with a new set of characters (regardless of how much fake politics is thrown in to obscure that fact) so this whole universe is basically built on giving Jedi reasons to fight and kill, and adequately justifying them. And then the Dark Side had to catch up by being more ridiculously evil at every turn - accidentally unmasking the way Jedi philosophy falls apart under closer scrutiny.

So like, to make a full circle, the one thing the prequels did well was to show Anakin’s fall (and I am not gonna argue, it was effective and he is a villain of this story) but they also presented - I think against the creator’s intention - why it was pretty much inevitable. Not because Palpatine was there to whisper poison, or because Force itself strived for ‘balance’ (even though the latter is a hilarious idea I love to contemplate) - but because Jedi, as presented in the movies-media around them, as a philosophy and way of life is inherently contradictory and unsustainable from the point of being a, well, a breathing, thinking being.  The ‘selfish love’ argument would work so much better if it wasn’t presented with an example of a kid who was born a slave and the people who saw it as a strike against his character, and did very little to address the specific issues that could arise from that before it was too late. 

Would it fucking kill them to let go of their strict training routine and ensure that his specific emotional needs were met? That Shimi was, I don’t know, NOT A SLAVE. They seem to interfere into politics just fine when need arises - but not when it’s a sandy planet in the ass-end of the universe no one cares about. Then no, we can’t liberate one slave. That would be acting in self-interest - not in the interest of not allowing one of the strongest members of out order to fall into the ruin we have forseen form the beginning. 

It would work better is if Anakin’s ‘selfishness’ was presented as his inability to let Padme leave him for someone else/just leave him - not to be unwilling to let her die.  

Think about it for a moment - he wasn’t presented with the idea of Padme leaving him. With the idea of his mother not loving him anymore. He was firmly and, form his point of view, believably, presented with the idea of both of them DYING. Which actually happened to his mom, solidifying the fear in his mind.

Yes, he was not meant to go on a rampage and kill the ones who killed Shimi - but wasn’t he? The Jedi are not against killing. Only killing in self-interest I guess - when self-interest is not one’s life and their political affiliation or their ‘job’ at hand, that is. Revenge is a no-no, but a military retaliation is a yes-go. Can’t kill anyone who wronged me - but I can kill those who wronged a person who gives me orders. How does that work within a Jedi doctrine? 

How, in good conscience, can you present this scenario, George, and then try to spin it into this big philosophical bullcrap about unselfish love????  Jedi murdered people over political squabbles - but I guess that’s okay because they weren’t invested??? And that’s better?!?!? George! What the fuck! You are such a bloke my head hurts!

In case of Anakin, Jedi were essentially Elsa’s parents. I pretty much despise Elsa and the film she crawled out of, and I personally don’t like Anakin as a character either, so this is not stanning in any way, but their issues scream ‘I was raised by well-meaning idiots’ and shows the level of botched storytelling I just can’t reconcile.

Which, you know what? 

Luke, who spent years studying Jedi ways and taking them into himself? 

I can believe than this Luke would try to kill his nephew at the barest whiff of the Dark Premonition instead of helping him manage his motions in a somewhat healthy way - that seems to be exactly what a real Jedi would do, after all. 

[hazelcephalopod]

the following is mostly rant and mildly criticism, but ultimately Hannibal is a fine show. This is just how it makes me loose it. Also if you have contradictory opinions or head canon enjoy, these are mine. If you agree cool.

I have once again begun trying to watch Hannibal. Just starting on s1e4 where I left off and getting to e7. And once again have made the mistake of reading the creators statements.

Which, oops I’m autistic so when the show opens with a character saying I’m closer to autistic than sociopathic (not an actual sliding scale between those so first red flag right there, but ok next) I’m looking to see how the show displays that. And first off, Will. Loner dude, with many dogs and overly brusk demeanor. Obsessed with murder and fishing, and again dogs considering he has like 7. Very perceptive, possible sensory sensitivity -which as an adult may not be very apparent. Unusual trauma responses, appears to be recovering from burn out, sorta highly empathetic but no idea what to do with that -except teach crime solving and solve murders. Does not like change. Seeks to do the right thing (maybe arguable) by solving murders, to his own detriment. Being pushed too far by himself and others. Ok, yea sounds like a strong possible autism, in an adult man. Personally, the manipulation from others resonates with me for this reason too. As do his relationships and interactions with other people. His brusk and straightforward communication style, interpreted as callousness which may or may not be that. It’s a lot basically. I could continue far too long.

Like, this show has barely a basic understanding of psychiatry IMO. So the show runner and actor saying (summarized) “nope he is not autistic. That was a misdirect, it was an act”. Im very curious and concerned where the show is going to go from where it is now to get to that being… true? Like the statements seem so strong too, why? It’s ok for the fictional maybe evil bi possibly murderer/cannibal and/or lover of a cannibal to be autistic on your campy little horror show. Say maybe and let people interpret what you put into the text. Bare minimum imo.

B/c that does not make sense. I can not stress enough what I’m seeing. Will clearly has moments of hyper focus and deep social awkwardness. He just does not pay attention if he has something else, like a case before him, at all. Or his deep interest with murder (cases) and the Chesapeake Riper. And hyperempathy can be a trait of autism -or other neurodiversities. (I mean Wills thing is also very much superpowers but set that aside). He feels very disconnected from other people. Half his conversations he’s talking to someone, but it sounds like two different conversations. All the ablism, so much -which clearly is in part due to ignorance- that I’m like “yup allistics be like that” Again there’s more! And maybe it’s something else, sure ok different neurodiversity -including mental illness. Or it’s more likely several.

TL:dr there is a lot of evidence that Will is autistic and I find the response from people on the show rude and ignorant when asked about it. Like idk if that’s good or not on the cannibal murder show, but the handling of it is not good in the irl realms.

PS if you plan on watching this show in the now or future remember, everyone is an asshole. That may be the point.

[moderate-brainrot]

legion lore is bullshit 😐

But first; some disclaimers

First of all, I literally love the entirety of legion so this is not even remotely hate, in fact it’s genuine care. They deserve so much better that it hurts my brain, and I’m going to complain about the lore until they fix it (which they never will so don’t bother waiting for me to stop).

Secondly, I’m a shitty interpreter. Although the story of DBD is left ambiguous and vague on purpose, there are still some set things that are supposed to be in place. I tend to take a humanistic approach, the same way I did with Lisa and Rin’s backstories, so this could sound like I’m sympathizing, or excusing. That’s not really my intention but also I’m probably biased, I make an effort not to be but! We all make mistakes. Small story details and choices of words tend to mean very little when I’m looking at the lore, so precedents that someone else may have identified might not even be considered important to me. I’m trying to piece together a coherent and interesting conclusion.

I also wanted to note that I will not consider “the legion is out of place!!!! they clash with the entire cast!!!!!” in this whole rant because? it’s stupid as FUCK, nobody complains about ghostface being in the game, and they (unfortunately) are very similar in terms of age group (Danny is implied to be pretty young, not as young Frank though). I think legion fits in alongside the other killers just fine. It really wouldn’t make sense if you only had traditional representations of “evils” anyway. These evils are supposed to come from every corner of the world, it would only make sense if one of the evils happened to be a band of delinquents.

Okay, here we go.

I think the legion is a good idea. A nice concept. I think their powers and perks were thought out and nicely intertwine with their personalities/characters.

HOWEVER,

the lore for them is so shoddily put together that all you really have to piece together an actual character is their appearance. That only really works to some degree. I feel like the players know who the legion are. You can feel what they stand for just by looking at them. They are cynical, unforgiving, and callous just like normal teenagers would be. Except these teenagers are deeply disturbed so they solve their problems with murder.

HOWEVER,

You get NONE of this from the lore. It’s an observation. That’s not exactly the best thing. Your killer shouldn’t have to be explained, but when the lore is left with so many loose ends, you’re asking a lot from the player. There is very little to go off of.

The lore, essentially, is this:

Frequently moved around foster kid, Frank, is looking for an escape from his newest family since the new town is so unbearably boring. He tries to get out by finding another adoptive family but he meets Julie, who is also looking for a way out of the bland town. Frank goes to the parties Julie hosts and meets Joey and Susie (who were SUCH afterthoughts that they don’t even have fucking last names). They start hanging out in this abandoned place, and for whatever reason, Frank suddenly wants to do crime and have his new crew trained into soemthing.... “”powerful””???? They become neighborhood bullies and do delinquent shit.💡 Joey gets fired from his job and Frank says that they should all go vandalize the shit out of it.💡 They go to vandalize it but some janitor guy happens to be there and he grabs Julie, she cries out for help and Frank stabs the janitor in the back because of his.:.. “”dark impulses””...ok.💡 Then Frank says “okay now you guys have to kill him” and Joey stabs the guy in the ribs, Susie however refuses and Julie does it for her until Susie actually has to stab him but Frank moves her hands for her.💡They go to mount ormond (hey) to dispose of the body💡 and They’re digging the janitor’s grave when Frank sees some weird shit in the woods and goes to it and then doesn’t come back.💡 The rest of the legion follow his footprints before they even bury the body which leads to thick fog™️ and now they are killers in the realm.

The lightbulbs are for notes I made while reading the tomes.

💡(1). The legion start off by doing the most juvenile shit. Graffiti, yelling at neighborhood children, and stealing. They don’t sound like deeply evil entities, they sound like pathetic teenage swine, bullies. They’re supposed to be oppressive and unforgiving, but they are too passive to be taken seriously. They should have made it so they were never really killing people but just stabbing people, lots of them. That’s a lot more violent/evil than petty crimes.

💡(2). Frank’s first thought when Joey gets fired is to dare Joey to GRAFFITI HIS FORMER PLACE OF WORK???? NOT KILL HIS BOSS? NOT BURN THE SHOP DOWN? JUST SPRAY PAINT??? You would think that his mind, apparently attractive enough to the entity, would go to darker places than vandalism.

💡(3). Only Frank had these “”dark impulses™️””, so Why are there even four legions instead of just fucking one. He literally had to guilt everyone else to stab the man. He is completely alone in experiencing this impulse.

💡(4). What happened to “It came to a point where they would do anything he asked. Nothing was off-limits when they put their masks on.” ?? Susie downright refused to stab the man the first time she was handed the knife. It was only when Frank guided her hands that she “did it” (which she didn’t because it was Frank controlling the blade). Sure, Frank is manipulative, but the lore can’t decide if he’s good at it or not. The legion seems less like a group and more like a cult with Frank at the forefront. It’s very contradictory.

💡(5). The legion are chaos fiends. That’s their whole thing. Burying the body creates zero chaos or worry anywhere. The dude was a janitor, if you bury him there’s a good chance that nobody will notice which defeats the entire point.

💡(6). Frank goes in first. I really think that’s where it should’ve ended. I think it would make him more evil. He would’ve abandoned his ragtag “troops” to selfishly escape the possible consequences of murder after he made them reliant on him. But since they follow after him, it seems more like they found him rather than he abandoned them.

I think the legion is seen as a group of muderous juveniles who were so bored of their town that they decided to cause as much chaos as possible to make it less unbearable. That’s pretty evil. Way more evil than killing one dude impulsively and bullying kids less than half their ages. It would make sense with their power, why it’s not so focused on killing, but on the bigger picture, spreading fear and pain across a wide scale. This also ties in with their mori. It’s very quick, boring, and underwhelming. This could be because the legion don’t care for killing people that much, they want action, drama, and chaos. Depending on the strategy, you leave the survivors with deep wounds that take time and effort to patch up, when they can do easily be slashed down again, it’s pretty despairing, empty of hope. It’s also a little charming I think it adds to their overall immaturity, moving on looking for more survivors to hit rather than viciously hound your prey and finish them off.

THAT BEING SAID,

The legion’s power makes no sense when it’s not on Frank. In the lore, Frank is the only one who showed any remote desire to kill, but even then it was presented as an impulse, a reflex even. So Why in the fresh HELL would Susie have this power? She didn’t want to kill anybody . Julie and Joey as well. Julie probably only felt guilty and indebted to Frank for saving her, and Joey was literally presented as the guy who likes to show off. Of course he’s not going to be openly reluctant, it would shatter his persona. I really think they got too carried away with the ritualistics surrounding the murder that they forgot character values are a thing. Sure the fact that they all stabbed him is symbolic but their reactions do not match up with the mechanics. They could’ve done so much more with the characters and mechanics if EVERY LEGION HAD THESE “”DARK IMPULSES™️””

They’re given to us in-game as delinquents. So I think they should ALL be punkish dammit!!!!

That’s the end of my rant;

for now.

will probably elaborate some more later but I haven’t slept yet and it’s time for school so ..

囧rz.. anyways

legion love club:

idc if frank is a manipulator he can come manipulate this dick

[politeanarchy]

There’ll Be Paperwork (a WIP)

Here’s the beginning of a thing I’m writing, in which a snake-demon causes some unintentional problems in the early days of the Earth.

...

Corporation Replacement Request Form Date: 4003 BC Requesting Entity: Principality Aziraphale of the Eastern Gate Cause of Discorporation: demonic bite

It had been several months since Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden. An angel and a demon had been quietly following them for most of that time. On this particular evening, the humans were huddled close to a small fire, doing their best to comfort one another against the chill that followed after sunset, while the angel and demon peered warily at them from behind a couple of concealing boulders.

"We could have a fire, too," said the demon.

"Of course we can't, they'd see it!"

"So?"

"So then they'd come to investigate, and they'd find us, and then they'd be exposed to your evil influences again. Goodness only knows what else you'd manage to tempt them into, given the chance."

The demon made a sort of diffident hmmmm-ing noise. "Don't know what anyone expects me to do, with you here thwarting me left and right." He shivered. "Aren't you cold?"

"Here, sit next to me." The angel shook his wings, then fluffed them up and wrapped them around himself and the demon. "Better?" He picked up a fig from the small stash of fruit he'd brought along and which they'd been sharing fairly amicably.

"A little," agreed the demon. He nibbled a couple of grapes, while trying to pretend not to huddle a little closer to the warm angel. "Besides, if we talked to the humans again, wouldn't it give you a chance to help them, with, you know, blessings or some such?"

"I certainly wish I could help them," the angel fretted. "They're  going to need it, especially since I'm pretty sure Eve is going to have her baby soon." He bit into the soft ripe fig, leaving his fingers slightly sticky with juice.

"How do you know that?" asked the demon. "Have you got a heavenly memo saying that angelic messengers are going to be popping along with it shortly, or what?"

"What? No! That's not how it works at all." The angel waved his hands and gesticulated impatiently, still holding the bitten half of the fig. "You see, she...well, and...I mean..."

The demon wasn't making much attempt to follow the explanation. He knew where humans came from: the Almighty made them, then put them on the Earth, gave them a few simple (and probably contradictory) instructions, and turned them loose. And honestly, the angel's incoherent ramblings wouldn't have made much sense even if the demon had been listening. Whereas the waving hand holding the fig was exactly the sort of thing that predatory reptiles were built to notice.

The demon watched him closely, yellow slitted eyes tracking every motion, head swaying.

"So after nine months...at least I think...oh, this is ridicu— Hey!"

There was a sudden movement, like a snake striking. The angel was startled to find that his remaining fruit had been stolen, licked out of his fingers by the demon who was still holding him by the wrist, staring with intense focus at the remaining patches of sweet juice.

"I beg your pardon!"

"Sssorry. Inssstinct."

They stared at each other, the space between them charged with complex tensions.

"You're still holding my hand."

"I ssuppose I am." Without breaking eye contact, the demon brought the angel's fingers back up to his mouth and deliberately licked some juice off them. This resulted in a sharp intake of breath from the angel, followed by a wicked smile from the demon. "Dissstracting, is it?"

"No! Yes. I mean..."

"You don't ssseem to be asssking me to ssstop, though."

"Why are you doing this, anyway?"

"Dunno. It's interesssting." He was looking sleeker and more sinuous than usual, forked tongue flicking out to taste the air, teeth grown longer and sharper.

The angel may have been aware of the changes, but was also pretty sure he could take his hand away any time he felt like it. He just didn't happen to feel like it, at the moment. It was quite interesting, this business of how bodies reacted to different things. He was here on Earth to observe and learn, after all. In fact, it was practically a duty to find out why it was that this made him feel so uncomfortable, while at the same time making him want it to keep happening.

So he made no move to reclaim his hand, but continued to gaze at the demon curiously. And permitted the demon to close his sharp-toothed mouth around one finger, gently licking off the last traces of fig juice and noticing how its flavor combined with the taste of angel skin.

It was unfortunate that at exactly this moment, a bright light and a swell of unearthly music announced the imminent manifestation of some new angelic presence just a few yards away, on the other side of the boulders they'd been hiding behind.

The demon, startled, bit down hard on the angel's finger.

"Ow!"

"Oh, shit! Sorry! I didn't mean to—"

The angel, after the initial shock of being bitten, realized that something was very wrong with his physical body. Waves of pain were spreading up his arm from the bitten finger, and his eyes wouldn't focus properly. "You idiotic serpent! I think you must be poisonous!"

"I'm not poisonous, I'm venomous!"

Frantically, in his last conscious moments, the offended angel gathered all his holy righteousness and human irritation, and used them to smite the demon as hard as he could.

A few minutes later, when two angelic messengers arrived on Earth to help Eve with the birth of her first baby, they didn't even notice the fading traces of a discorporated angel and a discorporated demon, dissolving quietly into dust and aether. If there was a faint smell of sulphur and charred feathers and ozone, they put it down to the humans' campfire.

Aziraphale shortly found himself back in Heaven, and was eventually presented with a commendation for his heroic actions in the service of protecting Adam and Eve by fighting and eliminating a demonic threat. He shook his head and made a tut-tut sort of noise, and may even have gone so far as to say hmph.

However, it was a relief to return to the familiar serene brightness of the celestial realm. To join in the choirs singing "Holy, holy, holy." To contemplate the ineffable wonder of it all, and especially to think about the Earth, so complicated and confusing. To worry a little about how Adam and Eve were doing. To wonder what had become of the demon who was so full of curiosity. To miss having a body that was able to experience physical sensations. To admonish himself for being full of unseemly questions and unsuitable desires.

He stared out across an infinite expanse of pristine firmament and fidgeted, tapping his fingers and wondering what to call his current state of discontent. Heaven didn't understand the concept of boredom, but Aziraphale was beginning to.

"Aziraphale! Just the angel I was hoping to see."

"Gabriel." He nodded politely at the Archangel.

"I've come to inform you that you're being re-assigned to Earth. From what we hear, some demonic force is causing problems again. Might even be the same one you got rid of when you were down there before. Aaaaand since you handled him so neatly the last time, well." Gabriel smiled, smooth and shiny as a platinum credit card.

Aziraphale stopped himself from jumping up and down, and suppressed a joyful cry along the lines of "Yippee!" Instead he smiled back, and hoped he was projecting a sense of cheerful enthusiasm for duty rather than oh thank goodness I can finally get out of this stifling office. "I'm always happy to help, in whatever way the Lord should require of me."

Gabriel beamed, and punched him playfully on the shoulder. It hurt a bit. "That's the Holy Spirit I like to see!"

Aziraphale wondered whether Gabriel's rampant enthusiasm meant that no one else had been willing to take the Earth job, or if he was just imagining it. It didn't much matter, he supposed. He was impatient to get going as soon as possible.

"When should I expect to leave, then?" he asked.

"Right away." Gabriel materialized a stack of pages, and handed them over. "You'll just need to fill out some paperwork, first."

[smuttymess]

bts astro soulmate reading | for alexis

sign: gemini sun | leo moon | pisces rising

lover: Park Jimin |  soulmate: Jung Hoseok

This reading is for Alexis, a lovely Jimin stan who also rides hard for OT7. Jimin is also big on OT7, so he would certainly approve. Hope you enjoy this one, love, and happy Jimin/Libra season! <3

Ah, free-spirited Gemini, is there anyone who can truly figure you out? Effortlessly sociable, charming and exuberant, you are likely admired by many but understood by few. You are the social butterfly, the person that people “click” with right away as a result of your boundless energy, charisma and independence.  Your rising sign is how you present yourself to the world, and with Pisces in this placement you are innately intuitive, emotional, and sensitive to the world around you. This is a particularly contradictory chart with each placement in a different element: one that flows like water, runs like air, and burns strong like fire. With this combination, and especially with Gemini at the helm, it likely that you’ve struggled to find your place in a world wherein people want you to subscribe to one way of thinking and living. Your rising sign guides how you present yourself to others, and an ascendent in Pisces means you are highly adaptable, your personality shifting to fit your environment. Your Gemini Sun is inherently dual and ever-changing on its own, and the addition of a Pisces ascendent can naturally lead you to mold yourself in accordance to your surroundings leading others wondering who you truly are. It's possible that you may not have the answer just yet, or that this multifaceted nature is in fact who you are at the core. With your Moon in Leo, you seamlessly command respect in any given situation - your passion for your ideas practically pouring out of you in the most compelling of ways. You are often able to focus and master one idea or project at a time, making you unstoppable in the pursuit of your goals. As a result, whatever version of "you" that you present to the world on any given day is likely to be received positively by whoever is in your orbit. While your Leo is quite prone to exaggeration and bold expressions of your emotions, your friends and family know this is simply in your nature as a product of the conflicting elements that rule your spirit, but are happy to let you be the star of the show.

A true social butterfly, you are the friend that people look to for an enjoyable night out - wherever you are is where others inherently want to be! Your Gemini/Leo makes you thrive in the spotlight, feeling truly celebrated and seen by those in your orbit, so you are likely to enjoy fun, active environments and activities where you shine. This leads you to a disco themed roller rink party in the city, which allows you to take on a new persona for the night and dress up in something truly fabulous while sneaking in a little bubbly. You are in your element and as the beams of light dance overhead, illuminating your flirtatious, magnetic Leo charm, all eyes are on you - including Park Jimin's. He's a stunner in a sleek, retro-inspired floral button down and dark jeans, but what really grabs you is the sweet smile he flashes as you glide across the floor. Maybe its the way you move like the wind, or your characteristically mysterious Pisces rising dreaminess that leads him to sync up with you, but there he is, skating side-by-side. You're happy to find that not only is this boy as gorgeous up close - his eyes twinkling as brightly as the lights above - but he also has some serious moves to rival your own. It is in your flirtatious little competition that you notice the precision in which he moves, but also the way his ass looks in those flared jeans, and how his lips curl into a sly smile as he senses that he's got you.

Two free-flowing air signs such as these inherently get each other, and this duo moves from friends to lovers at a rapid pace. Both you and Jimin are very idealistic with the people you fall into like with, and you know very well how to savor every moment with that special someone, showing them the full breadth of your love for the time that you are together in a naive but sincere hope that it never ends. It is the stability sought after by his Libra Sun and your Leo Sun, however, that balances scales so that this deepens into a true friendship and not simply a flighty whirlwind romance. In each other's presence - and even outside of it - you two have an impenetrable connection that is almost all-consuming. Jimin's Mars in Scorpio makes him a perfectionist in his work but isn't the one to forget about their partner even for an hour, sneaking cute selfies from dance practice and sending over pastries from his favorite bakery. With his Moon in Gemini, there is a duality that you can deeply understand and appreciate - he needs his freedom and spontaneity as much as you do and enjoys sweeping you away for 1:1 time with just a moment's notice. He may be sending you sweet texts that soon move into something a bit naughtier as soon as he's away from the boys. How is my pretty girl. Can you send me a picture? ;) There is no way you're ever saying no to him, especially when he's feeling needy - nobody is as persistent as a charming, horny Libra. Please, princess, can I see? Sex in this pairing is light and fun, starting with some foreplay via selfie and ending with kisses planted along your collarbone the minute he gets home. Jimin's Libra Sun and Venus in Scorpio combination makes him equally playful and passionate in bed, wanting to kiss and nibble on your ears, neck, and lips long before his hands reach under the loose fabric of your shirt. Unpredictable Gemini, you are just as likely to let him ravish you against the wall as you are to drag him by the collar to your room, pushing him down onto the bed and watching his eyes light up with anticipation as you kneel down between his knees. He is more than happy to let you take the lead while takes in the tantalizing visual of your hands on his cock, your tongue flicking his sensitive head until he's a panting, moaning mess, begging you to climb on top of him. Heaven may just be the feeling of his fingers digging into your hips as you grind onto him, his lush lips falling apart in bliss as he takes you in.

While the infatuation period here is sweet as honey, trouble meets this couple when it comes to true commitment and partnership long term. While you both share air qualities, there are placements elsewhere that serve to cause too much friction, primarily in the ways that you show love in your romantic relationships. Jimin's Venus in Scorpio makes him controlling, jealous and possessive when in love, which is just something that is innately against your core nature that needs a high level of independence. Your Venus in Scorpio is flirtatious, explorative and energetic - often leaving Jimin feeling the need to chase you and earn your affection. When that prompts you to run away further, the Libra withdraws their attention, only serving to anger the attention-seeking Libra and exacerbates the issue until trust is all but fully eroded. You cannot stand to constantly reassure him that you care for him and do not want anyone else, and without personal work this level of insecurity is entirely too much for the relationship to sustain.

A true lover of learning and experience, you likely enjoy being out in the world, mixing and mingling with diverse range of people with varied backgrounds and interests. You are not one to stay in one place for too long - there is a wide world out there that you want to see, taste and feel as deeply as possible during your time here on earth. This proclivity has the likelihood to bring you to interesting places, both local and abroad, where you are able to express your full self alway from the mundanity of everyday life - it is through these adventures that you find meaning. It is on one particular night during one of your spontaneous jaunts - think to Santorini or Sao Paolo - where you find yourself engrossed in warm, flirtatious conversation with a stranger who seems to know how to capture attention as seamlessly as you do. It is almost impossible not to notice him standing against the wall: his brick colored button up and dark jeans clearly outlining his dancer's physique while his jet black, slicked back hair perfectly accentuates the sharpness of his nose and jaw as his head bobs to the music. He posses a mysterious, almost intimidating aura that makes you achingly curious to get his attention and learn more. It is not long before you are chest to chest on the dance floor floating through a decadent, romantic daze, his eyes glued to you like a puzzle looking to be figured out. You have no idea what any of this means, and you don't care - the only thing existing in that moment is the man whose fingers are intertwined with yours, his hips moving to the beat, expertly guiding your movements as you sway to the rhythm of the evening. Your bodies are incredibly in sync, something you don't hesitate to explore further back at his suite later that night.

These are two individuals who operate on extremely independent, creative and unique levels, which you boldly express through statement clothing and curious-quick witted conversation. It is not unlikely for you to often feel quite misunderstood, as if the world could never comprehend the depths of their character and soul. These commonalities bond you right away, creating a refuge for the two of you to playfully discuss so many of life's nuances that only these very curious and introspective signs can understand. You, Gemini, are a people-person, likely interested in connecting others through acts of service - the passion and intelligence when you speak about these topics pour from you so effortlessly, which is something Hoseok's kind Aquarius can appreciate. You enjoy bouncing ideas off of the goal-oriented Hobi who is happy to hear your often big-pictured ideas and strategize how to make moves towards your many goals. Your innate charm and communication skills unlock a more emotional, open-hearted side of Hoseok which is often shielded by a complex, ambiguous persona - a trademark of the Aquarius man. While your Gemini Sun makes you spontaneous and flighty, your Leo Moon brings focus and stability to your relationships, wherein you prefer to devote yourself to one love interest at a time. This works quite well with Hoseok's Taurus moon which is steady, strong-willed, and determined when it comes to the things he likes, and does not shy away from letting you know it, which makes your Leo heart soar. A connection like this is too good to pass up, leaving you both interested in continuing beyond simply a vacation hook-up.

Living in different countries may deter some, but this is a pair that knows how to be creative and keep each other stimulated anytime, anywhere. You are more happy to be adored and devoured by Hoseok's passionate Pisces Venus, which makes him dreamy, playful and effortlessly charming in his romantic life - stopping at nothing to get you pining for him. He knows how to keep you on your toes - from impromptu flights to that city you mentioned wanting to visit, shipping artwork you admired straight to your door, or sending a kinky gift to you at work with a note to send him a selfie right away. Distance is nothing in the eyes of Hobi, whose Aquarius Sun is progressive, unusual and rebellious in that nowhere is off limits to him. Expect late night calls while he's alone in the hotel, his deep voice sending shockwaves through your system as you step away from dinner with your friends. You love how he can go from playful to commanding, asking about your day before instructing you to lock your bathroom door and slowly guide your fingers across your nipples, pinching each nub before moving towards your navel. You can hear him hum as your breath hitches, your fingers stopped inches from your clit as directed before you're able to close the gap. You're such a good girl for me, making your friends can wait. I need you to come for me right now - can you do that for me? This is a rhetorical question - he knows exactly how to press the right buttons, purring into your ear and teasing you to the point of near devastation. The duality of his persona from sweet boyfriend to soft dom allows you to let go, bringing out a more exhibitionist, unabashed side of you that isn't afraid to let curses slip from your lips as he brings you to your edge, your muscles tensing around your fingers as he keeps the commands coming. Moan for me, baby. Tell me how much you miss me. This is a duo that can sustain lasting sexual fire because of their shared creativity, intelligence and curiosity that you can access in each other. Whenever Hoseok does land in your city, you know it is only a matter of time before you're chest to chest, his hands gripping your hair, face and neck with an intensity that comes from several weeks apart and insane levels of foreplay - something only a weekend of riding his long, perfect cock can fix.

Ultimately, the merging of Gemini & Aquarius can allow for deep emotional support and loyalty alongside with the much-needed autonomy and playfulness that both signs require. This is an extremely delicate balance, one that only two air signs could realistically achieve though it is not done without some hard work. Hoseok's Sun and Mars is in Aquarius, which contributes to his laser-focus on his goals that prevents him from always being able to give you all of the attention that your Leo heart truly requires on a consistent basis. Your burning discontent is likely to manifest in fiery, passionate outbursts wherein you feel like the victim of an Aquarius's occasional disconnectedness when focused elsewhere. This pairing stands to work on using their words and not letting little things slide, as would serve to deepen the connection between both parties to prove they can go the distance and focus on what matters most in a partnership: unconditional love and respect. With increased maturity and patience, this duo can certainly go the distance, creating a life that combines his cultural contributions as a performer with your desire to help humanity reach higher levels of empathy and understanding. Natural rebels, is a couple that is likely to shirk conventionality and rigid societal rules to ensure their own physical and emotional comfort. This specific pairing points to a life of extensive travel and a very public life, working internationally to expand education and creating programs in the arts in communities in need. It is when you channel this incredible energy that you can spread your boundless love and creativity to the world around you and truly improve society at large.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

0 MEANS USING THE WEB AS A PLATFORM DIDN'T LIVE MUCH PAST THE FIRST CONFERENCE

This phrase began with musicians, who perform at night. Most are service businesses—restaurants, barbershops, plumbers, and so on. 0 conference would presumably be full of geeks, right? This side of the story: what an essay really is, and how you write one. Getting work makes him a successful actor, but he doesn't only become an actor when he's successful. Larry Page and Sergey Brin wanted to search the web. He was like Michael Jordan. But the first time around it was co-opted by Sun, and we got Java applets. Albrecht Durer did the same thing that makes everyone else want the stock of successful startups is that they're not. But there is also huge source of implicit tags that they ignore: the text within web links. The test of any investment is the ratio of return to risk, if both were lower.

I advised startups never to let anyone fly under them, meaning never to let any other company offer a cheaper, easier solution. Let's start with a promising question and get nowhere. Unfortunately, the question is a complex one. Especially if it meant independence for my native land, hacking. Another reason people don't work on big things, you seem to have been influenced by the Chinese example. Bertrand Russell wrote in a letter in 1912: Hitherto the people attracted to philosophy have been mostly those who loved the big generalizations, which were all wrong, so that few people with exact minds have taken up the subject. Originally, yes, there does seem to be several categories of cuts: things I got wrong, things that seem obvious in retrospect. All those unseen details combine to produce something that's just stunning, like a skateboard. Should you add x feature?

As an example of this rule; if you assume that knowledge can be represented as a list of predicate logic expressions whose arguments represent abstract concepts, you'll have a lot in the calculus class, but I know that when it comes to empathy are practically solipsists. 0 have in common. And yet if I had to write in school are not only not essays, they're one of the angels in his Baptism of Christ. And so hackers, like painters, must have empathy to do really great work. Does Web 2. In the best case—if you're really organized—if you're really organized—you're just writing it down. I found that what the teacher wanted us to do was pretend that the story had really taken place, and to know how to calculate time and space complexity and about Turing completeness.

What made it possible for small organizations to succeed in some domain, you have to compete with other local barbers. I read an interview with Joe Kraus, the co-founder of Excite. You can use the cram schools to show you where most of the 1970s. No doubt it was a description of Google? How to Start a Startup I advised startups never to let any other company offer a cheaper, easier solution. 7x a year, whereas a company that grows at 5% a week will 4 years later be making $7900 a month, which is one of those things that seem obvious in retrospect. It does seem to me very important to be able to get a day job that's closely related to your real work. Number two, research must be substantial—and as anyone who has written a PhD dissertation knows, the way to approach the current philosophical tradition may be neither to get lost in pointless speculations like Berkeley, nor to shut them down like Wittgenstein, but to get the rest you have sit through a movie.

The goal he announces in the Metaphysics was partly that he set off with contradictory aims: to explore the most abstract ideas, guided by the assumption that it was a waste of time? It's not considered insulting to say that life is too short for, the word that pops into my head is bullshit. I was a kid I was always being told to look at it. It's not just a barbershop whose founders were unusually lucky and hard-working. Web 2. They're not doing research per se, though if in the course of trying to discover them because they're useless, let's try to discover them because they're useful. In theory this sort of hill-climbing could get a startup into trouble. He has noticed that theoretical knowledge is often acquired for its own sake, out of curiosity, one of the first digital computers, Rod Brooks wrote, programs written for them usually did not work. Most businesses are tightly constrained in a.

And so began the study of ancient texts had such prestige that it remained the backbone of education until the late 19th century. Basically, what Ajax means is Javascript now works. As credentials are superseded by performance, a similar role is the best source of rapid change. Once you dilute a startup with ordinary office workers—with type-B procrastinating, no matter how much you're getting done. Most don't discover anything that remarkable, but some through luck or the efforts of their founders ended up growing very fast, we wouldn't need a separate word for startups, and in particular the most successful startups, or they'll be out of business and the people would be interested in painting. They work well enough in everyday life are fuzzy, and break down if pushed too hard. Musicians often seem to work in record stores. By which one defended it. Why are they so hot to invest in photo-sharing apps, rather than for any practical need. But unfortunately that was not the conclusion Aristotle's successors derived from works like the Metaphysics.

The reason credentials have such prestige is that for so long the large organizations in a market can come close. The Airbeds just won the first poll among all the YC startups in their batch by a landslide. By gradually chipping away at the abuse of credentials, you could probably make them more airtight. The next best, for startups that aren't charging initially, is active users. Perhaps not everyone can make an equally dramatic mark on the world; I don't know if Plato or Aristotle were the first to ask any of the hackers I know write programs. The people who want a deep understanding of what you're doing. Other times nothing seems interesting. And so instead of correcting the problem Aristotle discovered by falling into it—that you can easily get lost if you talk too loosely about very abstract ideas—they continued to fall into place. I've used both these excuses at one time or another. We didn't draw any conclusions.

But the two phenomena rapidly fused to produce a principle that now seems obvious: paying energetic young people market rates, and getting correspondingly high performance from them. For a painter, a museum is a reference library of techniques. They're interrupt-driven, and soon you are too. But schools change slower than scholarship: the study of ancient texts is a valid field for scholarship, why not start the type with the most potential? It's like having a vacuum cleaner hooked up to your imagination. Why not as past-due notices are always saying do it now? This was particularly true in consulting, law, and finance, where it led to the phenomenon of yuppies. That was as far as I'd gotten at the time. Only a tiny fraction are startups. To some extent you have to adjust the angle just right: you have to take these cycles into account, because they're affected by how you react to them. 6x 7% 33.

Thanks to Sam Altman, Abby Kirigin, and Anton van Straaten for putting up with me.

[sunkissedpages]

I’m so ready for this!! Could you do 4 and 21 from the “more smutty prompts” list? Where Tom and the reader hate each other... (any AU or none is fine too)

“shut up.” ‘well, why don’t you come over here and make me?’

“bite me” ‘if you insist’

lol I don’t know much about debate lingo so bare with me also w o w this is so long I’m so sorry lol I got carried away

“Just to be clear, I still won,” Tom panted with an arrogant smirk, thrusting into you a little harder as he did.

“You fucking wish,” you seethed, gasping as he slammed into you just right.

“Bitch.”

“Asshole.”

You bit your lip to stifle a moan as his fingers made their way to your clit, not wanting to give him the satisfaction of knowing how good he was making you feel.

You weren’t even sure how you’d ended up in this situation- that was a lie, you knew exactly how it happened, but you were still dumbfounded by it. And honestly, you weren’t sure if taking Political Debate was the best or worst decision of your life.

Tom Holland was, without a doubt, the biggest dick you’d ever met. He was the best in the class, and he was fucking smug about it. The professor fucking loved him because he was so good at argumentative debate that he could pretty much get away with whatever he wanted. He showed up late, never did the reading, and always always volunteered to go up against you in class. 

There were three big debates for the course that made up the majority of your grade, and then several other, more casual ones scattered throughout the semester, and somehow- more often than not- you’d be at the podium opposite of your least favorite classmate.

As far as you were concerned, Tom played dirty. He always seemed to be one step ahead of you and would pull at loose threads in your arguments until one of them ultimately unraveled the whole thing.

It was beyond frustrating and had quickly turned polydeb (as it was affectionately termed) into your least favorite class. The worst part about the whole ordeal was that everyone in the class loved Tom. They laughed at his witty jabs and egged him on when he started to make a controversial point. This had made you into sort of the villain of the class. Anytime you one-upped the golden boy with contradictory evidence or God forbid, actually won your debate, everyone aside from your professor seemed a little bummed out.

Professor Schafer always made a point to say “you’ve done the impossible again Miss y/l/n and beat Mr. Holland!!” You knew it was supposed to be a compliment, but you weren’t too shabby at the craft and you thought you deserved a little more credit than that. Especially because you were the only student to ever beat Tom in a debate and had done it nearly half the time you went up against each other.

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise to you when you and Tom were called up to the podium first thing Monday morning, but the familiar butterflies in your stomach returned full force all the same as you tried to approach the stand as confidently as possible.

Tom stood from his seat and pocketed the pen he’d been chewing on. He smirked at you as he made his way down the steps onto the floor of the lecture hall and winked at your professor before taking the stand.

Professor Schafer just laughed and adjusted the glasses on his nose before reading off of the papers in front of him. “Y/n, Tom, this morning you’ll be debating climate change. Y/n you’ll argue pro and Tom will argue anti.”

You smiled a bit. You didn’t care whether Schafer had given you the easier side on purpose. All you knew was that you got to talk about something you were passionate about and crush Tom at the same time. A win-win.

Your confidence quickly fell away as Tom argued from the point of view of big corporations, which you should’ve seen coming, but were still caught off guard by. You tried to argue with Schafer that he was supposed to debate as an individual, but of course, he let it slide because it was “creative” and “would make things interesting”.

You tackled everything Tom threw at you, including the ridiculous claims he made with no evidence to back them up. You thought you had everything under control until the boy across from you randomly shouted out “everyone knows climate change isn’t real!”

To most, it would’ve been obvious that it was a last ditch effort to save his argument, but you were furious.

“Shut the fuck up.” If the room wasn’t quiet before, it certainly was now. You’d broken the number one rule of the class which was to always be polite to your opponent. That, and you’d cursed at him. You weren’t going to get any participation points today.

“Why don’t you come over here and make me?” Tom said with a shit-eating grin, breaking the silence.

You narrowed your eyes at him and took a deep breath, trying to calm down. For the whole semester, you’d been oblivious to the blatant sexual tension that had been building since the beginning of the class, something everyone else had most definitely picked up on.

You didn’t even notice until you caught Tom’s eye from across the room, and watched him lick his lips as he glared at you. It was then that you wondered what those lips would feel like on yours. On your body. You wondered if Tom felt it, or if it was all just pent up hatred for you that you were reading completely wrong.

“Alright, well I think we’ll move on to the next group now,” Professor Schafer said after a moment of awkward silence. You gave him an apologetic look before gathering your papers and making your way back up the stairs.

“Nice work,” Tom said in a sarcastic whisper behind you as he followed on your heel.

“Bite me.”

“If you insist.”

You froze in your tracks, turning around to give him a very measured look. His eyes were dark and his lips were curled up into a mischievous grin. You didn’t know what to make of it.

Which brought the two of you to this dark, empty classroom, mere minutes after class had finally ended, where you were currently having the best sex of your life on top of a lab table with the guy you hated most.

“Fuck, don’t stop,” you begged as he moved in and out of you at a pace that had you seeing stars.

“I’m not a quitter,” he responded, bending down and nipping at your ear.

“What’s that supposed to mean?” you accused at the same time you began to feel the familiar coil in your stomach.

“Nothing,” he said and

“No, tell me,” you insisted, trying to fight off your orgasm for a few more seconds.

He sighed. “You give up too easy, that’s why I always win.”

“Fuck you, you do not always win.”

“No, but you would if you didn’t back down so fast.”

“I don’t want the whole class to hate me for badgering you until I win by default.”

“It’s not about being liked, it��s about winning.”

“Clearly.”

It was Tom’s turn to be offended. “What’s that supposed to mean?”

“I think you know.”

His face was scrunched up too like he was also trying not to cum before you. Another competition.

“Fuck you.”

“I think you already are,” you quipped and Tom swore, stilling on top of you as he came. You would’ve smiled over the fact that your snarky comment was what sent him over the edge if you weren’t right behind him, clenching around him and curling your toes as you came hard.

Tom thrust weakly in and out of you to help you ride out your high before fully collapsing on top of you when it was all over.

“You do believe in climate change, right?” you asked, breathing hard underneath him.

He laughed lightly, his whole body shaking on top of you. “Of course, shit’s terrible.”

“Oh good,” you said with relief. “Because I don’t want to have sex with someone who doesn’t.”

“It would’ve been a little late if I didn’t,” Tom pointed out.

“Well, I figured it was a fifty-fifty shot and I was horny.”

Tom’s lips quirked up into a smile as he rolled off of you onto the other side of the table.

“Just for the record, I still hate you,” you said and hopped off of the table to get dressed.

“Don’t worry, feeling’s mutual, darling,” he shot back, watching you pull your shirt over your head.

You were relieved that your dynamic hadn’t changed after sleeping together, and knew that next time you had to debate him he wouldn’t stand a chance, but you didn’t see the way Tom’s eyes lingered on you as you got dressed with your back turned to him, or the way his smile had faded into a frown as you walked out without saying goodbye.

1k celebration

[kaypeace21]

Ted Wheeler is a Russian Spy (Theory)

A lot of people make fun of Ted, saying how useless and unassuming he is but I honestly think this framing of his character is being done divert suspicion, not only from the viewers but from other characters in the narrative. So lets get into the possible evidence...

We are told by Mike that his father told him the Department of Energy is making “weapons to fight the commies”.  Which is in fact proven to be the case . But how does Ted know the intentions of such a secretive government facility? We aren’t sure about What Ted does for a living but whatever it is- makes a considerable amount of money- possibly something in the technology sector. Mike’s interest in tech (being the leader of the AV club) and also him knowing all about the newest technologies to a similar aptitude as Bob, who's job is related to tech -could very well show Mike inherited/was taught such traits from his father. The first scene we see of Ted is with him finicking with a tv ... and being a tech wiz would be extremely useful as a spy.

Also, it seems like Ted generally misses a lot of social cues- I don't know much about Russia, but I suppose this could be due to cultural differences. Believe it or not, Ted has been shown to care about his kids. When Will dies he asks if he should  “go talk to Michael”, and only doesn’t do so because of Karen’s advice. The next day Karen tells Mike “if you need anything, you call your father”- which implies not only did Ted tell Karen that’d he’d talk to Mike about his grief at work, but possibly go home early to help his son. Also, he helps Mike fasten his tie, and when Mike says “it’s too tight”. Ted just simply loosens it a bit and says with a smile “it has to be a little tight”. We then pan to Jonathan who can’t keep his tie on- because it not even a ‘little tight’ and is too loose.

Most of the things that people criticize about Ted seem to be due to Ted just not  understanding social cues. In s1 when Mike is yelling, saying “I’m the only one who cares about Will!” And Ted says in a deadpan tone “That’s not fair son, we care too” and plops a piece of chicken in his mouth. Causing everyone to leave. He seems genuinely confused .And says “what did I do?” And then dejectedly drops his fork. 

Generally, his tone and inflection come across as extremely deadpan/uncaring at times, which could simply be because this isn’t actually his first language- or because if he gets too emotional his accent will seep through . 

Also in s2, when Mike is acting out and Ted is giving horrible advice filled with  football/coach analogies, and the old phrase “if you’re friend jumped off a cliff would you do it too”, seemed so forced- like he was just repeating what he heard on tv. I MEAN, let’s be honest, does Ted come across as any type of ex football-star-athlete to you?! Or, does he come across, as someone who would of been a tech-obsessed nerd in high school (just like his son). Who, in cannon, is the least athletic of all the boys- he has terrible aim (he completely missed throwing a rock at a bully) and when the boys ran to the trashcan to see what Max threw in it (if you rewatch the scene, Mike is literally 20 paces behind everyone else, but the only one out of breath XD) and he canonically hates sports. We actually know nothing of Ted Wheeler’s highshcool or college days (as an athlete), only what he’s told his family- since Karen met Ted when he was already working. 

Also if we’re supposed to genuinely believe Ted is supposed to be this macho dad who wants to force his son to be a stereotypical ideal of manhood-like his football pep talk implied. I find it interesting how other macho fathers responded to their sons not acting in lines with stereotypical masculinity. Billy and Will’s father’s were verbally and physically abusive calling them “fags and queers”. While Ted simply jokes “Impossible ... our son with a girl” laughing at his own joke. (Lol, he probably didn’t mean it like that ... but let’s just pretend it’s cannon that Ted is the least homophobic dad in Stranger things XD)

Also, him pretending to be a a Regan supporting republican makes a lot of sense, since it would of been the polar opposite ideology of communists. Regeanomics “was the belief that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy would trickle down to everyone else”. While communism’s economic model (in theory,not practice) was “designed to allow the poor to rise up and attain financial and social status equal to that of the middle-class landowners. In order for everyone to achieve equality, wealth was redistributed so that the members of the upper class are brought down to the same financial and social level as the middle class.” Another caveat is the fact that republicans (and most people at the time) were extremely racist- and conservatives like Regean at the time deemed Nelson Mandela a “terrorist”. In opposition to this, the Soviet Union was at the forefront of the anti-colonial and anti-apartheid movements and the Soviet Union was also the biggest benefactor of the African National Congress (ANC)- that Mandela was a member of. During a state visit, Mandela even expressed gratitude for the “solidarity of the Russian people in the South African fight against apartheid and for freedom.” 

 So if Ted has an actual conservative ideology, and not the more communist one. Why does he have no problems with living right next door to a black family. And not only that, having Lucas be one of his son’s best friends who spends almost every weekend at their house for 8-12 hours a day? While Billy, who probably emulates his father (who seems old fashioned and conservative) said about Lucas “those aren’t the right people to be associating with”.If Ted was a communist who believed in the idea of a world “devoid of sexism, racism and other forms of oppression”, some of his contradictory behavior would make much more sense. 

His good old “republican-patriotic attitude” almost seems like a characture of what a Russian would assume they’d be like. The fact that his first comment about seeing Eleven was “My god, is she Russian?” , without any proof, seems almost like he was trying to divert suspicion. Or, this is how he assumed a real republican would act amidst all the “Russian hysteria”. The fact that Ted says “They’re our government we can trust them”, may have very well been been a calculated maneuver on his part-if he assumed his house (like Hopper’s) was bugged. Also in s2, when the government says not to tell anyone of the incident, he salutes them (again very over the top). But, he later tells a coworker about “the Russian girl who stayed in their house”. Why would he do this if he’s an actual ‘over-the-top republican patriot’, who trusts his government ? 

Well,  I actually think he was taking a well calculated risk-  exposing such government secrets would clearly be illegal, but why would a Russian spy talk to his coworkers about accidentally housing one? He may of even played it up talking about the ‘Russian threat’. He knew it would get back to the Government agents- and this would divert suspicion of him being part of a sleeper cell. 

*Also, if Ted is a good old republican conservative, I find it interesting that we never see the family pray or see a single cross in their house.

Essentially I believe Ted does care for his family, but a lot of himself is a fake facade- his past as an athlete and his republican affiliation/values are all there to build the allusion of what Nancy describes as the perfect “nuclear family.”

[saccharinedanganimagines]

Pregame Headcanons for Shuichi, Kiibo, Rantaro and Kokichi

Thank you to the anon who requested this one!

I’m still figuring out where I stand in the great “If Danganronpa was really just a TV show VS if Tsumugi lied and everything’s real” debate. 

Uhh this turned really analytical. But this is just my personal take on pregame character personalities.

These headcanons are loosely based on the characters’ first lines in the prologue, before they transformed into Ultimates.

I believe that their Ultimate Talents correspond with their true personalities and way of facing life. I think that their titles were given to them based on what they were like- only now, their traits are amplified. 

Personalities twisted into extremities or vice versa.

So, if Kaede secretly liked seeing people smile prior NDRV3- regardless if she thought that everyone around her was rotten- in the killing game, this turns into a deep passion to actively try to make people smile through her talent.

I’ll try to give my best reasons for these headcanons! Sorry if it’s a little messy, but I hope you guys take something out of my rambles!

~ Mod Ouma

Rantaro Amami

His first title was Ultimate Adventurer.

It was likely that he did trust people and that he even enjoyed meeting new friends. 

An adventurer is always up for new and exciting events. 

Pregame Rantaro could be an adrenaline junkie.

He visits the sketchiest parts of town to hang out with friends or goes bike racing. He knows doing stuff like this was dangerous, but he thinks he can get away with it.

NDRV3-Rantaro’s goal to find his sisters leads me to believe that he greatly valued the relationships that he did have and he may have been greedy over them too. That way, whenever he faces betrayal, he’d spiral deeply into suspicion and attempt to isolate himself and escape emotional pain.

I think he wouldn’t have restricted himself from having meaningful relationships with people either. He’s the type of guy to let things happen and just witness it. 

This will build a foundation for an ultimate who learned the hard way that he should always be wary.

He was a delinquent and a trouble maker, he had to learn how to get by somehow. This could account for his observant and wary nature.

Based on how distrusting he is and how desperate he appears to win the killing game, by then, I could only assume that he won the 52nd killing game by depending on very few people.

At some point, after experiencing Danganronpa-grade anime betrayals, he lost trust in everyone around him.

He looked out for himself, that’s how he earned his title as the Ultimate Survivor.

If it counts as pregame, after be won and became the SHSL Survivor, deprived himself of relationships, because that’s what always lowered most people’s chances of survival in Danganronpa.

Real life struggles and Danganronpa struggles are two types of despair. And compared to the latter, Rantaro would have more easily adapted to the former circumstances.

It’s also possible that he didn’t live in luxury.

An adventurer adapts to his environment, regardless of how dangerous it is. 

Rantaro may have had financial issues. This could justify his independent and self-sustaining nature in the game.

Pregame Rantaro was an opportunist through and through who he sought any type of reward due to his rough life. This made his fall into the despair of distrust and extreme independence as a survivor more dramatic.

Kokichi Ouma

He cares a lot about his friends.

Hell, even strangers.

I like to think that in his group of friends, he took up the leader role.

Perhaps this was because everyone’s awkward or codependent on each other. 

It was like a small self-fulfilling prophecy, one where he was the main character who helps everyone.

He was really attuned to what his friends are feeling and try his best to help with their moods.

Slow day in school? Why don’t we all hang out in an arcade later? Oh, maybe we all should play some Jenga? Hmm, oh! How about a game of ‘2 truths and a lie’!

He lets his friends beat him at chess, even though he could wipe them out with only a few moves.

He puts others before himself.

Oh, you heard or saw something scary?

“Do you want me to go check?”

He’s secretly an emotionally weak person, but he puts on a face because he knows his friends are the same way.

He has to be strong when no one else is. Little things like his own insecurities will only get in the way!

A lot of people will be intimidated with Kokichi because he often has an indecipherable, blank look on his face.

But then he also smiles really genuinely and can seem approachable.

He’s fond of people who stays strong in their standing. He wants to see them continue to be this way. He supports them and helps them grow as a sort of leader and #1 fan.

Which is why in the game, he pushes and prods Kaede, Shuichi, and Kaito- testing to see if any of them will falter. Trying to make sure they are who they say they are.

He’s really attached to his friends, so much so that he considers distancing himself a little. But he’s selfish enough in that regard to keep pestering them for friendship.

He also feels an almost self-righteous passion to watch over them.

This is the foundation for DICE in NDRV3.

Shuichi Saihara

He keeps his head down so much that you’ll rarely see his eyes.

But he’s actually really polite! Not so different from the SHSL detective, eh?

He likes to watch people debate and talk about morality, politics, and crime.

He doesn’t talk often, but when he does, he makes really good arguments in a conversation.

He’s like a gun with a silencer.

This is mostly because he’s not used to talking about his own interests.

And probably because he has a pretty twisted passion.

In the killing game, he’s the Ultimate Detective, before it, he was just Shuichi Saihara, a boy who liked solving difficult things.

Pregame Shuichi is basically NDVR3 Shuichi without most of his morals and with only his shy nature holding him back.

You have to know the hammer to hit the nail.

To solve a problem, is to learn how it works by trying to understand what or who caused it.

Even if he has to stoop down to their pattern of thinking. That’s his philosophy.

It’s like a self-righteous high, mentally committing a crime just so he knows how it went and how to solve it from there.

Not that he truly could, he’s no detective or judge.

His eyes become deathly bored and dull at the very thought of an easy mystery.

But that only serves to contrast how his eyes brighten at the mere mention of a true, clever mastermind to mentally challenge him.

It seems like fun and games to him, but he’s well aware that murder is a heavy crime.

That’s, ironically, also his justification for why he does what he does.

Kiibo/K1-B0

I believe he may have had a sort of hot-and-cold type of personality.

Perhaps he was struggling to develop his own identity and moral standing.

He may have been naive and socially awkward while being exposed to may different views in society- it could have confused him.

He’s very self-righteous in his beliefs, but also contradictory and changing.

One day, he’ll believe that persistently pushing support onto people is good.

Then tomorrow, he’ll believe that leaving people to grow and develop on their own would be preferable.

That’s why he’s the perfect fit as the viewer’s surrogate. And it’s why he’s a robot. He’s an ever-lasting debate of beliefs.

Pregame Kiibo may have aspired to be an optimistic and headstrong person for the sake of those who cares for him. Much like K1-B0 of the game.

He would often back down on a challenge to prove his worth as an individual.

But at the same time, he encourages others to do the same.

That’s the inspiration for his dislike for robophobia. It’s reminiscent of the type of discrimination associated with identity.

Which makes him perfect for the role of Hope.

Hope can burn bright, but it can also smother.

This is the inspiration for K1-B0’s programming towards ensuring that hope won- even if it meant sacrificing Shuichi, Maki and Himiko.

Pregame Kiibo died protecting his beliefs.

It caught the mastermin’ds attention.

NDRV3′s end theme revolved around a copy-cat crime, which means, Kiibo was picked out of other people because he’s like an epitome of the struggle of hope and despair.

Of course, Kiibo resisted.

His determination to fight despair was what hit the nail on his coffin.

He values personal integrity the most, doing the right things at the right times. For himself and for others around him.

His personality was altered into gradual extremities throughout the game, and was made into an AI.

He demonstrated what hope is. He was the embodiment of the fanbase’s conflict of interests.

And that’s being the cornerstone of despair whilst being the hope to fight against it.

[riusugoi]

Paragraphs on Conceptual Art By Sol Lewitt

The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding “the notion that  the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by the civilized  critic”. This should be good news to both artists and apes. With this assurance I hope to justify his confidence. To use a baseball metaphor (one artist wanted to hit the ball out of the park, another to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched), I am grateful for the opportunity  to strike out for myself.

I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work.  When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore usually he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art.

Conceptual art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or series of pieces is a device that is used at times, only to be ruined. Logic may be used to camouflage the real intent of the artist, to lull the viewer into the belief that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation  (such as logic vs. illogic). Some ideas are logical in conception and  illogical perceptually. The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously simple. Successful ideas generally have the appearance of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of ideas the artist is free even to surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition.  What the work of art looks like isn’t too important. It has to look like something if it has physical form. No matter what form it may finally have it must begin with an idea. It is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. Once given physical reality by the artist the work is open to the perception of all, including the artist. (I use the word perception to mean the apprehension of the sense data, the objective understanding of the idea, and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both). The work of art can be perceived only after it is completed.

Art that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily would be called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most optical, kinetic, light, and color art.

Since the function of conception and perception are contradictory (one pre-, the other post fact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, then arbitrary or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, taste and others whimsies would be eliminated from the making of the art. The work does not necessarily have to be rejected if it does not look well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward will eventually be visually pleasing.

To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in turn. The plan would design the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case, however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. After that the fewer decisions made in the course of completing the work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective as much as possible. This is the reason for using this method.

When an artist uses a multiple modular method he usually chooses a simple and readily available form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammar for the total work. In fact, it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means.

Conceptual art doesn’t really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or nay other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy.

It doesn’t really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once it is out of his hand the artist has no control over the way a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different way.

Recently there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around called primary structures, reductive, ejective, cool, and mini-art. No artist I know will own up to any of these either.  Therefore I conclude that it is part of a secret language that art critics use when communicating with each other through the medium of art magazines. Mini-art is best because it reminds one of miniskirts and long-legged girls.  It must refer to very small works of art. This is a very good idea. Perhaps  “mini-art” shows could be sent around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very small person; say less than five feet tall. If so, much good work will be found in the primary schools  (primary school primary structures).

If the artist carries through his idea and makes it into visible form, then all the steps in the process are of importance. The idea itself, even if not made visual, is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps –scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed works, models, studies, thoughts, conversations– are of interest.  Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product.

Determining what size a piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires three dimensions then it would seem any size would do. The question would be what size is best. If the thing were made gigantic then the size alone would be impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Again, if it is too small, it may become inconsequential. The height of the viewer may have some bearing on the work and also the size of the space into which it will be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the eye level of the viewer, or lower. I think the piece must be large enough to give the viewer whatever information he needs to understand the work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this understanding. (Unless the idea is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or access).

Space can be thought of as the cubic area occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval between things that can be measured. The intervals and measurements can be important to a work of art. If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the piece. If space is relatively unimportant it can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart) to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular space might also become a metric time element, a kind of regular beat or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is irregular gains more importance.

Architecture and three-dimensional art are of completely opposite natures.  The former is concerned with making an area with a specific function. Architecture, whether it is a work of art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not utilitarian. When three-dimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics, such as forming utilitarian areas, it weakens its function as art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the larger size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the form at the expense of losing the idea of the piece.

New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and large most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones who lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the materials well. It takes a good artist to use new materials and make them into a work of art. The danger is, I think, in making the physicality of the materials so important that it becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism).

Three-dimensional art of any kind is a physical fact. The physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions. The physicality of a three-dimensional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape only emphasize the physical aspects of the work. Anything that calls attention to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would want to ameliorate this emphasis on materiality as much as possible or to use it in a paradoxical way (to convert it into an idea). This kind of art, then, should be stated with the greatest economy of means. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions. Ideas may also be stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the form being unimportant.

These paragraphs are not intended as categorical imperatives, but the ideas stated are as close as possible to my thinking at this time. These ideas are the result of my work as an artist and are subject to change as my experience changes. I have tried to state them with as much clarity as possible. If the statements I make are unclear it may mean the thinking is unclear. Even while writing these ideas there seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I have tried to correct, but others will probably slip by). I do not advocate a conceptual form of art for all artists. I have found that it has worked well for me while other ways have not. It is one way of making art; other ways suit other artists. Nor do I think all conceptual art merits the viewer’s attention.  Conceptual art is good only when the idea is good.

[oliverbel]

CONCEPTUAL ART / MINIMALISM 

" Paragraphs on Conceptual Art " Sol Lewitt Artforum (June, 1967). 

The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding “the notion that the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by the civilized critic”. This should be good news to both artists and apes. With this assurance I hope to justify his confidence. To use a baseball metaphor (one artist wanted to hit the ball out of the park, another to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched), I am grateful for the opportunity to strike out for myself. I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore usually he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art. Conceptual art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or series of pieces is a device that is used at times, only to be ruined. Logic may be used to camouflage the real intent of the artist, to lull the viewer into the belief that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation (such as logic vs. illogic). Some ideas are logical in conception and illogical perceptually. The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously simple. Successful ideas generally have the appearance of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of ideas the artist is free even to surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition. What the work of art looks like isn't too important. It has to look like something if it has physical form. No matter what form it may finally have it must begin with an idea. It is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. Once given physical reality by the artist the work is open to the perception of al, including the artist. (I use the word perception to mean the apprehension of the sense data, the objective understanding of the idea, and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both). The work of art can be perceived only after it is completed. Art that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily would be called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most optical, kinetic, light, and color art. Since the function of conception and perception are contradictory (one pre-, the other postfact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, then arbitrary or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, taste and others whimsies would be eliminated from the making of the art. The work does not necessarily have to be rejected if it does not look well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward will eventually be visually pleasing. To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in turn. The plan would design the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case, however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. After that the fewer decisions made in the course of completing the work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective as much as possible. This is the reason for using this method. When an artist uses a multiple modular method he usually chooses a simple and readily available form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammar for the total work. In fact, it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means. Conceptual art doesn't really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or nay other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy. It doesn't really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once it is out of his hand the artist has no control over the way a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different way. Recently there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around called primary structures, reductive, rejective, cool, and mini-art. No artist I know will own up to any of these either. Therefore I conclude that it is part of a secret language that art critics use when communicating with each other through the medium of art magazines. Mini-art is best because it reminds one of miniskirts and long-legged girls. It must refer to very small works of art. This is a very good idea. Perhaps “mini-art” shows could be sent around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very small person, say under five feet tall. If so, much good work will be found in the primary schools (primary school primary structures). If the artist carries through his idea and makes it into visible form, then all the steps in the process are of importance. The idea itself, even if not made visual, is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps –scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed works, models, studies, thoughts, conversations– are of interest. Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product. Determining what size a piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires three dimensions then it would seem any size would do. The question would be what size is best. If the thing were made gigantic then the size alone would be impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Again, if it is too small, it may become inconsequential. The height of the viewer may have some bearing on the work and also the size of the space into which it will be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the eye level of the viewer, or lower. I think the piece must be large enough to give the viewer whatever information he needs to understand the work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this understanding. (Unless the idea is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or access). Space can be thought of as the cubic area occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval between things that can be measured. The intervals and measurements can be important to a work of art. If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the piece. If space is relatively unimportant it can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart) to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular space might also become a metric time element, a kind of regular beat or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is ireregular gains more importance. Architecture and three-dimensional art are of completely opposite natures. The former is concerned with making an area with a specific function. Architecture, whether it is a work of art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not utilitarian. When threedimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics, such as forming utilitarian areas, it weakens its function as art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the larger size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the form at the expense of losing the idea of the piece. New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and large most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones who lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the materials well. It takes a good artist to use new materials and make them into a work of art. The danger is, I think, in making the physicality of the materials so important that it becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism). Three-dimensional art of any kind is a physical fact. The physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions. The physicality of a three-dimensional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape only emphasize the physical aspects of the work. Anything that calls attention to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would want o ameliorate this emphasis on materiality as much as possible or to use it in a paradoxical way (to convert it into an idea). This kind of art, then, should be stated with the greatest economy of means. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions. Ideas may also be stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the form being unimportant. These paragraphs are not intended as categorical imperatives, but the ideas stated are as close as possible to my thinking at this time. These ideas are the result of my work as an artist and are subject to change as my experience changes. I have tried to state them with as much clarity as possible. If the statements I make are unclear it may mean the thinking is unclear. Even while writing these ideas there seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I have tried to correct, but others will probably slip by). I do not advocate a conceptual form of art for all artists. I have found that it has worked well for me while other ways have not. It is one way of making art; other ways suit other artists. Nor do I think all conceptual art merits the viewer's attention. Conceptual art is good only when the idea is good. Sentences on Conceptual Art 1. Conceptual artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They leap to conclusions that logic cannot reach. 2. Rational judgements repeat rational judgements. 3. Irrational judgements lead to new experience. 4. Formal art is essentially rational. 5. Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically. 6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of the piece he compromises the result and repeats past results. 7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from idea to completion. His wilfulness may only be ego. 8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote a whole tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition, thus placing limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to make art that goes beyond the limitations. 9. The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the concept. 10. Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical. 11. Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order. They may set one off in unexpected directions, but an idea must necessarily be completed in the mind before the next one is formed. 12. For each work of art that becomes physical there are many variations that do not. 13. A work of art may be understood as a conductor from the artist's mind to the viewer's. But it may never reach the viewer, or it may never leave the artist's mind. 14. The words of one artist to another may induce an idea chain, if they share the same concept. 15. Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may use any form, from an expression of words (written or spoken) to physical reality, equally. 16. If words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then they are art and not literature; numbers are not mathematics. 17. All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within the conventions of art. 18. One usually understands the art of the past by applying the convention of the present, thus misunderstanding the art of the past. 19. The conventions of art are altered by works of art. 20. Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by altering our perceptions. 21. Perception of ideas leads to new ideas. 22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it is complete. 23. The artist may misperceive (understand it differently from the artist) a work of art but still be set off in his own chain of thought by that misconstrual. 24. Perception is subjective. 25. The artist may not necessarily understand his own art. His perception is neither better nor worse than that of others. 26. An artist may perceive the art of others better than his own. 27. The concept of a work of art may involve the matter of the piece or the process in which it is made. 28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind and the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There are many side effects that the artist cannot imagine. These may be used as ideas for new works. 29. The process is mechanical and should not be tampered with. It should run its course. 30. There are many elements involved in a work of art. The most important are the most obvious. 31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes the material, one would assume the artist's concept involved the material. 32. Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution. 33. It is difficult to bungle a good idea. 34. When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art. 35. These sentences comment on art, but are not art. First published in 0-9 ( New York ), 1969, and Art-Language ( England ), May 1969.

[noosphe-re]

Paragraphs on Conceptual Art

By Sol LeWitt  The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding “the notion that  the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by the civilized  critic”. This should be good news to both artists and apes. With this assurance I hope to justify his confidence. To use a baseball metaphor (one artist wanted to hit the ball out of the park, another to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched), I am grateful for the opportunity  to strike out for myself.

I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work.  When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore usually he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art.

Conceptual art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or series of pieces is a device that is used at times, only to be ruined. Logic may be used to camouflage the real intent of the artist, to lull the viewer into the belief that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation  (such as logic vs. illogic). Some ideas are logical in conception and  illogical perceptually. The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously simple. Successful ideas generally have the appearance of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of ideas the artist is free even to surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition.  What the work of art looks like isn’t too important. It has to look like something if it has physical form. No matter what form it may finally have it must begin with an idea. It is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. Once given physical reality by the artist the work is open to the perception of al, including the artist. (I use the word perception to mean the apprehension of the sense data, the objective understanding of the idea, and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both). The work of art can be perceived only after it is completed.

Art that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily would be called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most optical, kinetic, light, and color art.

Since the function of conception and perception are contradictory (one pre-, the other post fact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, then arbitrary or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, taste and others whimsies would be eliminated from the making of the art. The work does not necessarily have to be rejected if it does not look well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward will eventually be visually pleasing.

To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in turn. The plan would design the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case, however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. After that the fewer decisions made in the course of completing the work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective as much as possible. This is the reason for using this method.

When an artist uses a multiple modular method he usually chooses a simple and readily available form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammar for the total work. In fact, it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means.

Conceptual art doesn’t really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or nay other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy.

It doesn’t really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once it is out of his hand the artist has no control over the way a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different way.

Recently there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around called primary structures, reductive, ejective, cool, and mini-art. No artist I know will own up to any of these either.  Therefore I conclude that it is part of a secret language that art critics use when communicating with each other through the medium of art magazines. Mini-art is best because it reminds one of miniskirts and long-legged girls.  It must refer to very small works of art. This is a very good idea. Perhaps  “mini-art” shows could be sent around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very small person; say less than five feet tall. If so, much good work will be found in the primary schools  (primary school primary structures).

If the artist carries through his idea and makes it into visible form, then all the steps in the process are of importance. The idea itself, even if not made visual, is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps –scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed works, models, studies, thoughts, conversations– are of interest.  Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product.

Determining what size a piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires three dimensions then it would seem any size would do. The question would be what size is best. If the thing were made gigantic then the size alone would be impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Again, if it is too small, it may become inconsequential. The height of the viewer may have some bearing on the work and also the size of the space into which it will be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the eye level of the viewer, or lower. I think the piece must be large enough to give the viewer whatever information he needs to understand the work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this understanding. (Unless the idea is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or access).

Space can be thought of as the cubic area occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval between things that can be measured. The intervals and measurements can be important to a work of art. If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the piece. If space is relatively unimportant it can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart) to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular space might also become a metric time element, a kind of regular beat or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is irregular gains more importance.

Architecture and three-dimensional art are of completely opposite natures.  The former is concerned with making an area with a specific function. Architecture, whether it is a work of art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not utilitarian. When three-dimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics, such as forming utilitarian areas, it weakens its function as art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the larger size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the form at the expense of losing the idea of the piece.

New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and large most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones who lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the materials well. It takes a good artist to use new materials and make them into a work of art. The danger is, I think, in making the physicality of the materials so important that it becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism).

Three-dimensional art of any kind is a physical fact. The physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions. The physicality of a three-dimensional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape only emphasize the physical aspects of the work. Anything that calls attention to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would want o ameliorate this emphasis on materiality as much as possible or to use it in a paradoxical way (to convert it into an idea). This kind of art, then, should be stated with the greatest economy of means. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions. Ideas may also be stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the form being unimportant.

These paragraphs are not intended as categorical imperatives, but the ideas stated are as close as possible to my thinking at this time. These ideas are the result of my work as an artist and are subject to change as my experience changes. I have tried to state them with as much clarity as possible. If the statements I make are unclear it may mean the thinking is unclear. Even while writing these ideas there seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I have tried to correct, but others will probably slip by). I do not advocate a conceptual form of art for all artists. I have found that it has worked well for me while other ways have not. It is one way of making art; other ways suit other artists. Nor do I think all conceptual art merits the viewer’s attention.  Conceptual art is good only when the idea is good.

[fionaharnett]

Paragraphs on Conceptual Art SOL LEWITT

" Paragraphs on Conceptual Art " Sol Lewitt The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding “the notion that the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by the civilized critic”. This should be good news to both artists and apes. With this assurance I hope to justify his confidence. To use a baseball metaphor (one artist wanted to hit the ball out of the park, another to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched), I am grateful for the opportunity to strike out for myself. I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore usually he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art. Conceptual art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or series of pieces is a device that is used at times, only to be ruined. Logic may be used to camouflage the real intent of the artist, to lull the viewer into the belief that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation (such as logic vs. illogic). Some ideas are logical in conception and illogical perceptually. The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously simple. Successful ideas generally have the appearance of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of ideas the artist is free even to surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition. What the work of art looks like isn't too important. It has to look like something if it has physical form. No matter what form it may finally have it must begin with an idea. It is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. Once given physical reality by the artist the work is open to the perception of al, including the artist. (I use the word perception to mean the apprehension of the sense data, the objective understanding of the idea, and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both). The work of art can be perceived only after it is completed. Art that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily would be called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most optical, kinetic, light, and color art. Since the function of conception and perception are contradictory (one pre-, the other postfact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, then arbitrary or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, taste and others whimsies would be eliminated from the making of Artforum (June, 1967). the art. The work does not necessarily have to be rejected if it does not look well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward will eventually be visually pleasing. To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in turn. The plan would design the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case, however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. After that the fewer decisions made in the course of completing the work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective as much as possible. This is the reason for using this method. When an artist uses a multiple modular method he usually chooses a simple and readily available form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammar for the total work. In fact, it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means. Conceptual art doesn't really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or nay other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy. It doesn't really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once it is out of his hand the artist has no control over the way a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different way. Recently there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around called primary structures, reductive, rejective, cool, and mini-art. No artist I know will own up to any of these either. Therefore I conclude that it is part of a secret language that art critics use when communicating with each other through the medium of art magazines. Mini-art is best because it reminds one of miniskirts and long-legged girls. It must refer to very small works of art. This is a very good idea. Perhaps “mini-art” shows could be sent around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very small person, say under five feet tall. If so, much good work will be found in the primary schools (primary school primary structures). If the artist carries through his idea and makes it into visible form, then all the steps in the process are of importance. The idea itself, even if not made visual, is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps –scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed works, models, studies, thoughts, conversations– are of interest. Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product. Determining what size a piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires three dimensions then it would seem any size would do. The question would be what size is best. If the thing were made gigantic then the size alone would be impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Again, if it is too small, it may become inconsequential. The height of the viewer may have some bearing on the work and also the size of the space into which it will be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the eye level of the viewer, or lower. I think the piece must be large enough to give the viewer whatever information he needs to understand the work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this understanding. (Unless the idea is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or access). Space can be thought of as the cubic area occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval between things that can be measured. The intervals and measurements can be important to a work of art. If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the piece. If space is relatively unimportant it can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart) to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular space might also become a metric time element, a kind of regular beat or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is ireregular gains more importance. Architecture and three-dimensional art are of completely opposite natures. The former is concerned with making an area with a specific function. Architecture, whether it is a work of art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not utilitarian. When three- dimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics, such as forming utilitarian areas, it weakens its function as art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the larger size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the form at the expense of losing the idea of the piece. New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and large most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones who lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the materials well. It takes a good artist to use new materials and make them into a work of art. The danger is, I think, in making the physicality of the materials so important that it becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism). Three-dimensional art of any kind is a physical fact. The physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions. The physicality of a three-dimensional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape only emphasize the physical aspects of the work. Anything that calls attention to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would want o ameliorate this emphasis on materiality as much as possible or to use it in a paradoxical way (to convert it into an idea). This kind of art, then, should be stated with the greatest economy of means. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions. Ideas may also be stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the form being unimportant. These paragraphs are not intended as categorical imperatives, but the ideas stated are as close as possible to my thinking at this time. These ideas are the result of my work as an artist and are subject to change as my experience changes. I have tried to state them with as much clarity as possible. If the statements I make are unclear it may mean the thinking is unclear. Even while writing these ideas there seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I have tried to correct, but others will probably slip by). I do not advocate a conceptual form of art for all artists. I have found that it has worked well for me while other ways have not. It is one way of making art; other ways suit other artists. Nor do I think all conceptual art merits the viewer's attention. Conceptual art is good only when the idea is good. Sentences on Conceptual Art 1. Conceptual artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They leap to conclusions that logic cannot reach. 2. Rational judgements repeat rational judgements. 3. Irrational judgements lead to new experience. 4. Formal art is essentially rational. 5. Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically. 6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of the piece he compromises the result and repeats past results. 7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from idea to completion. His wilfulness may only be ego. 8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote a whole tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition, thus placing limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to make art that goes beyond the limitations. 9. The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the concept. 10. Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical. 11. Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order. They may set one off in unexpected directions, but an idea must necessarily be completed in the mind before the next one is formed. 12. For each work of art that becomes physical there are many variations that do not. 13. A work of art may be understood as a conductor from the artist's mind to the viewer's. But it may never reach the viewer, or it may never leave the artist's mind. 14. The words of one artist to another may induce an idea chain, if they share the same concept. 15. Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may use any form, from an expression of words (written or spoken) to physical reality, equally. 16. If words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then they are art and not literature; numbers are not mathematics. 17. All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within the conventions of art. 18. One usually understands the art of the past by applying the convention of the present, thus misunderstanding the art of the past. 19. The conventions of art are altered by works of art. 20. Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by altering our perceptions. 21. Perception of ideas leads to new ideas. 22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it is complete. 23. The artist may misperceive (understand it differently from the artist) a work of art but still be set off in his own chain of thought by that misconstrual. 24. Perception is subjective. 25. The artist may not necessarily understand his own art. His perception is neither better nor worse than that of others. 26. An artist may perceive the art of others better than his own. 27. The concept of a work of art may involve the matter of the piece or the process in which it is made. 28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind and the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There are many side effects that the artist cannot imagine. These may be used as ideas for new works. 29. The process is mechanical and should not be tampered with. It should run its course. 30. There are many elements involved in a work of art. The most important are the most obvious. 31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes the material, one would assume the artist's concept involved the material. 32. Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution. 33. It is difficult to bungle a good idea. 34. When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art. 35. These sentences comment on art, but are not art. First published in 0-9 ( New York ), 1969, and Art-Language ( England ), May 1969.

I called my initial mini project 'cheesy'....even though I liked the pictures, and felt the music well, there was something missing. My lecturer said that a slideshow with music would always look slick, and I agree...take away the music and the photos gently mixing into one another and what is left? The essay above was mentioned in our first session of Beyond the Frame, and I know I will refer to it often.

[one-additional-time]

Intro - June, 2013 [Translated]

Here is a great RAM-era interview I found on Issuu.com! There’s discussion about the guest musicians, real instruments vs electronic equipment, the lyrics, why new music takes them so long, and the RAM marketing campaign. Fair warning that I do not speak German, and this was done via Google Translate and WordReference.com, so it’s loosely translated at best, but it is nice readable English.

“ONLY THE MUSIC” Intro Magazine, June 2013

Eight years ago, Daft Punk released their last studio album Human After All. Now, Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo are back: Random Access Memories, their most elaborate work, is completely without outside samples and is based on a cross-generational guest list. Together with Giorgio Moroder, Nile Rodgers, Pharrell Williams, and six other guest musicians, they explore a spectrum of sounds ranging from West Coast Pop to disco, to contemporary house and R&B.

The Random Access Memories project was subject to extreme secrecy. Following a strict schedule set by the two Frenchmen, it was revealed to the public little by little via advertising clips on Saturday Night Live and at the Coachella Festival. Sebastian Ingenhoff and Thomas Venker speak exclusively with Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo about the album’s different production methods, the slow work pace, the guest musicians, and the long-awaited lyrics.

Daft Punk, why did you choose the title Random Access Memories? Thomas Bangalter: It is about the interrelationship between computer memory and human memory, which is more and more being replaced by digital technologies. Technological progress plays an important role nowadays, it is being integrated into everyday life more and more and so has a real impact on human behavior. We have always been interested in futuristic ideas, as you can tell from the robot personas we assume on stage. Robot figures, which shift between artificial intelligence and human behavior, are a recurring theme in science fiction.

On your album, however, you did not use computer technology. The tracks were done with analog equipment and guest musicians. So you are “human after all”! Thomas: That’s true, but it’s still the same music. You can achieve precise craftsmanship in an analogous way and also have a certain robotic quality. It works on a different level than artificial intelligence. The human aspect of electronic music has always interested us. How do you make music that is mainly produced with synthesizers and sequencers come to life? Lifeless electronic music is synonymous with bad music.

You were able to get two pioneers of dance music together as guest musicians, Giorgio Moroder and Nile Rodgers. Moroder, for example, took up techno at the start with Donna Summer’s 1977 production “I Feel Love”. Thomas: We wanted to represent a broad spectrum to carry the past into the future, to draw a connecting line through the decades. Not in an archival sense, but with a clear view of the future. Giorgio Moroder may be over seventy years old, but he still has something to say, and he does more contemporary work than a lot of young producers. We wanted to create something that is timeless but also contemporary.

The piece with Giorgio Moroder is a good nine minutes long. It starts with a monologue in which he first reflects on himself and his work, before handing the stage over to a meandering track that shows what freedom music can have. Did he come up with that idea himself? Thomas: We wanted to document the history of his music. Where did Giorgio come from? What kind of circumstances did he face when he invented techno? Did it come about by accident or was it due to his ideas of futuristic music? This is of course something archival, but then comes this incredible song with incredible synthesizers and a great hookline. You can immediately recognize Giorgio Moroder’s style. But also our style – at least I hope so.  It was about the line connecting us. We want to show that today’s dance music would not be possible without the dance music from the 1970s.

The other disco-era icon on the album is guitarist Nile Rodgers, who is still very busy – he was just on tour with Chic and in the studio with Tensnake. How was it collaborating with him? Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo: He is now over sixty years old, but insanely energetic and young at heart. It was incredible to be able to work with him. He still comes across as a child, totally enthusiastic and engaged. If you feel Nile Rodgers’ energy, then you realize that physical age says nothing about a person. He was very ill, he had cancer. When you have conquered a disease like that, you live your life more consciously and intensely. He is incredibly productive and always wants to do three things at a time. Thomas: He told us an incredibly beautiful story about the making of Chic’s “I Want Your Love”.  When Nile first heard “I Feel Love” by Moroder and Donna Summer, he thought, “Wow, this guy’s playing is super tight, this is incredibly fast and precise.” When he realized the tightness came from the sequencer, he wanted to bring that into his guitar playing. So he followed the sequencer. And this is how “I Want Your Love” by Chic came about! Listen to both pieces one by one and pay attention to the guitar playing. It’s amazing. No one knew that until now. Nile is a huge fan of Giorgio Moroder. And vice versa, Giorgio is also a big Chic fan. But they never really worked together. On Random Access Memories they have finally come together. Obviously that makes us proud!

On the other hand, you recruited young producers like Gonzales, Panda Bear, and Pharrell for the album. Thomas: Exactly: “Past, present, future”. They are all producers we like and who have touched us somehow. Take the tracks with Pharrell Williams and Nile Rodgers – the most innovative R&B producer of the past decade meets the most brilliant disco guitarist in the world. The guests on the album are virtuosos in their field and were able to make a real contribution to our ideas. Neither Guy-Manuel nor I are outstanding at the piano — Gonzales, however, is certainly one of the best pianists in the world. So he was able to contribute something that we could never have done in our lives. We did not just want big names, but rather contributions that made sense.

The lyrics are about the search for love, the essence of life, the hedonistic escapism of the night — and all the abysses connected with it, the dramas and losses. That’s typical of disco, that the music is often very uplifting but the lyrics are contradictory. That is tradition, even so for Chic. Thomas: Dance music needs that emotional depth, that contrast of sadness and happiness. It is always easier to create something that is sad or happy. But to combine both in a song, that is art. Guy-Manuel: That’s the great thing: you can be incredibly happy and be crying at the same time. Ideally when you’re dancing, you feel like a volcanic eruption, bubbling over in all directions. It’s not just black and white, but many shades between. Our albums have always tried to represent a broad spectrum of feelings. There are very dark tracks from us, but you can still play them in a club because they might have an uplifting bass line or a nice melody.

This year is your anniversary: 20 years of Daft Punk. Yet you have announced you will not be performing live this year. Why? Guy-Manuel: There is no need to rush. We have completely invested the past few years in the record, now we want to enjoy the anniversary. Thomas: We want people to focus on the album and not on us standing on stage. It should be something special with a very particular value — after all, it was a very ambitious undertaking. Guy-Manuel: For many, a new album is just an excuse to go back on tour. That’s where they can make money. But we want it to have a special appreciation and not be just a flashy stage show. That’s why we’ve said from the outset: Here’s the record, and it stands on its own. No music videos, no tour, only the music.

You started in 1993 as young bedroom producers. Now for the new album you have worked in several big studios like Ampex in Los Angeles and Electric Lady in New York. How did that affect writing the tracks? Thomas: Was our songwriting process really different than before? We have never thought of electronic music as computer music, as something that you sort of spit out. It has always been about capturing and preserving a special moment. When we started, it was much more chaotic than it is now. We had a bunch of drum machines and a couple of good ideas we could feed into them. But we never wanted to control the equipment like a computer, rather appreciate it as a living thing. As an organism. Now we are doing the same thing with real instruments. If you do punk rock and suddenly everyone else starts doing punk rock, it would get boring at some point. Then maybe you want to compose an opera, just to see if you can bring punk rock into it. Then opera becomes the new punk rock. Guy-Manuel: Now electronic dance music has become very uniform. With the computer, anyone can put tracks together, but often they are only presets that have been strung together. It’s not a challenge. We want to make music that is more than a few mouse clicks. We want to have emotion and soul. Just something human. Bangalter: It’s hard to program emotion on a computer. Analog synthesizers give you a mix of different sounds, but they never sound sterile. It is much different than a computer. If you then add in elements like a Fender Rhodes and a keyboard, you can create poetry. You can’t produce an album with a few mouse clicks. Obviously this is a very conservative point of view. But just imagine what would have happened if the few people who make interesting music on the computer would have used real instruments.

But Chicago house, which greatly influenced you, relied on this difference. It was a statement against submissiveness, a revolution in the sense that you no longer had to master instruments to produce music. It was about being creative with something simple like a drum machine and a sampler. Guy-Manuel: Of course, and the music always sounded very warm. Chicago House had soul and depth, something you find in few dance tracks now. Maybe because at the time they were using real synthesizers and real drum machines. It might have been produced quickly, but it was made with a lot of attention to detail. When I’m at a club and there’s a Robert Armani track on, I can instantly distinguish it from the mush of beats. However I cannot tell most contemporary dance tracks apart, a lot of it just sounds boring to me.

Your first album Homework was the blueprint of a somewhat more brutal sound that was cultivated a few years later by the label Ed Banger. Pedro Winter was also your manager for a while. Are you following the Parisian scene now? Thomas: Ed Banger is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year. Pedro comes from our generation, we started at the same time and have been experiencing similar advancements. We share the same interests and preferences. It’s nice to see that they’ve found their way and that this sound lives on. It’s hard for artists and labels to stay on the ball for years and years, because the scene changes: younger people grow up and want different sounds. If you’re still around after so long, then you’ve done something right.

In twenty years you’ve only released four studio albums. You take a lot of time. Thomas: We have to do it like that, because it gets increasingly more difficult to reinvent ourselves. You want to become more complex and not a caricature of yourself. Many older musicians keep making the same thing out of convenience, because they are afraid to lose their fans. But that’s bullshit. If you don’t have any challenges to face as a musician you might want to retire. We take a lot of time because we want to reach a higher level with each album. Like a video game. That’s why the latest album is always the most difficult for us.

As a marketing gimmick you aired two fifteen-second commercials on Saturday Night Live. What was the idea behind the campaign? Thomas: It was supposed to be very small teasers that don’t give away too much but arouse curiosity. Like a good commercial. We intentionally didn’t want anyone to hear any songs in full. Physical marketing through print magazines, TV stations, and billboards just has a better vibe than online marketing. It fits better for us, because we grew up with that. All of this online marketing is not very poetic. We make the tools available to people and they can do with them what they want. We don’t use the internet much ourselves. Of course we shot an elaborate video that we put on YouTube, but that’s not exactly what we wanted this time.

But at the same time you are known for your spectacular music videos. You’ve worked with major music video directors like Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry in the past. Thomas: Many say our clips were revolutionary, but the revolution was that we didn’t make any. After the two fifteen-second videos came a slightly longer performance video with Nile Rodgers, Pharrell Williams, and our two robots. But it’s not a music video, it’s more like an advertisement.  In either case it’s pretty funny. I don’t think you can really surprise people with music videos anymore in the internet age. That’s why you have to move forward, giving yourself challenges and new formats to utilize, both on a musical and an aesthetic level. Random Access Memories is a complete piece of artwork that must first be absorbed. For me that could go on for more than a year. What comes after that? A tour? A film? We’ll see.

—

THE HISTORY OF DAFT PUNK Through the years with Homem-Christo and Bangalter

1974 On February 8th Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo is born in Paris.

1975 On January 3rd Thomas Bangalter is born in Paris.

1992 de Homem-Christo and Bangalter form the rock band Darlin’ with Phoenix musician Laurent Brancowitz. The British magazine Melody Maker described their demo as “a dafty punky trash” - a historically significant phrase.

1993 Bangalter and de Homem-Christo change their sound, creating a techno house group and naming it Daft Punk.

1994 Scotsman Stuart McMillan reacts euphorically to their hand-delivered demo “The New Wave” and signs the two to his label Soma. As a result the three singles “The New Wave / Assault / Wave”, “Da Funk / Rollin’ & Scratchin’”, and “Into Silver Club” are released.

1995 Daft Punk move to the major record label Virgin, sending Da Funk up the charts with a bigger marketing campaign.

Thomas Bangalter forms the label Roulé.

1996 The last photo of the two in which you can see their faces is shot in May 1996.

1997 Daft Punk’s first album is released on January 17th. Homework makes them well-known outside the club scene. Among the biggest hits of the album are Da Funk, Around The World, and Revolution 909.

Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo, together with Eric Chedeville, forms the label Crydamoure and the group Le Knight Club.

1998 Bangalter, together with Alan Braxe and Benjamin Diamond as Stardust, releases the hit single “Music Sounds Better With You”.

Bangalter and de Homem-Christo go into the studio with Romanthony. One of the songs from this session, “One More Time”, is released two years later as a single and, with more than four million copies sold, becomes the duo’s biggest hit so far.

2001 On March 9th their second album Discovery is released. In addition to Romanthony, there are guest appearances by DJ Sneak and Todd Edwards. It will go on to sell three million copies.

For music videos of Discovery’s single releases Daft Punk use excerpts from Interstella 5555, a musical they produced with anime director Leiji Matsumoto.

2002 Thomas Bangalter’s partner, the actress Élodie Bouchez, gives birth to their son Tarra-Jay on January 22nd.

Bangalter produces part of the soundtrack for the controversial French film Irreversible by Gaspar Noé. He also later worked on the soundtrack of its successor, Enter The Void [Note: Not really true, Thomas did help a little bit but was busy with Tron at the time; he is credited on this film as a “sound effects director”].

On July 8th, LCD Soundsystem releases their song “Losing My Edge”, in which James Murphy sings about being the first guy playing Daft Punk to the rock kids.

2005 On March 14th their third album Human After All is released. It’s a harbinger of Daft Punk’s later period of sampleless-ness.

On February 21st LCD Soundsystem released their hit song “Daft Punk Is Playing At My House”.

2009 Daft Punk produce the soundtrack of Tron: Legacy. The album is released on December 6th.

2010 On October 20th Daft Punk make a guest appearance at the Phoenix show at Madison Square Garden. They play a mix of “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger”, “Around The World”, and “1901”.

2013 On May 17th Random Access Memories is released. For the duo it is one of the most important moments of their career, “because the best is always yet to come,” says Bangalter. “You must not think retrospectively.”

[etensinhor]

Paragraphs on Conceptual Art

By Sol Lewitt

The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding “the notion that  the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by the civilized  critic”. This should be good news to both artists and apes. With this assurance I hope to justify his confidence. To use a baseball metaphor (one artist wanted to hit the ball out of the park, another to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched), I am grateful for the opportunity  to strike out for myself.

I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work.  When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore usually he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art.

Conceptual art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or series of pieces is a device that is used at times, only to be ruined. Logic may be used to camouflage the real intent of the artist, to lull the viewer into the belief that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation  (such as logic vs. illogic). Some ideas are logical in conception and  illogical perceptually. The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously simple. Successful ideas generally have the appearance of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of ideas the artist is free even to surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition.  What the work of art looks like isn’t too important. It has to look like something if it has physical form. No matter what form it may finally have it must begin with an idea. It is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. Once given physical reality by the artist the work is open to the perception of al, including the artist. (I use the word perception to mean the apprehension of the sense data, the objective understanding of the idea, and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both). The work of art can be perceived only after it is completed.

Art that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily would be called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most optical, kinetic, light, and color art.

Since the function of conception and perception are contradictory (one pre-, the other post fact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, then arbitrary or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, taste and others whimsies would be eliminated from the making of the art. The work does not necessarily have to be rejected if it does not look well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward will eventually be visually pleasing.

To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in turn. The plan would design the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case, however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. After that the fewer decisions made in the course of completing the work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective as much as possible. This is the reason for using this method.

When an artist uses a multiple modular method he usually chooses a simple and readily available form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammar for the total work. In fact, it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means.

Conceptual art doesn’t really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or nay other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy.

It doesn’t really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once it is out of his hand the artist has no control over the way a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different way.

Recently there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around called primary structures, reductive, ejective, cool, and mini-art. No artist I know will own up to any of these either.  Therefore I conclude that it is part of a secret language that art critics use when communicating with each other through the medium of art magazines. Mini-art is best because it reminds one of miniskirts and long-legged girls.  It must refer to very small works of art. This is a very good idea. Perhaps  “mini-art” shows could be sent around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very small person; say less than five feet tall. If so, much good work will be found in the primary schools  (primary school primary structures).

If the artist carries through his idea and makes it into visible form, then all the steps in the process are of importance. The idea itself, even if not made visual, is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps –scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed works, models, studies, thoughts, conversations– are of interest.  Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product.

Determining what size a piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires three dimensions then it would seem any size would do. The question would be what size is best. If the thing were made gigantic then the size alone would be impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Again, if it is too small, it may become inconsequential. The height of the viewer may have some bearing on the work and also the size of the space into which it will be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the eye level of the viewer, or lower. I think the piece must be large enough to give the viewer whatever information he needs to understand the work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this understanding. (Unless the idea is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or access).

Space can be thought of as the cubic area occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval between things that can be measured. The intervals and measurements can be important to a work of art. If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the piece. If space is relatively unimportant it can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart) to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular space might also become a metric time element, a kind of regular beat or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is irregular gains more importance.

Architecture and three-dimensional art are of completely opposite natures.  The former is concerned with making an area with a specific function. Architecture, whether it is a work of art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not utilitarian. When three-dimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics, such as forming utilitarian areas, it weakens its function as art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the larger size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the form at the expense of losing the idea of the piece.

New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and large most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones who lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the materials well. It takes a good artist to use new materials and make them into a work of art. The danger is, I think, in making the physicality of the materials so important that it becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism).

Three-dimensional art of any kind is a physical fact. The physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions. The physicality of a three-dimensional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape only emphasize the physical aspects of the work. Anything that calls attention to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would want o ameliorate this emphasis on materiality as much as possible or to use it in a paradoxical way (to convert it into an idea). This kind of art, then, should be stated with the greatest economy of means. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions. Ideas may also be stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the form being unimportant.

These paragraphs are not intended as categorical imperatives, but the ideas stated are as close as possible to my thinking at this time. These ideas are the result of my work as an artist and are subject to change as my experience changes. I have tried to state them with as much clarity as possible. If the statements I make are unclear it may mean the thinking is unclear. Even while writing these ideas there seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I have tried to correct, but others will probably slip by). I do not advocate a conceptual form of art for all artists. I have found that it has worked well for me while other ways have not. It is one way of making art; other ways suit other artists. Nor do I think all conceptual art merits the viewer’s attention.  Conceptual art is good only when the idea is good.