Favorite novels

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky

I also agree with the SVW-comparison. What do you think of the Secret Admirers? They are part of what I think is important about the book; the character Sangomon Taylor in "Zodiac" is important for the same reason, as are the real-life ELFs and WOMBLES and Theodore Kaczynskis and Anonymous. The kind of thinking you mention is shallow and also scary ...[text shortened]... s/them business, and perhaps I'll elaborate tomorrow, since this post is pretty content-free.

Considering these interests, you ought to search 'grey vampire' and 'troll' on this blog here:
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Techne' means 'art', doesn't it?

After reading this discussion, I don't feel so bad about not being able to slog through the book.

I'd be more inclined to use 'skill' or 'craft', art lends itself to aesthetic consideration and I think the intention is for there to be some utility or functional aspect, even if that is, in the case of a painter, to provide glory to god, social commentary or obligation to one's landlord.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'd be more inclined to use 'skill' or 'craft', art lends itself to aesthetic consideration and I think the intention is for there to be some utility or functional aspect, even if that is, in the case of a painter, to provide glory to god, social commentary or obligation to one's landlord.

Well, the distinction between aesthetic and utilitarian considerations is very, how shall I say, Victorian; I'd prefer to adopt a robust, Greek viewpoint whereby function and aesthetics combine. Architecture has always been a good example of this. And we may speak of the art of governing, the art of war, and so on. The art of roofing. Why not? (Plato's 'The Statesman' (Politicus) is to blame for my interest in this stuff).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, the distinction between aesthetic and utilitarian considerations is very, how shall I say, Victorian; I'd prefer to adopt a robust, Greek viewpoint whereby function and aesthetics combine. Architecture has always been a good example of this. And we may speak of the art of governing, the art of war, and so on. The art of roofing. Why not? (Plato's 'The Statesman' (Politicus) is to blame for my interest in this stuff).

I think the distinction is valid, lest we make the mistake of assuming all aesthetic things are of some functional use, or to better put it; labelling anything aesthetic as techne, irrespective of its functionality.

The 'art' of war makes it sound very glorious and noble, though I suspect no such situation exists.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think the distinction is valid, lest we make the mistake of assuming all aesthetic things are of some functional use, or to better put it; labelling anything aesthetic as techne, irrespective of its functionality.

The 'art' of war makes it sound very glorious and noble, though I suspect no such situation exists.

Or we could talk about the aesthetic value of a given instance of techne. The art of rhetoric -- speaking well is a skill that, taken to its height, can evoke an aesthetic response that contributes to the achievement of its goal. Isolating the aesthetic is merely a hangover from 'l'art pour l'art', a deceitful expression if ever there was one. Actually, I'd argue that all art has a function, else why bother making it? Again, 'function' has a pejorative aura stemming from a dated concept of high art versus the philistine bourgeosie.

The art of war would be war waged with maximum skill. War has its own aesthetic, too, like it or not.

We also talk of the surgeon's art. Every technical pursuit can be viewed as an art, marrying form and function for maximum aesthetic kicks. Suspension bridges. The pleasure of driving a finely crafted automobile.

'Kunst' means both 'art' and 'skill'; it's an interesting nicety. Insisting on two different words for each meaning impoverishes English, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Or we could talk about the aesthetic value of a given instance of techne. The art of rhetoric -- speaking well is a skill that, taken to its height, can evoke an aesthetic response that contributes to the achievement of its goal. Isolating the aesthetic is merely a hangover from 'l'art pour l'art', a deceitful expression if ever there was one. Actually ...[text shortened]... ting on two different words for each meaning impoverishes English, in my opinion.

I'm not sure I agree with the notion of aesthetic 'value'. To assign value to somethign there needs to be a scale or measurement we can use, is there such a thing for aesthetics? If not, or at least if not in the objective sense, how can we not seperate the aesthetic from the functional?

I agree with the marrying of form and function being necessary for the most effective technical pursuit, but in my opinion calling it an art leads to a more romantic interpretation and mires the qualities it might have, some aesthetic and some functional. It may impoverish the language, I'm not sure. I guess it depends whether we're after a more lavish literary, or philosophically accurate goal.

On the subject of art for art's sake I'm of the mind that making art is an urge or appetite which wells up in us and it's point (if any) is merely its creation. A subjective desire to create which is probably derivative of our need to question the universe, a bi-product of evolutionary adaptation. Perhaps that's for another discussion though, being as it is a quickly formed explanation.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
My (slight) beef is that he doesn't develop female characters (even Amy Shaftoe) nearly as well as he does male ones, which gives the impression that he considers the female human experience more different from the male one than it actually is, enough to give the impression that he's got a similar sort of "us/them" mentality genderwise to the one you al "Zodiac", so I'm certainly not making blanket sexism-accusations against Stephenson.

Couldn't it be because it was more realistic for the main characters to be men? I mean, let's face it, the vast majority of hackers are men (I think!) and he even put a woman in their team (although not a main character). In the second world war society was pretty much sexist and since most of the main characters are in the military it seemed normal to me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Techne' means 'art', doesn't it?

After reading this discussion, I don't feel so bad about not being able to slog through the book.

He translates it as "crafts", which I also think is more precise (or art as in "mechanic arts"😉. Athena was not the goddess of art (as we understand the concept today), but more of crafts. Artisanship, if you will.

The book starts very well, then slows down but picks up again later on. I found it an relatively easy read, for a 900 page book.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'd be more inclined to use 'skill' or 'craft', art lends itself to aesthetic consideration and I think the intention is for there to be some utility or functional aspect, even if that is, in the case of a painter, to provide glory to god, social commentary or obligation to one's landlord.

Sorry, I missed this before my previous post. I agree entirely.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Kunst' means both 'art' and 'skill'; it's an interesting nicety. Insisting on two different words for each meaning impoverishes English, in my opinion.

I think the richness of English is in its immense vocabulary, not its grammar which is kind of blunt and direct. There are many examples that small subtle differences require different words (e.g. shimmer/flicker/glimmer/etc...).

Originally posted by Starrman
On the subject of art for art's sake I'm of the mind that making art is an urge or appetite which wells up in us and it's point (if any) is merely its creation. A subjective desire to create which is probably derivative of our need to question the universe, a bi-product of evolutionary adaptation.

Thus spaketh the...Artist! 😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Thus spaketh the...Artist! 😵

You do realise I recant my objective elitism in preference of a subjective surety that I am right in all things aesthetic? 😛

Originally posted by Starrman
You do realise I recant my objective elitism in preference of a subjective surety that I am right in all things aesthetic? 😛

I thought aesthetics had no absolute truth values. What gives?

Originally posted by Palynka
I thought aesthetics had no absolute truth values. What gives?

I have been considering 'mystery' as a philosophical concept.

Originally posted by Starrman
I have been considering 'mystery' as a philosophical concept.

I'll get a rope.