Would you consider forum based conversation to be an art form

[amorphous_constellation]

So I was roughly thinking, that maybe at its best, internet based discussion is more akin to art than conventional communication. That is because in this form of communication, words must pass through an amorphous medium, which takes the form of a blank white block, which is the canvas. In this 'impasse,' you are required to write, think, and reconfirm what you write. The words you write then first direct themselves inwardly to the writer, unlike with non-nuanced vocalization, as the writer is forced to look at the reflection his mind creates, perusing grammar and thought with critical eye. And then, someone else is able to take the time to think about what you have written, all of which allows for an unusually large liberty for thoughts to exist in the limbo of cognitive latency

For if you are striving to communicate something intriguing, it seems as though writing offers you raw marble as a work station, (in form of paper/marble-like blocks of blank internet space) where deliberation is no penalty. With the difficulty of an artist, you might strive to reveal something profound within that blank area. Vocalized communication in real-time, however, often seems to be seasoned with frenetic impatience. You are not often at liberty to think long and hard in-between your sentences, lest your communication partner should become annoyed. Thus, a sense of aesthetic might be sacrificed more readily for mere utility

Finally, though the writer wishes to convey truth, the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of the form betrays him. In seeing that each person's descriptions of reality are idiosyncratic, with no paragraph being anywhere the same length, and diction in snowflake-like diffusion, truth takes the form of a haystack with no needle. One realizes that each thinker molds his/her own model, as one's thoughts can only accrete into written words uniquely, as their being written allows this to be observed. (I suppose the same might be true of voice based recordings of ideas) Each post you could ever make, could ever be like the unique colors refracted by the cuddlefish of the mind. I suppose then, it becomes almost up for debate on whether something is nonsense or sense. One person's clear sky is the cloud of another

 

[Skwim]

Would you consider forum based conversation to be an art form

No.

.​

 

[PureX]

So I was thinking roughly, that maybe its best, internet based discussion is more akin to art than conventional communication. That is because in this form of communication, words must pass through an amorphous medium, which takes the form of a blank white block, which is the canvas. In this 'impasse,' you are required to write, think, and reconfirm what you write. The words you write then first direct themselves inwardly to the writer, unlike with non-nuanced vocalization, as the writer is forced to look at the reflection his mind creates, perusing grammar and thought with critical eye. And then, someone else is able to take the time to think about what you have written, all of which allows for an unusually large liberty for thoughts to exist in the limbo of cognitive latency

For if you are striving to communicate something intriguing, it seems as though writing offers you raw marble as a work station, (in form of paper/marble-like blocks of blank internet space) where deliberation is no penalty. With the difficulty of an artist, you might strive to reveal something profound within that blank area. Vocalized communication in real-time, however, often seems to be seasoned with frenetic impatience. You are not often at liberty to think long and hard in-between your sentences, lest your communication partner should become annoyed. Thus, a sense of aesthetic might be sacrificed more readily for mere utility

Finally, though the writer wishes to convey truth, the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of the form betrays him. In seeing that each person's descriptions of reality are idiosyncratic, with no paragraph being anywhere the same length, and diction in snowflake-like diffusion, truth takes the form of a haystack with no needle. One realizes that each thinker molds his/her own model, as one's thoughts can only accrete into written words uniquely, as their being written allows this to be observed. (I suppose the same might be true of voice based recordings of ideas) Each post you could ever make, could ever be like the unique colors refracted by the cuddlefish of the mind. I suppose then, it becomes almost up for debate on whether something is nonsense or sense. One person's clear sky is the cloud of another

You sure don't think much of art, do you.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You sure don't think much of art, do you.

Actually, I'm an artist myself.

Maybe I'm kind of stretching things too much with these ideas, basically I'm trying to make the case that writing is more art-like than speech, which I realize might not be exactly true, with more reflection. However, writing naturally involves a lot more deliberation than speech, and so the crux of my argument is that this extension of processing naturally replaces 'utility' with 'aesthetic.' And forum-based writing presupposes the idea that you represent just one point of view in a tapestry of perspectives, which might put more stylistic evolutionary pressure on one's communication through writing

I feel now however, that I am incorrect, as all communication forms probably have ways of falling anywhere along that spectrum. Therefore, perhaps writing isn't as stylistically special as I thought. All communication does have some art in it though, as not much is communicated (with a sense of strict utility) without it being subjectively stylized to some degree

 

[PureX]

Actually, I'm an artist myself.

Maybe I'm kind of stretching things too much with these ideas, basically I'm trying to make the case that writing is more art-like than speech, which I realize might not be exactly true, with more reflection. However, writing naturally involves a lot more deliberation than speech, and so the crux of my argument is that this extension of processing naturally replaces 'utility' with 'aesthetic.'

I feel now however, that I am incorrect, as all communication forms probably have ways of falling anywhere along that spectrum. Therefore, perhaps writing isn't as stylistically special as I thought

Like a great many people, you're confusing the medium with the intent, and therefor not understanding what art is, and what it is not.

Painting is not art. Sculpting is not art. Drawing is not art. Singing is not art. Acting is not art. Dancing is not art. Writing is not art. Speaking is not art. Entertaining, titillating, consternating, pleasing, decorating, designing, and crafting are not art. Although, any of these activities may be employed by an artist in the making of a work of art. So what is it that defines something as a work of art if it's not the activity that generated it?

The answer is the intent. It's what the artwork was created to do that defines it as a work of art, and how well it does what it was created to do determines how "good" (successful) a work of art it is. And so what is that defining artistic intent? Well, I had a professor back in my art school days that said, "art is a round trip ticket through someone else's experience of being". And that's as good a definition as I've ever heard.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Although, any of these activities may be employed by an artist in the making of a work of art. So what is it that defines something as a work of art if it's not the activity that generated it?

The answer is the intent.

Well, I will consider what you said, but talk of art will often remain a point of ponderance. Thinking for a moment about all the human lives being lived, it seems as though experiential inertia is impossible to avoid in every example. In other words, you are not nearly as much of a human noun as you are a human verb, and thus everything you touch is infected with your experience, which is outwardly shown in all those mediums. Everything we know kind of splinters off of your humaning of life, nothing seems to exist without a marriage to intent on some level. So thus, art might also be defined as an inconsequential air around intent.. Occurring only to decorate utility: a flower happens to be wonderful colors, a mountain happens to be beautiful to look at

 

[Revoltingest]

So I was thinking roughly, that maybe its best, internet based discussion is more akin to art than conventional communication. That is because in this form of communication, words must pass through an amorphous medium, which takes the form of a blank white block, which is the canvas. In this 'impasse,' you are required to write, think, and reconfirm what you write. The words you write then first direct themselves inwardly to the writer, unlike with non-nuanced vocalization, as the writer is forced to look at the reflection his mind creates, perusing grammar and thought with critical eye. And then, someone else is able to take the time to think about what you have written, all of which allows for an unusually large liberty for thoughts to exist in the limbo of cognitive latency

For if you are striving to communicate something intriguing, it seems as though writing offers you raw marble as a work station, (in form of paper/marble-like blocks of blank internet space) where deliberation is no penalty. With the difficulty of an artist, you might strive to reveal something profound within that blank area. Vocalized communication in real-time, however, often seems to be seasoned with frenetic impatience. You are not often at liberty to think long and hard in-between your sentences, lest your communication partner should become annoyed. Thus, a sense of aesthetic might be sacrificed more readily for mere utility

Finally, though the writer wishes to convey truth, the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of the form betrays him. In seeing that each person's descriptions of reality are idiosyncratic, with no paragraph being anywhere the same length, and diction in snowflake-like diffusion, truth takes the form of a haystack with no needle. One realizes that each thinker molds his/her own model, as one's thoughts can only accrete into written words uniquely, as their being written allows this to be observed. (I suppose the same might be true of voice based recordings of ideas) Each post you could ever make, could ever be like the unique colors refracted by the cuddlefish of the mind. I suppose then, it becomes almost up for debate on whether something is nonsense or sense. One person's clear sky is the cloud of another

It all depends upon the individual poster.
Yes for some.....a very definite & emphatic "no" for others.

 

[PureX]

Well, I will consider what you said, but talk of art will often remain a point of ponderance. Thinking for a moment about all the human lives being lived, it seems as though experiential inertia is impossible to avoid in every example. In other words, you are not nearly as much of a human noun as you are a human verb, and thus everything you touch is infected with your experience, which is outwardly shown in all those mediums. Everything we know kind of splinters off of your humaning of life, nothing seems to exist without a marriage to intent on some level. So thus, art might also be defined as an inconsequential air around intent.. Occurring only to decorate utility: a flower happens to be wonderful colors, a mountain happens to be beautiful to look at

I disagree. And I think you're way over-generalizing the concept of 'intent'. When I choose to paint a room in my house, the choice to paint that room, the colors I choose to put on it, and how I choose to go about putting the colors on are all technically expressive of my experience of being me, painting a room, and therefor could be interpreted as such, by others. But what is missing is MY INTENT that what I'm doing be interpreted by others as an expression of my experience of being me, painting a room. Which is why others will almost certainly not bother trying to interpret my painting the room as if I'd painted a canvas and hung it in an art gallery for others to see and interpret. The INTENT of it being a work of art has to rise above the intent of it being a painted room, or a functional table, or a sexy dance, or a pretty decoration, or a fun bit of entertainment, or a whatever else. It is this specific intent of artworks being interpreted in this specific way that tells other people to interpret the artworks that way. Art is defined by this deliberate intent to share one's experience of being, with others. And that deliberate intent needs to be evident in the artwork, so that others know that is it's purpose. There are often other intentions going on along with this primal intent, such as the artist's intent to share his/her conception of a personal of cultural ideal, like perfection, or beauty, or truth, but even with these, the primary intent of the artist sharing his experience of being, with others, remains, and is evident in the artwork.

 

[wizanda]

o I was thinking roughly, that maybe its best, internet based discussion is more akin to art than conventional communication.

As an artist, you will notice some people have adopted our spacing the same; where everything is in bullet pointed lines of succinct sentences, as it is easier to read online.

Wrote a list of parables years ago about ideas of artistically educating; which is easily adoptable online.

In my opinion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So I was thinking roughly, that maybe its best, internet based discussion is more akin to art than conventional communication. That is because in this form of communication, words must pass through an amorphous medium, which takes the form of a blank white block, which is the canvas. In this 'impasse,' you are required to write, think, and reconfirm what you write. The words you write then first direct themselves inwardly to the writer, unlike with non-nuanced vocalization, as the writer is forced to look at the reflection his mind creates, perusing grammar and thought with critical eye. And then, someone else is able to take the time to think about what you have written, all of which allows for an unusually large liberty for thoughts to exist in the limbo of cognitive latency

For if you are striving to communicate something intriguing, it seems as though writing offers you raw marble as a work station, (in form of paper/marble-like blocks of blank internet space) where deliberation is no penalty. With the difficulty of an artist, you might strive to reveal something profound within that blank area. Vocalized communication in real-time, however, often seems to be seasoned with frenetic impatience. You are not often at liberty to think long and hard in-between your sentences, lest your communication partner should become annoyed. Thus, a sense of aesthetic might be sacrificed more readily for mere utility

Finally, though the writer wishes to convey truth, the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of the form betrays him. In seeing that each person's descriptions of reality are idiosyncratic, with no paragraph being anywhere the same length, and diction in snowflake-like diffusion, truth takes the form of a haystack with no needle. One realizes that each thinker molds his/her own model, as one's thoughts can only accrete into written words uniquely, as their being written allows this to be observed. (I suppose the same might be true of voice based recordings of ideas) Each post you could ever make, could ever be like the unique colors refracted by the cuddlefish of the mind. I suppose then, it becomes almost up for debate on whether something is nonsense or sense. One person's clear sky is the cloud of another

Depends upon if you want an artsy forum.

 

[PureX]

As an artist, you will notice some people have adopted our spacing the same; where everything is in bullet pointed lines of succinct sentences, as it is easier to read online.

Wrote a list of parables years ago about ideas of artistically educating; which is easily adoptable online.

In my opinion.

What does "educating artistically" entail? How is it being defined as "artistic" education as opposed to non-artistic education?

 

[rosends]

All conversation, through any medium can be elevated to an art form through intentionality, care and precision in construction and an awareness of the media through which thought flows. Painting with words (written or spoken) allows for similar elements of expression as painting with images or through physical movement. The written word both in sound and appearance can be the haven of the artist, the refuge of the hack, or the blunt object of the layman. The internet in its many forms creates subsets of genre, each with its rules and expectations.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

All conversation, through any medium can be elevated to an art form through intentionality, care and precision in construction and an awareness of the media through which thought flows. Painting with words (written or spoken) allows for similar elements of expression as painting with images or through physical movement. The written word both in sound and appearance can be the haven of the artist, the refuge of the hack, or the blunt object of the layman. The internet in its many forms creates subsets of genre, each with its rules and expectations.

Yes, which is why I realize that my thesis is wrong. Maybe. The whole question I guess, is whether communicating in writing must be more artistic by nature of it being unusual. To be effective in a forum, you should not only be good at 'delivering the truth,' but you should be a man of decorative letters. I should realize though, that vocalization itself can be expressed an infinite number of ways that are extracurricular, even if things seem to be 'plainly' proclaimed or asserted

 

[amorphous_constellation]

When I choose to paint a room in my house, the choice to paint that room, the colors I choose to put on it, and how I choose to go about putting the colors on are all technically expressive of my experience of being me, painting a room, and therefor could be interpreted as such, by others. But what is missing is MY INTENT that what I'm doing be interpreted by others as an expression of my experience of being me, painting a room.

Art is defined by this deliberate intent to share one's experience of being, with others. And that deliberate intent needs to be evident in the artwork, so that others know that is it's purpose.

Yeah, and I guess that gets closer to where I see the issue here. Well I mean, you might paint the whole interior of your house white, which seems boring at first. But one might notice that you gave your kitchen a satin finish, so the area would have a slight shiny effect. Therefore, you have bifurcated reality in a subtle but noticeable way, a way which cannot be free of subjective expressive intent, whether you are emphasizing your actions or not.

Realize also that by painting a house, you are trafficking with architecture, which is weird in that it is a supreme marriage of utility and aesthetic. I have worked as painter, it is hard work - but it is as much about appearance as it is about sealant

Also, I might again extend these arguments into the natural forms, where an inconsequential aesthetic might exist. If I was teleported to a unperturbed meadow for example, complete with a myriad beautiful animals and colorful plant life, and sinewy rolling hills, I might call this inconsequential art. Artists must also see nature as such, otherwise why would they often paint mere clouds and landscapes. I might even extend these arguments to a city, where all around you, things are presumably created more strictly to perform functions. But behold, there is an odd bit of rust on that thing, and strange cracks in the pavement over there

Finally, perhaps language itself naturally evolves into becoming more 'unnecessarily stylistic.' As surely, the number of synonyms has multiplied in English over the course of time. Each word being a tool, perhaps you find that some of these tools are merely hammed up versions of prototypical words. For isn't 'verdant' just a shinier hammer than 'green'

 

[wizanda]

What does "educating artistically" entail? How is it being defined as "artistic" education as opposed to non-artistic education?

Rudolph Steiner explained an artistic education system.

I was contextually meaning how artistic writing online as the thread is about, makes us use a different style of writing.

In my opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

So I was thinking roughly, that maybe its best, internet based discussion is more akin to art than conventional communication. That is because in this form of communication, words must pass through an amorphous medium, which takes the form of a blank white block, which is the canvas. In this 'impasse,' you are required to write, think, and reconfirm what you write. The words you write then first direct themselves inwardly to the writer, unlike with non-nuanced vocalization, as the writer is forced to look at the reflection his mind creates, perusing grammar and thought with critical eye. And then, someone else is able to take the time to think about what you have written, all of which allows for an unusually large liberty for thoughts to exist in the limbo of cognitive latency.

I believe that internet based discussion is communication, but it is different than other conventional communication, because of the degree of an anonymous distance to the communication.

The art of communication applies to all forms of communication. Some issues of the art of communication are:

1: The degree of your emotional involvement, and agenda that drives your involvement.
2; The degree of you empathy with alternate views.
3. Your knowledge and skills in logic and other communication skills.

maybe more to follow . . .

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I believe that internet based discussion is communication, but it is different than other conventional communication, because of the degree of an anonymous distance to the communication.

The art of communication applies to all forms of communication. Some issues of the art of communication are:

1: The degree of your emotional involvement, and agenda that drives your involvement.
2; The degree of you empathy with alternate views.
3. Your knowledge and skills in logic and other communication skills.

maybe more to follow . . .

And thank you for that, for this might actually bring me back in sympathy with my op, if what you listed are qualities of art. For example, observe your behavior in a forum as time passes, and notice that you might often make a circuit through similar arguments like a teleological snowball. In a forum, you might also consider there to exist some neutral form to which you can make your appeals, and this is the idea around with a thinker revolves. And so, we all revolve around this idea of a neutral form which in reality is a looming sense of relativity, thinking we can convince it of something, and it in turn acts as a hone to sharpen the efficacy of our words and arguments. Therefore, that makes this whole activity to be something of an art..

 

[PureX]

Yeah, and I guess that gets closer to where I see the issue here. Well I mean, you might paint the whole interior of your house white, which seems boring at first. But one might notice that you gave your kitchen a satin finish, so the area would have a slight shiny effect. Therefore, you have bifurcated reality in a subtle but noticeable way, a way which cannot be free of subjective expressive intent, whether you are emphasizing your actions or not.

Realize also that by painting a house, you are trafficking with architecture, which is weird in that it is a supreme marriage of utility and aesthetic. I have worked as painter, it is hard work - but it is as much about appearance as it is about sealant

Also, I might again extend these arguments into the natural forms, where an inconsequential aesthetic might exist. If I was teleported to a unperturbed meadow for example, complete with a myriad beautiful animals and colorful plant life, and sinewy rolling hills, I might call this inconsequential art. Artists must also see nature as such, otherwise why would they often paint mere clouds and landscapes. I might even extend these arguments to a city, where all around you, things are presumably created more strictly to perform functions. But behold, there is an odd bit of rust on that thing, and strange cracks in the pavement over there

Finally, perhaps language itself naturally evolves into becoming more 'unnecessarily stylistic.' As surely, the number of synonyms has multiplied in English over the course of time. Each word being a tool, perhaps you find that some of these tools are merely hammed up versions of prototypical words. For isn't 'verdant' just a shinier hammer than 'green'

When an artist paints a landscape, he/she is not documenting the landscape, but rather, how they are seeing, thinking about, and feeling that landscape: their unique personal experience of being in that landscape. He/she does this through 'artifice'; that is the choices they make and how they employ them. And that seems to be what you are talking about, here: artifice. Artifice is not art. It's the language of deliberate choice. Artifice doesn't become art until those choices become cohered into a whole 'artwork' that indicates it's intention to be considered a work of art to those encountering it.