/strek/ - Star Trek ★

>>21188 (OP)

Felis Cattus is an awesome poem. The Darmok guys would have considered it an epic ballad.

It wasn't a very good poem. At all. A series of simple end rhymes in an AA BB CC etc. style is what children and idiots think poetry is. Considering Data has information about all those great poets, he should have at LEAST been able to shit out a basic Shakespearian sonnet.

Why were they assholes? Because this is the equivalent of a full-grown adult finger-painting on the wall in random patterns. It's NOT impressive, and is in fact rather pathetic.

>>21235

Well, this is a general problem with Data's character. All his awkwardness, ignorance of the most basic human behavior, ignorance of mimics, gesticular expressions and idiosyncrasies is unexplainable considering he's got every piece of literature, entertainment, art, cinematography, poetry and documentary of the entire human race saved in his brain. Data would be a better human than most humans.

But the point of his character was simply to be a replacement for Spock, except reverse (Spock desires to be Vulcan, Data desires to be human) - both struggle with their emotions, which made them cute and allowed the viewer to discover humanity from a unusual angle. For example, Kirk's and Scott's secret sympathy for oriental despotism once they discovered Khan's identity caused confusion is Spock, which was one of the more clever dialogs. Data was supposed to replace that viewpoint and also to be a foil for the more emotional characters in the show. This is a reoccurring motif in all of Star Trek, in DS9 it was Odo, and in VOY it was Tuvok, Seven and also, to an extent, the EMH (which turned out to be an almost flawless human once activated, for some weird reason).

>>21238

It could be assumed to have been deliberately omitted. Would you trust a prototype, naive, autistic android with ten thousand hours of reality television in his brain?

>>21257

The Federation in general seems to be incredible ignorant about 20th and 21st century primitive entertainment culture. Almost their entire art seems to be high art, classical art or academic art. Was it possible that at some point there was a cultural genocide once humans realized how awful reality television was during the Eugenic Wars or something?

In STD, they have a literal club with R'n'B and House on the Enterprise. Was a bit weirded out at that point.

>>21262

>>21257

Reminds me, there is this VOY episode where they travel to the 90s and are extremly fascinated by reality television, as they've never seen that before.

>>21262

>Was it possible that at some point there was a cultural genocide once humans realized how awful reality television was during the Eugenic Wars or something?

>>21263

>Reminds me, there is this VOY episode where they travel to the 90s and are extremly fascinated by reality television, as they've never seen that before.

That's a nice hypothesis actually. The ravages of the Eugenic Wars wiped out nearly all traces of reality tv.

>>21235

>complexity means it's better

>>21235

>Being so autistic you don't realize that the writers aren't autistic enough to write something as autistic as Data would write if Data was written by an autist

Autism

>>21237

The issue is that they had to shoehorn "flaws" onto him so he wasn't a complete Mary Sue. Can you imagine what an android that is stronger than a Klingon and cannot get tired would actually fight like, if he were programmed with every martial art? Every scene with him in it would be like the fucking Matrix. Emotions aren't required for a damn thing; just ask any sociopath.

I actually kind of liked the early version of Data, where he knew EVERYTHING, but just had a really slow recall and often had to be reminded of it. In my opinion, they made him a little TOO human later on. Maybe that was kind of the point, but it also introduced many plot holes as to his ineptitude.

>>21199

I believe the title is "Ode To Spot"

>>21365

Might I get you started on the Impressionists, anon?

>>21379

If tumblr tells you the Earth is round, with you become a Flat-Earther purely out of spite?

>>21188 (OP)

Because they got better shit to do than sit down and listen to the fucking toaster's poem about his cat. Riker could've fucked 2 crewmen and Geordi could've done some engineering shit or whatever that virgin does in the time Data read the poem.

>>21522

Geordi would be in the quarters adjacent to Rikers, staring very pointedly at the wall.

>>21525

But why would he be staring at the w---

Oh…

Ooooohhhh!

Very clever, anon. Very clever.

>>21531

I don't know, sneaking "bourgeois" as an inherently negative trait, especially without any explanation, makes this too unsubtle. 5/10

>>21540

>The rich and powerful still, for a time, actively deposed artwork that didn't fit this dialogue because it scared them: it made them feel like they were losing control.

>The conception that the new is attempting to replace the objectively beautiful is correct, but the context implying that it is wrong is confused and bourgeois.

<fuck off back to /pol/

I don't know, you seem to be

>implying

an awful lot of lefty shit for a non-commie.

>>21551

>mass subsidization of artists and universities is capitalism

Check out the modern art pieces that fetch the highest prices at the art market and tell me that's not capitalism.

Artists have always been subsidized, they had noble or clerical patrons before capitalism, because, you know, an artist has to eat. Art subsidization by the state is capitalism because only in capitalism you actually have artworks being commodities. You make up your own utopia where le free market decides what art sells, and that would be quite frankly an even bigger cultural crime. However, museum culture and private collections, which is the alienation from the masses from art, are the dominant form of art display in capitalism, and as such, they often produce a load of crap or simply cease to be art in the first place.

>Frankfurt school fuckery

Ah yes, the Frankfurt School of Karltural Marxism and witchcraft and wizadry. Someone post that webm where an Adorno quote was disguised as an Evola quote at /pol/ and everybody fell for it.

>>21554

>you disagree with a Nazi conspiracy theory

</LEFTYPOL/ HAVING A MELTDOWN

calm your autism, this isn't pol, stop ruining every single board on this website

>>21557

>Please continue to prove how you're not a lefty, it's really quite amusing

I'm a different guy than >>21540. And yeah, subsidizaton by the state clearly is capitalism because capitalism requires such economic dependency for the art community to survive. Capitalism is a holistic system, not just a specific economic policy.

>>21562

>subsidizaton by the state clearly is capitalism

You don't know what capitalism means.

>capitalism requires such economic dependency for the art community to survive

False, because there exist people willing to pay for art.

>le free market decides what art sells, and that would be quite frankly an even bigger cultural crime.

<waahh muh consumerism is ebil

>>21569

>You don't know what capitalism means.

Sure, capitalism is all flowers and le free market, how could I forget. Completely unhistorical and unscientific fantasy image of a system that requires certain institutions, such as the state, to even exist in the first place. Things don't happen in a vacuum, but I know I'm talking to a liberal here

>False, because there exist people willing to pay for art.

Such as the state, the state, made up of people, is willing to pay for art. He's legitmitized by the electoral decision of the general populus that votes for a certain amount of taxes going into culture.

>waahh muh consumerism is ebil

Enjoy your Marvel movie then.

>Ferengi poster being colossally autistic

In other news Klingon blood wine is red.

>>21584

Why the fuck are you sperging out about economics on a trek forum fucking have some self awareness. Also

>Spergasaurus Strekei is a Dukat fag

Google Garak.

>>21562

>I'm a different guy than >>21540. And yeah, subsidizaton by the state clearly is capitalism

Capitalism says nothing about subsidies for art and never has. Capitalism at its core is the concept of bank loans to fund entrepeneurs building businesses. The government is traditionally seen as a bad thing in this process. Free market capitalists say that government intervention in anything save fundamental services is bad.

Wealthy patrons have always paid for the arts and obviously a capitalist would advocate for that as the most efficient use of resources. Any other argument is intentionally obtuse or retarded. Incidentally the modern art world is used chiefly for money laundering.

Socialists chiefly advocate for art which is politically useful. The Marxist school of literary interpretation explicitly says a work should only be evaluated based on if it advances the revolution.

>>21554

No, not a /leftypol/ poster. In my opinion, politics boards on either side of the aisle have their heads so far up their own asses they can't even tell shit from chocolate anymore.

>>21557

This guy forgot we have thread-bound ID's.

>>21587

>>21538

These guys actually get it. The saying "you are what you eat" applies here. If you surround yourself with examples of shitty modern art you're going to believe that all modern art is shitty, however the same thing goes for political modern art as well which in most scenarios I quite detest. This is mainly because art has the unfortunate ability to be used as propaganda or a one-way dialogue that ends up alienating people instead of bringing them together.

>The Marxist school of literary interpretation explicitly says a work should only be evaluated based on if it advances the revolution.

See that? That's where the entire concept of freedom ends up hampering the creative spirit and why I usually despise art made explicitly as a political statement. There can be artistic statements made in a post-modernist fashion (see: R. Mutt - and for why things eventually went down that road see: Dadaism), but including a political statement can be quite dubious. This is not only because it can anger people who enjoy sitting on the far-end of their political spectra (aka extremists [don't give a damn who], aka cancer), but because it divorces the art from being simply art. There is beauty in simplicity in this field. Furthermore, if people kept on following the rules, we wouldn't have operas composed in German by Mozart or the myriad of classic plays by Shakespeare (if those were really his plays or not, it's very possible he could have been a puppet for more robust ghostwriters who didn't want to associate themselves with "low-brow art" such as theater [such a shame that his work was never appreciated for the genius it was back in his day]).

At least personally with my own art that I make in my free time, the only statement I'm trying to make is something that looks nice and in my opinion forces people to think about all the times that they've been shut off from the world around them that they literally stop seeing the beauty of every day life. That's not wrong is it? Just maybe once in a while telling people to stop and smell the roses? This is why not all modern art is terrible: because it's really not. I'd give you the same advice about slowing things down and to take a look at the bigger picture from the most neutral standpoint possible, and I don't mean politically I mean with everything. This is why I originally found that video posted above so offensive, especially on a Trek forum as Star Trek is all about attempting to come to an understanding with strange and new cultures - about not acting with haste and irrationality but with hopes of peace and friendship.

>inb4 pics or it didn't happen

Honestly I would love to share my work with you guys but I tend to feel very anxious about mixing my private life with my personal life and I know all about reverse image searching so, yeah, that's not happening (but if you really really wanna know about the single political statement I've made with art I attempted to create a piece that lambasted 3rd/4th/Retard wave feminism, so there).

<Then we get to the topic of unsuccessful art not being bought

Uh, yeah? Really sometimes I think capitalism sometimes gets misconstrued as a philosophical paradigm than an economic one. I don't see capitalism stopping people from making objectively bad art like that fucking shoebox (I mean after DuChamp is that really necessary? Shit like this just seems historically ignorant.), and I don't see capitalism stopping people making objectively good art. However, just like memes, there are dominant ones and non-dominant ones that will go by being unremembered, and in this scenario capitalism is the process of natural selection. Again I see absolutely nothing wrong with that since it just means that people are going to buy what they like. This really doesn't stop anybody from furthering the actual creativity of the field, which was what my post all the way up there was really about - allowing room for art to grow (as well as our own perceptions).

>>21591

>>21587

Actually the US government did used to offer art grants but you can thank "Piss Christ" for removing that.

>semi-related statement

I think we all here could benefit from taking some art history classes, or just reading a book covering 1600-1950's [or maybe even beyond that but what they put in history books beyond 1950's gets increasingly silly as the years go on]).

>>21593

Art need not follow rules explicitly but it still breaks down without some form of quality standard. As Emerson (I believe) said, art is truth given form, the artist's vision of what reality is expressed through some form of medium. For this to be true art must be, at a bare minimum, purposeful and distinct. This rules out Jackson Pollock splotches and shit like empty shoeboxes. Artists with greater skill are able to define their work more clearly, in greater detail, making their works more distinct and the truth that the artist means to portray more apparent. Many examples of modern art fail at this, and thus fail as art because the artists do not seek to distinguish their work by putting more of themselves--that is, their vision of truth–into their work, but seek instead to distinguish themselves from the "mainstream," in order to appease their own egotism by receiving more empty praise from critics. Distinguishing oneself from the mainstream takes the form of being deliberately bland for sheer contrarianism (paintings that are just blank canvasses, for instance), vulgar and provocative (like pissing yourself and calling it art), and other superficial "distinctions" that are nothing more than attention-whoring. Putting standards in place serves to filter out shit like this; they don't necessarily have to be a hard-and-fast set of rules of what is and is not acceptable. Even a purely subjective system could work to some extent, as long as standards exist. Modern artists seek to eliminate standards in the name of participation awards and doing shit in undesirable ways just so you can say you're being "subversive."

>>21594

>Even a purely subjective system could work to some extent, as long as standards exist. Modern artists seek to eliminate standards in the name of participation awards and doing shit in undesirable ways just so you can say you're being "subversive."

What I think you're really getting at here is the fact that you're against art that is inherently regressive in the name of being exploratory (keyword: regressive), and I get what you mean by that and I don't like that either. What I think is really important is that we continue to attempt to make these sorts of distinctions. Still, we mustn't apply the tag of "regressive" to art that is simply misunderstood, and that's where we get into subjectivity, and yet that subjectivity cannot be implicity immune to objectivity. Honestly as far as I'm concerned the only way I can make distinctions like that is by really focusing on an art piece for a handful of minutes and usually my mind will be made up by then. So, forgive me if I seemed arrogant or aggressive, I'm just trying to point out that there is some really, really great stuff that's come out in the past 100 (and even 20) years, but then the bad part is "the brightest day has the darkest shadows" (sorry for the non-Trek reference), and unfortunately the bullshit discussed earlier (shoebox, pissing, etc.) is that shadow.

Does this mean that it's time to change? Hell yes. However, where should that change go? We can't just go back to classicism, that's basically re-inventing the wheel. We can't further regress because we've already done that enough, where do we go forward? Artists these days won't tell you this because they are far too afraid to, but we really don't know where the fuck to go from here. Really I'm looking onto the next generation for this because in 10 years away my sixth-art-sense goes blank. Will they change it? Will they keep doing the same shit? Who knows? Maybe I'll come across something? Maybe someone else from my generation will solve the problem? I have no idea and as far as I'm aware noone else does either.

As an aside, I think what Pollock did was important but I don't really particularly like it and I wouldn't hang it in my house. However other people like him that took abstract to the extreme like Rothko I'd definitely have on my wall and I would love to see the Rothko room in D.C. because people say that the room "hums" (apparently it's not able to be picked up on audio recording, so it's something psychological or maybe even metaphysical [even more intriguing], really have to get down there sometime to see what all the hub-bub's about, but on that note FUCK THE METAL BALLOON DOGS HOLY SHIT, that's a piece that I just don't get). If a piece can be used as a meditation, I'd definitely call it art and that's basically the entire idea for abstract art but also ambient music.

Also this has really made my day, I don't often get to have a legit serious conversation with people who have such contrary viewpoints on art and it hasn't all devolved into a shouting match (entirely): it's been fun.

>>21602

>Also this has really made my day, I don't often get to have a legit serious conversation with people who have such contrary viewpoints on art and it hasn't all devolved into a shouting match (entirely): it's been fun.

Yes, I'll admit it's been engaging for me as well. You're still a fag for using 'bourgeois' as an insult though.

>>21593

>politics boards on either side of the aisle have their heads so far up their own asses they can't even tell shit from chocolate anymore.

True, but it's actually not just the boards, this is the current state of politics in general. Enjoy.

>>21602

>the room "hums"

Wow that's pretty fucking wild if it's as you say, I like the sound of it.

>>21593

>reading a book covering 1600-1950's

Can you recommend any?

I apply any argument about art to the written work.

Would a novel be considered good if it was just random letters splashed over a page with no discernible pattern or legibility? Of course not. Would a short story be acceptable as nothing more than a series of blank pages? No. What about a novel that's a bunch of random trash duct-taped between the covers? Absolutely not.

First a foremost, a written work must be understandable, and it must say something that's not fully up to interpretation. If an art piece cannot do that, at a minimum, then it has failed to even BE ART, because it is nothing.

This is the difference between works like Picasso, and those like Pollack. In the former, you can argue whether or not it's better than impressionist or classical art, but you cannot argue that it has no meaning, because it clearly does. As a book, it would be stream-of-consciousness or a mindfuck plot. But random paint splatters, a fucking shoebox on the ground, or a signature on a urinal don't say ANYTHING. They cannot say anything. They are the art equivalent of a dog turd on a piece or paper, and calling it a novel.

So the next time you're wondering if a piece of "art" is worth it, ask yourself NOT "if they were a novel, would I read it," but "if this were a novel COULD I read it". If you could not read it because it is, in fact, unreadable at even the most basic level, it should not qualify as art.

>>21647

That's a bit unfair, your describing "avant-garde" approaches to a visual medium not a written story medium, it would be more correct to compare it on the grounds of "what if the chapters were randomly ordered" or "what if every 5th word was made an anagram" in which case You'd be completely correct and it would be shit.

>>21647

Like this >>21658 guy said the comparison is a little unfair, but I would akin abstract works to be more like poetry which handles abstraction really well sometimes.

>>21661

But like >>21647 said, poetry has a pretty clear meaning, something that isn't left to interpretation: the meaning of the words themselves. By the same token, all abstract work doesn't necessarily fit into this model, because abstract works can still be sensible and coherent without depicting something explicit. Bold, sharp, jagged lines are unambiguously different from fine, sweeping curves, and send a markedly different message to the observer. Cool colors are unambiguously different from warm colors. And so on. LOLRANDOM Jackson Pollock shit doesn't convey anything coherent, in contrast; the only way it could is if the artist were deliberately trying to represent chaos.

>>21677

It doesn’t really. Nothing is more pretentious than arguing about the definition of art.

>>21681

4U

>>21681

Pointing out that the piss-covered, postmodern Emperor has no clothes is precisely the opposite of pretentious.

>>21685

The modern emperor has no clothes, and is in fact not an emperor. It's the art equivalent of pointing to a cactus and calling it a man, except it's not a cactus but is actually some green paint a toddler spilled on the floor.

>>21685

>>21733

The Emperor must be one with the people and hide nothing from them. Hence why they are nude.

I think a large aprt of it was a decent portion of those attendi g the recital had been for the last several sleep cycles been abducted and dismembered and sewn back together without their knowledge and consent. Almost drove riker crazy

>>23132

They should have abducted the fish people and made them listen to Data’s poetry.

>>23133

The Antedians?

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Antedian

Ah those near catatonic space Innsmouth fish dudes, didn't klingaboo era Worf practically jizzed his pants thinking catatonic state = muh stoicism muh noble silence! And chuckleworthy when the tweest is they wanted to durka durka ackbar the place.

>>23141

The aliens who were abducting people were cloaked fish aliens.

>>23141

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Solanogen-based_lifeform

>>23143

>>23142

Oh those fishy guys. Yeah they're assholes, fuck 'em with a rake.

>>23141

I don't think it was the stoic silence so much as their epic foreheads.

>>23146

>>23162

Star Trek Online made them even more deserving of genocide, by having them be a servitor race for the Iconians, and the inventors of the fucking "Bluegill" mind controlling parasites from Conspiracy.

This is actually not half bad.

>>23182

Sheeeeeiiiiit that's alright actually

Data's weird obsession with that cat makes more sense when you realize it was originally Tasha Yar's cat.

>>23200

You mean this whole thing happened because Data was misinterpreting the colloquial use of "pussy"?

>>23209

No. She died.