I have to admit, this one’s a little ridiculous, even for us. Ghostlightning, lelangir, Cuchlann, and I all somehow ended up in a chat a scant few hours ago. Initially, the topic was Kannagi, but, when matters of disparate theory arose, things got a little crazy. The title is apt; in fact, what you’ll see after the break is no less than 11,001 words of our discourse and debate. Is it worth reading? Absolutely.
It’s a good thing the concept of tl;dr doesn’t exist on Super Fanicom.
lelangir: you there?
lelangir: cool, I need help thinking through this post
Ghostlightning: how goes?
lelangir: so from what I’ve seen, Kannagi’s reception is that the plot sucks
but I’m arguing that it doesn
and so I was thinking
Ghostlightning: glad to help because i have a long term project that i need your assistance in a big way
lelangir: what is the relationship between plot and genre?
lemme email you what i have so far
Ghostlightning: my quick impression: the plot is generic, but it doesn’t make it bad
Ghostlightning: how many unique plots are there anyway?
lelangir: well kannagi is interesting
Ghostlightning: the disconnect that people feel
lelangir: you could say its plot in and of itself is a double entendre
are we thinking of it as social commentary?
or…typical harem crap?
Ghostlightning: is because teh execution in the chemistry is SO GOOD
lelangir: the latter, then there is no plot
the former, the plot is VERY intricate
Ghostlightning: but at the expense of a rushed conclusion, that seems forced
lelangir: and so the harm mush is predicated on its “incidental social commentary”
Ghostlightning: making people say: bad plot
lelangir: hehe but wiat
its not rushed
Ghostlightning: about what you’re saying:
lelangir: because the “lack of plot” was the plot itself
Ghostlightning: but there is a plot:
boy meets girl
girl has big reveal: she’s a goddess
conflict: IS SHE REALLY?
lelangir: I think the fanservice superficial plot is more vehicular to the metaphorical content
Ghostlightning: consequence of conflict: complication of ordinary high school life
lelangir: in the anime, what we see first and foremost is Nagi years ago
Ghostlightning: the metaphorical content does not equal plot
lelangir: clad in traditional clothing as goddess
Ghostlightning: plot can be ‘bad’ but metaphorical content can be awesome
kannagi’s metaphorical content is awesome imo
plot is ordinary
not a value judgment
lelangir: but the metaphorical content is so well lined up that I dont think it cant be anything but plot
lelangir: the aspects of Kannagi that are mainstream “broadcasted” are whats incidental
Ghostlightning: let’s distinguish the metaphorical content
lelangir: IMO the point of Kannagi was Nagi’s idolatry
and no one picks this up
Ghostlightning: i would approach it as a “reading”
lelangir: that’s because they’re too caught up in what you define as “plot”
but I think here it’s switched
Ghostlightning: and not as a statement against those who dismiss kannagi
an xist reading of kannagi
lelangir: that’s good, since we know it has to make money
Ghostlightning: the rest of the sphere are STUCK in their formalist reading methodology
lelangir: and it has
Ghostlightning: plot, character, etc
its metaphors and “plot” are coextensive
Ghostlightning: so they can argue good plot, bad plot
and you can read it from a framework
lelangir: but while its “plot” seems stupid and “inert” (as in not going anywhere, slice of life), this is precisely what propels its metaphorical content, nagi’s search for idolatry
Ghostlightning: if it were me, i would downplay plot ‘valuation’
lelangir: i dont get it
Ghostlightning: the commentary will appropriate your reading
and then people will use your arguments
to say that kannagi has a good plot lol
lelangir: I still think its metaphorical content is sufficient enough to upset the canon of plot
‘canon of plot’
lelangir: well that “plot” is superficial
like you said, boy meets girl, etc.
lelangir: vs. idolatry, “metaphores”
which constitutes “plot”?
is plot the same as “watching”?
Ghostlightning: okay, you in your reading will re-valuate formal plot elements, vs metaphorical content
lelangir: actually yeah…
plot is watching
well we can then say that kannagi also has a secondary, subtle plot
Ghostlightning: plot, strictly speaking is a formal element
lelangir: to supplement its “fanservice”
Ghostlightning: the sequencing of the narrative, the conflict and resolution
lelangir: (double entendre ,pun intended)
so in your definition, my view also works
only that i’m more comfortable that the content is distinguished from plot/structure
the plot merely ‘frames’ the content
‘how things happen’
the content is… what the events ‘mean’
lelangir: in very…uh..”non post-modern” situations?
lelangir: i guess cowboybebop, faulkner, etc. complicate that
formalism sucks, imo – only that it is very useful in the study of craft
lelangir: hmm so now I enjoy thinking of Kannagi simply as having two coextensive plots
one just more metaphorical than the other
Ghostlightning: that can work too!
i like it
lelangir: ooooo, the superficiality serves as a framework for its metaphor
lelangir: ok that’s good
sheesh, it’s sooooo much easier talking it through with someone
i have mechafetish irl for this, or rather, he has me
lelangir: my uni actually has a class on anime next semester lol
lelangir: this is going to sound arrogant, but I think the blogosphere would still be wayyy more insightful
Ghostlightning: what’s the content? not history i hope
or genre surveying
lelangir: oh lol
Ghostlightning: yes, but of course it would
lelangir: i was about to say that the class is probably more focused on history
Ghostlightning: yes, an introduction to the medium
you will be smarter than everyone
it will be hell
i remember my good friend, when he took an elective on SF
lelangir: and it’d be boring ’cause it wouldn’t view currently airing shows
so its not as “cultural” or memetic w/e
copyright issues, etc.
Ghostlightning: oh lol
he said to the class: “you cretins, i am erudite! i read more science fiction books than all of you have read books!”
lelangir: uh huh
Ghostlightning: so i anticipate that you will be in a similar spot
lelangir: lol i’m not well-read….or at least as not as I’d like to be
I wish I were more in tune with japanese history
Ghostlightning: in relation to anime
lelangir: so my aniblogging had much more substance
or foundation, etc.
Ghostlightning: you’d know more than anyone in the class
but it still may be worth taking
lelangir: ’cause the general populace is more attuned to viewing anime microscopically
Ghostlightning: because if the teacher is good, it will be very good
lelangir: which is why there’s all this talk about “viewing things deeply”
Ghostlightning: and you’ll be able to influence her
lelangir: whereas I enjoy looking at anime from a bird’s eye view
Ghostlightning: and contribute to education in some way
lelangir: intertextually, vis-a-vis one another and cultures, positions of viewing
I think the prof. had a website
he looked cool
but not a PhD
so i dunno
Ghostlightning: yes, that’s why i’m not so inclined to do so
because you’re around lol
you do it better than me
lelangir: nobody likes reading those posts though lol
Ghostlightning: i can play off your posts, etc. without having to lay foundations
lelangir: oh and the lucky star english dub is soooo interesting
they retain the japanese honorifics
Ghostlightning: o rly? tell me
lelangir: and even phonetics differ
Ghostlightning: ah i think i read a tweet or note of yours
lelangir: i’ve noticed that in recent dubs, they keep the flapped R
and in LS, some keep the flapped R while others anglicize it
lelangir: and there’s the whole thing about trying to sound like the original VA
Ghostlightning: i wonder how they discussed this
it’s related to how its steeped in otaku culture
Ghostlightning: well, it may be just trying to appeal to the fan of subs
lelangir: I’m sure
I’d have to read into suzumiya haruhi sales in USA
as LS is definitely its successor (or giant advertisement)
Ghostlightning: your post reads good, so far
lelangir: that was the 2nd thing i needed help on
the relationship between style/genre and plot/progression
Ghostlightning: okay, frame your need
I’m conceptualizing this as….
a hierarchy between the two, genre and plot
which “contains” the other
which has more prevalence
lelangir: =p you have answer!
Ghostlightning: people i think choose subjects by genre first
Ghostlightning: plot is secondary
lelangir: in terms of the viewer
Ghostlightning: but plot can ‘ruin’ the experience or ‘elevate’t
one sec…diagram time
Ghostlightning: characters and settings can elevate the subject
but plot is more destructive (a badly plotted story)
a good plot, can elevate unlikable characters (but not uninteresting)
i need examples
08th MS Team
boy meets girl
capulets and montagues
(subplots are: coming of age, shaking off one’s past – shinigami, hopes in wartime)
the plot(s) is/are ordinary
Ghostlightning: the setting is awesome, a great romantic sweep
lelangir: but wait that’s just what we said
metaphorical content, subplot, secondary plot, etc.
comedy, romance, drama, suspense
Ghostlightning: is metaphorical content in kannagi a subplot?
or so I think
Ghostlightning: or is it a “sub” in terms of depth, but not necessarily subordinate in value
it is ‘beneath the surface’
only in depth
all kinds of plot being equal
lelangir: epistomologically equal i suppose
or however we phrase it
Ghostlightning: subplots in kannagi: jin (not)
finding himself in art
tsugumi’s trust in jin (relationship)
lelangir: equal in form but not in effect
those are more rhetorical
Ghostlightning: zange’s competition with nagi
lelangir: at least the cliche childhood friend thing
so this suggests subplots are hierarchical
lelangir: zange/nagi is really just a contribution to nagi’s idolatry
christianity vs. shintoism
lelangir: ok, so that’s just a complex form of story-telling
I still don’t get it….its the 2nd paragraph of the article
Ghostlightning: rather, it’s just the use of forms
lelangir: i was trying to theorize a 2nd form of plot vis-a-vis genre
Ghostlightning: this one: Kannagi isn’t so easily reducible to polarized styles precisely because of its plot. On the one hand, we could say that the plot functions as an adhesive that produces sensibility within the anime, but this perspective pigeonholes us back in the thought that genre is linearly coextensive with plot, which is to say that distinct sections of the progression of the story will be accompanied by correlating genres – comedy, drama, slice of life, and so forth. When we view Kannagi this way, we already set an expectation that
that genre is linearly coextensive with plot
and that’s where i went blak
Ghostlightning: explain ‘coextensive’
lelangir: in tandem
Ghostlightning: i see
Ghostlightning: it isn’t i think
lelangir: me neither
so what’s the second form?
Ghostlightning: but it can be, in a contingent way
lelangir: and that’s where I thought the heirarchy of plot/genre was upset
Ghostlightning: particular to specific works
lelangir: so which form does kannagi utilize
I’m just having a hard time articulating this
Ghostlightning: i can imagine
lelangir: the first case is how plot is a glue that connects genre
the second is how everything is already cohesive in the first place
but it’s not visible
it takes something more to realize it
Ghostlightning: connects genre to what?
lelangir: to each other
this is why people are like “emo jin is stupid”
its not because it’s directly related to plot
emo jin isn’t irrelevant at all
poorly directed perhaps
but I construed viewer displease as “i dont get how this has to do with anything”
lelangir: how comedy is disparate to drama
but….are they really disparate at all?
Ghostlightning: they go together well when done expertly
the comedy in kannagi is done expertly imo
lelangir: ok ooooo
so i just had it….
Ghostlightning: the drama – the jury’s still out
lelangir: when things aren’t viewed as disparate, it becomes hierarchical, one becomes the vehicle for the other
lelangir: and plot isn’t the railway anymore
plot isn’t the cohesive force…
it’s like a product now
lelangir: yeah that’s not right…
Ghostlightning: plot, formerly is the railway to deliver the laughs, the tears etc?
i can agree with that
but that’s not necessarily subverted
by the metaphorical content
which is ‘srs bsns’
neither necessarily comedic or tragic
Ghostlightning: i don’t get the second example (the line below)
lelangir: that doesnt make sense
what i posted
neither do i
the first line does
lelangir: but i feel like there is a counter example
Ghostlightning: plot is the vehicle yes
lelangir: but i need a way to view genres not as spatially distant
and the only way is to make it hierarchical
not on the same plane
then, something,the glue, doesn’t “connect”
Ghostlightning: the points along the plotline can be comedic or dramatic in themselves, but there will be cases where the characters or other elements produce the emotional effects
lelangir: it just “produces”
Ghostlightning: when points, are ‘twists’
like code geass
twists are funny, ludicrous, etc
whereas kannagi’s reveal
Ghostlightning: that she’s not sure of her divinity
is dramatic only because her character made so much of it
not that dramatic in itself
or, let’s take a big plot twist example:
“LUKE, I AM YOUR FATHER”
is that in itself dramatic?
or is it made so by the reaction:
dramatic = sad
opposite of comedy
never mind the narm/unitntentional comedy of the scene
though…im still having a hard time seeing how that contributes to the relationship between genre/plot
a specific type of rel.
Ghostlightning: use sets
all genres have plots
lelangir: what I parced from vader example was that we cannot separate the event and the reception
the reception “enacts” the event
or at least amplifies it
I think even if Vader said “I am HIS father” directly to the audience in a soliloquy
the audience would be ‘OMFGWTFBBQHAX’
lelangir: would still be*
Ghostlightning: i agree
it’s still dramatic
lelangir: hmm lol lemme ask
do you get what i’m trying to get at?
the two specific kinds of relationships between genre/plot
Ghostlightning: genre and plot relationship
lelangir: in the first, plot is all-encompassing
it contains genre
lelangir: it acts as an adhesive
so the 2nd must upset the 1st
the 2nd is a counter theory
lelangir: but i cannot articulate in such a way that it makes sense
Ghostlightning: but to say that, would mean…
that genre can make plot irrelevant?
i sense the sense in it… but
lelangir: yes….when there is no plot
lelangir: minami ke (1st season)
Ghostlightning: but kannagi has a plot, yes?
lelangir: mmhm…subplots too, as we established
Ghostlightning: two, arguably right?
Ghostlightning: so it’s difficult to use it an example to prove the counter theory
lelangir: …how so?
Ghostlightning: sort of like, “it works great with lucky star, it works too with kanagi if you read deep enough”
is this what you’re saying now?
lelangir: the fact that “non-plots” exist shouldn’t refute this binary
because it’s not even in the same paradigm
“non-plot” isn’t in the “plot” paradigm
our “plot” paradigm can be constituted of several theories
“non-plots” should be irrelevant here I think
Ghostlightning: ok, list
lelangir: wait…”it works great with lucky star, it works too with kanagi if you read deep enough”
no, like i said, it cant “work” because that’s a theoretical paradigm shift
apples and oranges
Ghostlightning: or, the enjoyment of kannagi is not shackled by its plot
then what is the rel. between COMEDY and plot????
lelangir: oh shiiiiet
so….is comedy like microplot?
Ghostlightning: again, the events in the plot can be comedic (situational comedy)
lelangir: like a shitload of 4-komas inserted together?
Ghostlightning: or jokes
lelangir: nearly in a nonsequiter fashion?
have you seen okawari?
lelangir: hm ok
but yeah you get it
miniami-ke is microplot
a bunch of unrelated microplots
lelangir: but okawari is macroplot
one plot per episode
thats why everone hates it
vis-a-vis first season
Ghostlightning: event a, b, punchline event
x6 per ep.
[a, b, punchline][a, b, punchline][a, b, punchline][a, b, punchline]
like a train
Ghostlightning: in ls, through the series of microplots, the value is… getting an intimacy with the characters
i dont see how micro/macro affects that
Ghostlightning: they are not ‘developed’ rather, they are revealed
i dont think there’s any char. dev LS
development nor revealment
Ghostlightning: yes, exactly
Ghostlightning: reveal is simply this: no sruprises
how exactly tsundere is kagamin
lelangir: what about I am yuor father?
that’s surprise + revealment
Ghostlightning: how MUCH of an otaku is konata
lelangir: yeah precisely
it’s just amplification
Ghostlightning: yes, as opposed to starwars
the linear plot, twists in a new direction
instead of MUST DESTROY VADER, it becomes MUST SAVE VADER, there is good in him
Ghostlightning: from the viewer’s standpoint, there is value in both
one can say ls is entirely exposition
Ghostlightning: but somehow, there is value in that
Ghostlightning: because it is entertaining, funny
lelangir: so….going back again lol
Ghostlightning: value = the utility the viewer experiences from the subject
plot is the vehicle for genre
Ghostlightning: so there is value in the experience of watching kannagi, if one ignores the plot
lelangir: plot doesnt discriminate between genre
slice of life is an exception
lelangir: but…i’m concerning people that took plot into account and were disappointed
is there a way to say that their disappointment wasn’t “properly directed”?
Ghostlightning: they were looking for plot, or were forced to look at the plot
lelangir: that kannagi disrupts the notion that plot is a conduit for genre
Ghostlightning: ‘properly directed’
lelangir: lol…that they were wrong
guy a: “dude this plot sucks”
guy b: “no, you’re just looking at it the wrong way”
guy c: “this different perspective is _____”
Ghostlightning: the game here is that it is foolish to immediately dismiss kannagi
Ghostlightning: due to what you failed to see
lelangir: but we said that already
that there are subplots
so this is where I said that its subplot disrupts “plot” itself
subplot disrupts plot as a conduit for genre
subplot disrupts genre
lelangir: genre is already overgeneralized
Ghostlightning: you can simply say, that underneath all this, is an essay on religion (idols, commodification)
and the fact that it was entertaining to watch, makes it awesome
because essays on religion aren’t supposed to be entertaining
lelangir: …but….it’s incidental
there’s too much evidence to say it’s incidental..they knew what they were doing
it’s not incidental
lelangir: ok, so, all metaphor aside, kannagi is awesome
because it’s funny and has naked DFC’s
its plot sucks
the religion metaphors weren’t properly connected
– or is what we’ve read
they were connected
it just wasn’t spoonfed
Ghostlightning: yes, not spoonfed
lelangir: the karoake episode was in fact subplot
it was, in and of itself
it was nagi getting faith
it had to be
it was incidentally or otherwise
because that’s what the metaphor sets up
Ghostlightning: i don’t know what to make of that ep tbqh
lelangir: the metaphor sets it up so everything contributes to the subplot
incidentally or otherwise
Ghostlightning: i know i was entertained
lelangir: so it’s really a convenience
Ghostlightning: nagi… wasn’t trying!
zange was forcing it
lelangir: oh shiet bring her into this now lol
from what i remember
Ghostlightning: so nagi, ‘not trying’ by virtue of song choice
lelangir: it was just a double cat fight for jin
ok so that ep was slice of life by nature
Ghostlightning: maybe not not trying, just doing it wrong
but in the context of the idol/god metaphor
lelangir: but….doesn’t everything constitute idolatry?
Ghostlightning: nagi was doing it wrong
lelangir: making friends
she was even saying how she had to look over her friends
because she’s the goddess of the land
Ghostlightning: doing it wrong
lelangir: formed from the land
Ghostlightning: doing it wrong
lelangir: doing what wrong?
Ghostlightning: the whole time
Ghostlightning: taking care of the land
Ghostlightning: dealing with the impurities
acting like a goddess
lelangir: ….and that’s the part that confused me in general
Ghostlightning: making friends
this is new to me too
lelangir: what’s interesting
is the hospitality metaphor
Ghostlightning: she had an idea of what she’s supposed to do
lelangir: jin saying “stay here!”
“is my house not good enough?”
Ghostlightning: but she’s doing everything wrong
she needed the freaking wand as an excorcism tool
since she lacked power
and that somehow stems from her container
as opposed to zange
Ghostlightning: figure out the rules, steps required for her to do her mission
lelangir: who is a parasite
Ghostlightning: what did she do right?
lelangir: both have no identity
the shrine is nameless
which makes some weird pun
lelangir: kannagi, nagi
nagi means “calm”
lelangir: but yeah that’s irrelevant
Ghostlightning: the more i think about it, the direction of your article needs to change
lelangir: or just expand
Ghostlightning: you can do it this way:
enjoying kannagi: ur doin it wrng
Ghostlightning: then play off on how nagi is getting everything wrong
and THAT is the plot
Ghostlightning: all of you have been fooled
i was going for a general disruption of “plot”
“all ur plot belong to me”
Ghostlightning: or THAT is the point
lelangir: “cuz DIS is reel plot”
Ghostlightning: substitute point for plot
Ghostlightning: make plot irrelevant
Ghostlightning: while everyone is looking at jin’s emo, it’s nagi’s story after all
her ridiculous failure
lelangir: but what’s the relationship!!!!!????
Ghostlightning: plot and genre?
lelangir: which is the product of the other!!!
lelangir: that’s precisely what i was saying
people view them as intrinsically separate
connnected by plot
Ghostlightning: not a cause and effect thing necessarily
and thus, the 2nd counter theory
doo doood dooooo listen to my song… guruguru mawaru….
Ghostlightning: wait, whose song is that?
lelangir: from school rumble
means “going in circles” lol
or so I’ve read
Ghostlightning: ah yes
school rumble had plots
a bunch of romance arcs
and harima’s manga career
Ghostlightning: ok, are you clear re your article now?
or did i just mess it up for you?
lelangir: I still haven’t come to the conclusion i was searching for
a different relation between plot/genre
lelangir: i think im obfuscating it for you
genre within the same series
shifts from comedy to romance to drama
Ghostlightning: rendering genre meaningless
lelangir: whoa….maybe that’s it
Ghostlightning: or calling for lame portmanteaus like dramedy
lelangir: one sec….
Ghostlightning: brb, waifu calls
i’ll keep talkin
so it’s like, microgenres are hierarchical
in kannagi, drama takes a backseat to comedy
they cant be viewed horizontally
Pontifus has joined
lelangir: ok so the question was
what is the relationship between genre and plot
wait, pontifus, have yuo seen kannagi?
Ghostlightning: you bastards are keeping me from writing my post (i don’t entirely mind)
you’re telling me…
Ghostlightning: this is not going to end well
lelangir: that’s Kannagi, essentially
Pontifus: and, regarding genre and plot, cuchlann would be the one to ask…i don’t really like genre, and i’m trying to make an argument for genre being a superfluous construct (though i haven’t really figured it out yet)
lelangir: but for all intensive purposes
genre not as discursive
Ghostlightning: we got to that conclusion too
lelangir: fuck where is that guy
Ghostlightning: after so much wrestling
lelangir: need total superfani jerk circle
Pontifus: what are we calling genre here? comedy?
lelangir: comedy, drama
the distinct elements in kannagi
lelangir: wait up one sec
Pontifus: lol, should i bust out some aristotle?
save lelangir the trouble
go ahead if you want
Pontifus: norton anthology of theory and criticism, GO!
lelangir: the kannagi collection
look at kabitzin’s remarks
he’s like “this sucks, i dont get it, it doesnt make sense”
so why dont the distinct elements make sense?
Pontifus: did either of you not like nagi very much?
or am i the only one in the universe?
Ghostlightning: read from a framework of failure, it all makes sense!
lelangir: i liked her
Ghostlightning: i like her so much more now
lelangir: HELP ME ANSWER MY QUESTION
LISTEN TO MY SONG
Ghostlightning: NAGI, THE ROMANCE OF FAIL
lelangir: fucking UGUU
Pontifus: i didn’t DISlike her, but she didn’t make me fangasm, either
alright, back on topic!
plot is a conduit for intraparadigmatic genre
which is to say
when an anime deploys several genres within the same series
the plot connects comedy and drama
what is the counter theory
theory1: plot is vehicular
theory2: genre isnt really disparate at all….so how does plot function?
i dont know….
Pontifus: northrop frye is suddenly relevant…i need to find something, give me a minute
genres sort of bleed into each other
so you’ve got tragic comedy, romantic comedy, and ironic comedy
Ghostlightning: yeah, and code geass is the best example
Pontifus: but not really comedy “by itself”
Ghostlightning: if one includes anime-specific genre
such as mecha, harem
lelangir: so there’s a distinction here
between style and genre
style is romance
genre is mecha
slice of life romance
Pontifus: well, tragedy and comedy are kind of opposed as per frye, i guess he’d call tragicomedy ironic comedy
Ghostlightning: style… hmmm
lelangir: sooo frye says they’re in the same paradigm
opposed but comparable
lelangir: that’s good
Ghostlightning: oooh that frye model got me wet
Pontifus: damn, we really need cuchlann
Pontifus: he knows so much more about frye than i do, lol
lelangir: he’s got like over 9000 degrees lol
unlimited degree works
those are two REALLY complementing memes
Pontifus: oh shit, that mythoi circle i linked is kind of wrong
Pontifus: it says comedy, romance, tragedy, irony/satire…but i think the right order is romance, comedy, tragedy, and irony/satire
so comedy and tragedy do overlap
lelangir: how so?
Pontifus: mythos of summer/mythos of autumn
lelangir: they can….
like….monty python or something
i’m not so familiar with grecian tragedy
Ghostlightning: shakespeare even
lelangir: oh shit
Ghostlightning: unless you dismiss comedic elements from let’s say romeo and juliet
as mere ‘relief’
lelangir: but that speaks directly tot he difference between style/genre
“tragedy” can be either totalizing or not
Ghostlightning: combo breakers for teh drama
lelangir: tragedy as in “everyone is sad”
or tragedy as in “everyone dies”
they’re not mutually exclusive
Pontifus: i think putting the mythoi on a circle might be too restrictive of them anyway
Ghostlightning: IN SHAKESPEARE: tragedy-everyone dies, comedy-everyone gets married
man….i’m done with this kannagi post lol
for another day….
Pontifus: in any case, when you said “plot connects comedy and drama,” i’d say they’re all connected anyway
lelangir: how so?
comedy and drama aren’t intrinsically connected
it’s a non-sequitor as it is
it needs something “logical” or “syntatical” to make it fit
Pontifus: well, “drama” is a hard term for me to deal with as a genre anyway
i think drama is just a device
Ghostlightning: UNIVERSAL SET: PLOT, inter-connecting sets: style, genre
lelangir: drama as in dorama
drama = emo
Ghostlightning: style:device right?
Pontifus: comedy has drama, tragedy has drama, everything has drama
lelangir: for all intensive purposes here
but in kannagi they’re very distinct
emo doesn’t equal comedy
they dont even self-satirize their emo
Ghostlightning: but to categorize a subject as specifically drama, one must ignore the intentional fallacey
Pontifus: you think so?
Ghostlightning: and go by how it’s marketed
marketed as comedy
with harem undertones
Pontifus: i think that, maybe, if the drama (dorama or emo though it may be) serves comedy, ultimately, then it falls under comedy…it’s just not funny yet, but it promises humor
and if it isn’t ultimately funny, then it’s tragedy
Pontifus: funny and/or generally happy
lelangir: i dont get it…
but it isn’t monolithic
Ghostlightning: so people who dismiss kannagi, dismiss it within the framework of the market
lelangir: kannagi utilizes different approaches in tandem with the progression of its plot
Ghostlightning: they are the consumers – the target market that kannagi “missed”
lelangir: which is different than the author (oh SHI- barthes)
Pontifus: now, i don’t know about the market
lelangir: wait ghostlightning hold on
“[t]his is my first original work. Whenever I thought it was a joke, it became too serious. And whenever I thought it was serious, it became a joke. That’s the kind of manga I’m aiming it to be.”
that upsets it
Ghostlightning: goodbye barthes
Pontifus: nooo, barthes, come back!
he is gooooone now
eri has spoken
its different than the anime!
Ghostlightning: but the thing is, the author HAS LESS POWER
lelangir: vis-a-vis the viewer
the market appropriates it
which is just discursive
Ghostlightning: because the means of production is held by someone else
Pontifus: i can’t really agree that anything the author said is relevant here at all, lol
i don’t care what the creative process was, or even about the manga at all
Ghostlightning: the relevant thing here is what the marketers are intending
Pontifus: kannagi the anime is what it is
Ghostlightning: they invested in it
they distributed it
lelangir: ok Karl
Ghostlightning: but the market has spoken: we dun liek it
Pontifus: they created an authorial consciousness, that the reader/viewer fills
Ghostlightning: marx-tan yes
lelangir: [i'll stop lol]
Pontifus: really? kannagi wasn’t well recieved?
lelangir: yeah it was
dvd sales high
across the sphere too
Pontifus: yeah, i thought it was
Ghostlightning: oh so only teh bloggers are whining
no only a few
it’s not like index
Pontifus: don’t remind me
those six episodes were traumatic
lelangir: i was kinda sad i missed out a red haied loli tsundere with hot pants
but….i got tsugumi
red haired [at times tsundere] with seifafuku
Ghostlightning: i’m possessed by cuchlann and Ghostlightning: the market received it well, implying they are entertained and have been recommending it to firends, high entertainment value = high literary value
lelangir: er, seira….
Ghostlightning: so bloggers, STFU
lelangir: since when does entertainment value = literary value
Pontifus: all things have the same value
Ghostlightning: cuchlann quotes this michael guy
Pontifus: literary value
Ghostlightning: value = utility that a readery experiences from the subject
lelangir: in essence anime is not deep
lelangir: [oh shi- calling omo]
because its controlled by the industry
completely different histories
the history of literature vs. the history of anime
Pontifus: fuck, i need cuchlann’s aid!
lelangir: totally different
Pontifus: i’m telling him to jump on google
Ghostlightning: pontifus, i get what you’re saying
lelangir: me too
but i’m not up for it
we’re in a very political situation
so disregarding it is like….fljalewrjfoi
Ghostlightning: but the context here is that the readers/bloggers value shit the way they do
heirarchies and all taht
produced by the industry/market
the literary value paradigm is irrelevant
Ghostlightning: but i’m with you ponti
lelangir: [hence 'anime is not deep']
Pontifus: “the literary value paradigm is irrelevant”
Ghostlightning: nothing can be invalidated
lelangir: Pontifus, what “literary value” doesnt seem to take into consideration is discourse
in that discourse produces value
Ghostlightning: no need to scream, you can’t be invalidated LOOOOOL
lelangir: value is predicated upon discourse
Pontifus: but here’s the thing
no, wait, scratch that
you cannot beeat foucault
Pontifus: yes discourse produces value, but i think one could pretty much talk about anything…i think that latent value is basically value
lelangir: latent value?
chuchlann is on!
Pontifus: a thing around which there is no discourse COULD have discourse, and that’s enough
Ghostlightning: hmmm, even latent value is put there by a “prime valuator”
Pontifus: i don’t think it’s “put” there, i think it’s just there
lelangir: no wait nonnonnonononono
Ghostlightning: hence, value is relative to valuer
lelangir: things have no meaning until it is represented
representation is CONSTITUTIVE of meaning
lelangir: there is no “thing” before it is represented
representation MAKES the thing
Ghostlightning: there is NO KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT LANGUAGE
Pontifus: yeah, i know
hang on, let me process
lelangir: just to let you know
Ghostlightning: tihs is funner tahn i thuotgh
lelangir: i’m like, in a constant state of jizzing right now
“tihs is funner tahn i thuotgh”
Ghostlightning: owen’s post resonates within me
lelangir: the amount of typos makes that hilarious for some reason
Ghostlightning: but that typo is artifice
Pontifus: alright, i’m ready
Ghostlightning: synthetic comedy
lelangir: oh my jizzzzzzzzzz
Cuchlann has joined
Pontifus: narrative art doesn’t need discourse to have value, insofar as discourse is communication between art experiencers…in fact, discourse is only possible to a point
it only needs, in my estimation, one person to experience it
Cuchlann: Okay, so what’s happening here?
Pontifus: how to summarize, lol
Ghostlightning: DISCOURSE can be between the subject and the viewer/reader
lelangir: we’re talking about kannagi
if you’d believe it
discourse is emepheral
Pontifus: everyone, summarize your position!
Cuchlann: Well of course you are. And clearly, this is why the next podcast needs to happen soon.
discourse is between the things
subjects are constituent of it
they create it
and anime is its objec
the discourse ON anime
Pontifus: right, and i think that isn’t necessary for art to have value
Ghostlightning: like right now, i’m having a righteous discussion with ep 06 of SDF macross. Global you are an idiot.
lelangir: you think eh?
but that’s your discourse
Ghostlightning: value is not necessary
value is contingent
lelangir: the discourse in which you are situated
take away your discourse, it takes away your meaning
then, what is value?
an empty signifier
Ghostlightning: value = is the utility of a being experiencing a subject
the utility being gained
lelangir: just because your “value” means to say that discourse is irrelevant…that in itself is irrelevant because it NEEDS discourse to in itself have meaning
er, i didnt mean to come off as offensive..
Pontifus: i’m not saying that ALL discourse is irrelevant, or that discourse is even irrelevant at all, but that the value of art isn’t predicated entirely upon discourse between people, and that i don’t necessarily think there are variant “levels” of value
Ghostlightning: there are levels of value!
lelangir: so art has an intrinstic value….
Pontifus: assuming that the relationship between reader and text is discourse, then, sure, discourse is required
lelangir: but wait
Ghostlightning: i value macross over other anime
lelangir: that’s the discourse split
political value vs. philosophical value
Ghostlightning: levels are subjective, but they exist
lelangir: both are right
but irreconciaibly different
Pontifus: art has no intrinsic value, which makes it infinitely valuable
Ghostlightning: OOOOH, PARADOX
Cuchlann: At which point am I meant to enter the conversation? O_o
Pontifus: whenever, lol
Ghostlightning: just jump in
lelangir: we cant explain philosophical value with political value…
Pontifus: you’re like a brick wall
i love it
Cuchlann: I have two responses to this conversation: one is in the same spirit, and one is in my usual asshole, reductionist spirit.
Pontifus: seriously, test the fuck out of my views
i don’t get a chance to do this that often
lelangir: oh lol
i thought you meant i was STOOPID lollolololo
Pontifus: no, lol
lelangir: stop being a tsundere Cuchlann
Ghostlightning: uh, Cuchlann maybe we should leave
Ghostlightning: these two are gonna fuck
Cuchlann: Which one’s the uke?
Pontifus: me, i think
lelangir: seme…I R ATTACKAR?
Cuchlann: Now, remind me of which role uke is?
Ghostlightning: oh no, you have seme really written all over you
fuck why do i know that
Cuchlann: Written in what, I wonder?
lelangir: ore ga sasahara…omae ga OGIUE
Ghostlightning: oh i got it wrong
Pontifus: I’LL SHOW YOU HOW AGGRESSIVE I CAN BE
Ghostlightning: uke is below right
lelangir: ok….so going back to value etc.
Ghostlightning: ok, your wish to be challenged is an act of spreading your legs
Cuchlann: Okay, here’s my reductionist answer: I cite Dark Side of the Moon.
Cuchlann: And what? That’s the anwer. ; )
Okay, yes, I will explain.
lelangir: [dont look at me, im the only guitarist i know that's never heard it before]
[that and the fact that i dont like hendrix]
it’s acceptible though, you’re a jazz guy
lelangir: DUN DUN DUN
Cuchlann: I wouldn’t compare Hendrix and Pink Floyd at all, actually.
Ghostlightning: me too
Cuchlann: No one listens to DSotM in a group. At any rate, not stereotypically.
lelangir: i dig radiohead now though
ok computer is beast
Cuchlann: You always hear it alone, when you’re like fifteen.
lelangir: at any rate, i’m listening on loop to the kimi ga nozomu eien OP
Cuchlann: For a whole lot of American teenagers, at any rate, it’s the most meaningful thing they’ve ever heard.
It “speaks to them.” Much as the voices do, I’m sure.
like stairway to heaven backwards?
Cuchlann: This is without contact with other fans of Pink Floyd.
Now, the OED tells me that “discourse” has a lot of different meanings.
i think i read that in a book just now
Cuchlann: Oxford English Dictionary.
Ghostlightning: one can discourse with the subject!
lelangir: discourse in the foucauldian sense
Cuchlann: Okay, hold on.
Pontifus: see, this is hard for me because i don’t know focault yet, lol
Cuchlann: That is one sense of the meaning of “discourse.”
Another is the conversation afterwards.
Ghostlightning: lelangir, distinguish focauldian discourse plz
lelangir: oh jezz ok
discourse is the bounds of thinkable thought
things outside discourse have no meaning
like anamolous categories
they dont fit into the binary
Cuchlann: We need to clarify our terms here, and “discourse,” in my opinion, isn’t useful in describing anything other than conversation.
lelangir: of straight and/or black/white
foucauldian discourse describes, in essence…”sociolinguistics”
Cuchlann: Of course, that assumes the discourse works in terms of a binary, which isn’t necessarily true.
lelangir: in a broad, instituationalized sense
not necessarily true yes
but works for those cases
Pontifus: i am now stepping into cuchlann, who is also mobile suit cuchlann-gundam, and setting him on autopilot
lelangir: ok here’s an example
Cuchlann: I propose that we should use a different word, and not “discourse,” as academically the word is typically used to mean the setting within which people discuss topics.
lelangir: the subject does not produe knowledge
Ghostlightning: binaries are just asses waiting to be raped by deconstruction lol
i’ve been inculcated into discourse as like, the godliest device ever
Cuchlann: Or group. As we are busily quibbling over words, I will admit “setting” is not the best choice.
what is the poit of not using discourse as an analytic tool?
Cuchlann: Yes, I can tell. I think you’re in the place I was several years ago, when you discovered a good critical theory and decided it was the holy of holies. :)
lelangir: what were we talkinga bout again?
Pontifus: in my mind, what you’re calling discourse is just existential existence…it’s the only thing worth considering, imo, so there isn’t even any need to discuss anything “beyond” it
there is no beyond
Ghostlightning: LIEK ME AND DECONSTRUCTION LOL
Cuchlann: Discourse the act of using analytic tools, in my terminology.
lelangir: discourse is the act?
Cuchlann: I’m trying to make sure you know what I’m saying when I say it.
Ghostlightning: i realize that i no longer contribute value to this discussion
lelangir: well discourse is also practice
me shooting a basket contributes to the discourse on basketball
Cuchlann: Any act, repeated, is practice.
Ghostlightning: but i will derive value from it by LURKING
LURK MODE ON
lelangir: system of agreements
Pontifus: right, but, correct me if i’m wrong, it seems like you’re saying that discourse is the entire range of possible actions, thoughts, etc.
Cuchlann: No, it doesn’t. You shooting a basket and learning a new way to consider the act, then telling others — that contributes to the discourse.
lelangir: discourse neednt be ‘active’
you’re actively participating in it
by subjugating yourself to it
Cuchlann: I’m trying to copy-paste what Pontifus just said, but it won’t let me.
lelangir: the only way to avoid discourse is to scoop your eyes out and slit your ears off
“right, but, correct me if i’m wrong, it seems like you’re saying that discourse is the entire range of possible actions, thoughts, etc.”
“possible”….yes, sort of
Cuchlann: Here’s the first point of my poly-pronged point: if everything is discourse, there’s no point in discussing it, as it’s everything. Thus, it’s nothing.
Cuchlann: It has nothing to contrast it in the chain of meaning.
Cuchlann: Not even existentialism, just pragmatic defining of critical terms.
lelangir: discourse points out holes in itself
Pontifus: i just like that word
lelangir: discouse expands, contracts
Ghostlightning: existentialism 4tw
Pontifus: sure, but anything outside of it doesn’t exist, right?
Cuchlann: All right, let’s go on to prong number two…
lelangir: discourse theory takes into account silence
it contains in itself its antithesis
Cuchlann: Do we all agree that a piece of art has no meaning without a viewer?
Ghostlightning: LELANGIR: WHAT IS NOT DISCOURSE?
i’m being sophist probably
Pontifus: but if silence is the opposite of discourse, and discourse is all that is, all i can concern myself with as a human being is all that is, and therefore silence doesn’t exist
Cuchlann: Silence is a perfectly acceptable answer, and thus part of discourse.
lelangir: i didnt say discourse was all that is
discourse is, paradoxicaly, everything and nothing
take race for instance
you MUST have race
Cuchlann: Which means it’s not very good for conversation.
lelangir: but is is NOTHING
it doesnt exist
Cuchlann: Actually, it’s not necessary to have race as a construction, it’s just habitual at this point in human history.
lelangir: nationalism too
Ghostlightning: silence in the context of a conversation is not NOT DISCOURSE
Pontifus: race in the sense of different kinds of human beings?
Pontifus: because, yeah, i don’t think that’s necessary
lelangir: black/ white w/e
…………yeah it is
Pontifus: it’s habitual
lelangir: in this specific political history it is
well discourse is inert
it doesnt move
it is specific
Cuchlann: Answers, though, real quick: does a book have content if no one reads it?
Cuchlann: I use “read” in the broad sense.
Pontifus: well, not really
lelangir: oh god…uhhmmm
it needs an author
Pontifus: granted that the author has read it, probably
Cuchlann: Not necessarily.
Pontifus: it doesn’t have meaning “by itself,” no
Ghostlightning: the author who rote it?
read while writing
lelangir: [again to reiterate, i'm jizzing]
Cuchlann: And anyway, the “reading” of the author violates the terms of my question.
iin your sentence
Cuchlann: If no one’s read the book, does it have any content?
lelangir: is the author the subject or the object
Cuchlann: The author is outside the scope of my question.
You’re in a room with a book. You’re illiterate.
lelangir: i mean
Pontifus: no, it doesn’t have meaning on its own, says i
Cuchlann: You’re unaware of the social mores concerning books.
Pontifus: well, then the book might mean firewood, but we’re talking about the text, i guess, lol
lelangir: but wait
Cuchlann: Pontifus has hit on where I’m going, at any rate.
lelangir: in the absense of one type of meaning is there total lack of meaning?
Cuchlann: Without reading, a book is merely paper and ink.
lelangir: “specific” social norms arent everything
Cuchlann: I’m talking about artistic meaning here, sorry.
lelangir: it could reprsent that the reader is stupid
so if you’re illiterate
artistic meaning is impossible
not if you’re inculcated into the SOCIAL DISCOURSE that books are inherently beautiful
Cuchlann: Artistic meaning from reading is impossible.
I said outside that.
lelangir: LIKE FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER????
lelangir: if i remember….
Cuchlann: This is a philosophical hypothetical.
Pontifus: GOTHIC, OH SHI-
Cuchlann: Excellent example, actually.
If the Creature hadn’t learned to read, what would the books he found have meant to him?
Pontifus: it makes me really happy that, for the most part, i can just reach over and grab the pertinent examples off my shelves
lelangir: i have stuart hall et al. sitting here…
Cuchlann: I would have to go to another room, and step over, uh, other books, but yes.
Pontifus: which i hope means i’m doing pretty well as far as collecting, lol
lelangir: oh shit and some mary shelley too!
Cuchlann: I think I have my Aristotle in here right now…
lelangir: poetics is right here
Pontifus: poor poetics
Cuchlann: Yes, in the stack with the Shakespeare essays, the grammar book, and the Norton critical theory text.
Cuchlann: Okay, so in our hypothetical situation, the book is drained of all artistic meaning.
lelangir: insofar as you are illiterate
Cuchlann: Yes, that’s given.
lelangir: incapable of directly producing experiential meaning
but that is not social meaning
Cuchlann: Now, here’s the part that pleases lelangir: this means that discourse is necessary for art to function.
isn’t art discursive anyway?
me farting is art
Cuchlann: Here’s the part that doesn’t please him: the art itself must necessarily be outside the discourse itself, as it has no meaning.
lelangir: socrates raping a young boy is art
Cuchlann: If done before an audience, yes, both can be true.
lelangir: ah yes!
the audience is abstracted
reduced to a feeling
Ghostlightning: the audience could be the boy itself
lelangir: ” the art itself must necessarily be outside the discourse itself, as it has no meaning.”
i dont get that part
Cuchlann: The audience must necessarily be removed from the art, as art has no practical purpose — and the boy would have practical concerns at that point.
lelangir: how is it necssary?
it’s not removed
because the discourse created it
Cuchlann: Discourse is about making meaning. Art makes no meaning on its own, and cannot take part in discourse, as discourse is a two-way street.
lelangir: as we said before
representation is constitutive of meaning
there is no meaning outside representation
Pontifus: ok, hang on there
Ghostlightning: activities with practical purposes cannot be read as art? how come?
lelangir: it did not exist prior to representation
Cuchlann: I cite Oscar Wilde.
Pontifus: how analogous is the phenomenological idea of the author consciousness dispossessing the reader to discourse?
Cuchlann: “All art is quite useless.”
I’ll dig up a link…
lelangir: getting a bit marxist here
how does art make no meaning?
what if its social commentary via play?
Cuchlann: Art makes no meaning.
The audience makes meaning.
lelangir: the art of being earnest
it’s good to be earnest
so how does that make art situated outside discourse
does discourse “osmotize” it?
Ghostlightning: i’m familiar with the quote, but tieing a bow-tie for the purpose of looking good at a dinner party can be ‘artful’ or can’t it?
Cuchlann: Discourse observes art. It must be outside to be observed.
lelangir: observing is irrelevant to position
Cuchlann: No it’s not.
Pontifus: insofar as art isn’t practical?
Cuchlann: Let me line my ducks up for a second…
lelangir: if art is outside discourse it has no meaning in that discourse
no intrinsic art meaning
but it has social meaning
they are weird
Cuchlann: The meaning is within the discourse, because it’s not attached to the art.
lelangir: they dont exist in the discourse on blackness
Cuchlann: It’s in the space between.
Pontifus: but if the subject is the art, and the object is the discourse
Pontifus: they’re inside the same semiotic construct, sure
lelangir: oh ok isee that
Pontifus: but separate
Cuchlann: This is all reader-response and phenomenology, that the art doesn’t have the meaning, the audience does.
Ghostlightning: the audience, rather, creates the meaning you mean
Cuchlann: Or at least, my interpretation of those schools of thought.
lelangir: i like chuchlann’s thought
that meaning is attached to the audience
Cuchlann: That’s why it’s possible to have different opinions on art.
lelangir: i’d like to view it as art being vacuum pockets in discourse
Ghostlightning: LELANGIR I’VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU THIS SINCE MY FIRST COMMENTS ON YOUR POSTS AT THAT
lelangir: …though different opinion is discourse in itself
Cuchlann: I don’t think I’d see too much of a problem with the very slight difference in that interpretation.
Yes, it is.
lelangir: but discourse defies quantum physics per se
Cuchlann: @Ghostlightning: haha.
lelangir: you can have multiple discourse in the same geopolitics
Cuchlann: I think that defines, not defies, quantum mechanics.
lelangir: oh yeah lol
Cuchlann: Given that only in quantum mechanics can you have superposition.
Ghostlightning: no, that the readers create the meaning, agreeing amongst themselves
Cuchlann: Well now, it’s not that they’re agreeing amongst themselves.
Pontifus: or one reader agreeing with itself
lelangir: that’s so IKnight from last winter
Cuchlann: Go back to Dark Side of the Moon.
Okay, Pontifus got it, basically. Never mind.
Pontifus: i wish i had nexisted last winter
lelangir: no way
Cuchlann: I did, it was like any winter. ^_^
lelangir: from june-december
craziest time ever
or so owen tells me
yeah, Cuchlann has convinced me
Pontifus: this is why i wanted him here, lol
lelangir: art’s lack of intrinstic meaning must implicate that discourse is attached to it. blah blah blah
Cuchlann: Art is, ultimately, an aesthetic experience. It can carry with it thoughts and opinions, but they won’t be worth anything if the art doesn’t make the audience feel.
Ghostlightning: the reader agrees with something as to waht a sign means, and communicates that meaning to others, the meaning strengthens, pending agreement from such others
Cuchlann: Hence Wilde’s line: There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
lelangir: so…there’s a split between what art really is and what art is perceived to be
“modernism” is discourse
but that has no effect on what the art really is
lelangir: which n ever changes
Cuchlann: Art is basically art, always.
Cuchlann: That’s also why you get different readings of classic texts in different eras.
Cuchlann: Skim through a history of studies on Hamlet to see it in action.
lelangir: discourse is historically dependnat
Pontifus: now here’s where i jump in and be disagreeable…ghostlightning, i think that, once an agreement is established, there’s no making it stronger or weaker, it just IS
Cuchlann: But the aesthetic experience is not. Or at least, the strength of response. a differing system of mores could alter the particular aesthetic experience.
lelangir: ok well now that cuchlann has upset my notion of what things “are”, there are two routes
Ghostlightning: stronger in teh sense that more people agree, it becomse temporally on top of the heirarchies of meaning
lelangir: the “existential” route…and the social route
Pontifus: these agreements have relative strengths in different people’s artistic experiences, but no “ultimate” strength/weakness value
Ghostlightning: like for example: CODE GEASS = TRAINWRECK
Cuchlann: Oh, you youngsters (yes, I realize all our ages).
Because I would say X = trainwreck
Pontifus: geass is a trainwreck = true, geass is awesome = true, period
Cuchlann: But you guys probably don’t know anything about that.
Ghostlightning: it has power over code geass = not trainwreck, at present at least
wow, am i a youngster nao? LOL
Ghostlightning: both are true, but in practice, the former is more resonant
Pontifus: now, prevalent opinions, that’s a social thing, and isn’t related to artistic value
lelangir: wait…how’s that in rel. to an argument
isn’t an argument just a statement?
Ghostlightning: i argue even artistic value is a sign agreed upon by a society
Cuchlann: A statement that can be argued with, but yes.
lelangir: what it is directed at seems irrelevant
Ghostlightning: … a society of art theorists
lelangir: vis-a-vis its existential value
which is immutable
but its discourse potency….that’s different
Pontifus: “artistic value” as a term, sure, but not artistic value as applied
Ghostlightning: so art has no intrinsic value, as a meaning, has less power in practice
lelangir: i dont get it
Cuchlann: Actually, the lack of intrinsic meaning gives it more power.
Cuchlann: A crafted chair can be beautifully wrought, but ultimately it is a tool.
Ghostlightning: to use a cruder example, atheism (no theo) has less power than theism (yes theo)
Cuchlann: And as such, eventually even the most sensitive person will view it as a chair, to be sat upon.
lelangir: I guess I’m confused by greg’s use of “power”
Cuchlann: But art, with no use but to be art, to be “beautiful,” can never be written off as anything else.
lelangir: which is a loaded word in foucaultism…
oh wait hold on
art is art insofar as it has a definition
where did that definition come from?
Cuchlann: Ah. Power to affect an audience aesthetically.
Ghostlightning: if i sit on that artful chair, even artfully, am i reducing its artistic value?
Cuchlann: My definition comes from Wilde.
lelangir: oh shi- barthes again…
Cuchlann: I would say you aren’t affecting it, unless you break it.
lelangir: hmmmmmm sosifdkjsosjsojKJ!J!OIU$(*&(U93wt5w94u
Cuchlann: You simply occlude it, like standing in front of a painting.
lelangir: we’ve created art such that it has the agency to cast off structural hegemony
sorry i love that terminology
art has become art
Ghostlightning: the viewer, cannot experience the art the painter made, BUT HE CAN EXPERIENCE THE ART OF ME STANDING ARTFULLY IN FRONT OF IT
Ghostlightning: “ghostlightning’s shadow over cubism”
lelangir: but what is “art”
art came from where?
we say ‘art is art’
but that’s circular i think….
Cuchlann: Wilde again: We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.
Art is a thing to be admired intensely.
that doesn’t consider its origin
or is origin pointless
Cuchlann: The origin is unimportant.
Cuchlann: The art stands before you. The author does not.
Cuchlann: What is the origin of Beowulf?
lelangir: not origin as in author
origin as in meaning of the meaning of art
Cuchlann: The meaning is between you and the art.
That isn’t the origin.
Ghostlightning: etymology of art plz
Cuchlann: It’s the product of you consuming the art.
Pontifus: @ghostlightning observe, if you will, a battle of gods
art has to be predicated upon something
everything is predicated
nothing is ahistoric
hence, from whence did art arrive
Pontifus: right, so
if nothing is ahistoric
“ahistoric” is nothing
lelangir: art cannot just exist all of a sudden
Pontifus: it doesn’t exist
Cuchlann: Art entered English through Anglo-Norman, from Old French.
Pontifus: so how is that important?
Cuchlann: It is created, but the artist effaces the creation with the completed work.
even art in an existential sense
Cuchlann: An orchestra doesn’t reveal its practices to the audience, only the performance.
lelangir: it must have a discursive root
Cuchlann: But it doesn’t matter to the aesthetic experience.
lelangir: correct me if i’m wrong (i probably am) its exisentialism needs discourse
guh so many types
Ghostlightning: the aesthetic experience is also up to the viewer/reader
Cuchlann: Art can be considered a product of discourse.
lelangir: but the aesthetic experience can be discursisve
Pontifus: insofar as discourse is one person agreeing with himself…is, i think, the idea, correct me if i’m wrong, o mighty cuchlann
Ghostlightning: i derive a lot of value watching practices
Cuchlann: Well, I’m generally inclined to say discourse requires at least two people, you folks came up with that one.
Ghostlightning: one person agreeing with the self, i find nothing wrong with it
i probably do it a lot
Pontifus: not i, lol
Pontifus: it’s those focauldians over there
Ghostlightning: the discourse with the self
is between one’s memories
Ghostlightning: and the idea at hand
lelangir: your habitus
Ghostlightning: YES YES
Cuchlann: Hm. Okay, not bad, I can see that, I suppose.
your identity is not stable
Ghostlightning: does the idea at hand, FIT?
lelangir: always morphing
being changed by external forces
Ghostlightning: with my past conceptions, etc?
Cuchlann: It works with the phenomenological idea of creating a second consciousness, which is one’s perception of the art.
Ghostlightning: me: IS THIS ART?
lelangir: oh shi-
i dont get that….
Ghostlightning: or: IS MY IDEA OF ART… LIMITED?
lelangir: why does one need a 2nd con. for art?’
Cuchlann: It’s the same thing we said earlier, but recast into different terms.
lelangir: @Ghostlightning: i dont get that either
Cuchlann: Actually, now that I think of it, it’s probably a way to get at what you’re describing.
lelangir: yes ok i see that now
Cuchlann: Discourse within the self.
that is predicated upon society
lelangir: the self ineedss the othe
THE SELF NEEDS THE OTHER
Ghostlightning: instead of me listening to your words, i say it to myself, in my voice, to see if it ‘fits’ my self-concept
if it does, i probably will agree
all that is prediated upon memory
with your contact with society
Ghostlightning: memory yes
lelangir: no experience = no memory
= no discourse
Ghostlightning: THAT IS WHY WE REMEMBER LOVE
lelangir: nothing to discoure with or upon
lelangir: oh god…
Cuchlann: I have no problems with any of those statements, but they don’t alter the fact that art is solely aesthetic.
lelangir: in the existential sense
Cuchlann: In the experiential sense.
lelangir: if thats the right term
oh yeah definitely
there are fakers
Cuchlann: The experience is what I’m almost always concerned with, rather than the implications. :)
lelangir: “oh duuuuuude that art meant soooo much to me! [wanna fuck?]‘
Ghostlightning: since we agree, the idea becomes ‘stronger’
lelangir: but then
what i just said isnt even experiential
Cuchlann: It’s based on experience.
Pontifus: sure, people lie, but i think our entire conversation here takes honesty for granted
Ghostlightning: um mutually exclusive?
lelangir: its just transplanting experience over social goals
Cuchlann: A lie is as based on experience as a truth, or else the liar wouldn’t be able to lie.
it gets stronger?
yeah i suppose
that’s where discourse gets it strength
Ghostlightning: the grand march of ideas
lelangir: I think there is no finalized definition of art
lelangir: there are always contesting theories
of equal value
Ghostlightning: hegel: keikaku doori
Pontifus: which almost seems to be the way it has to be, but i haven’t put a lot of thought into that, so don’t ask me to back it up
lelangir: what is significant is each contesting theory’s political relevance
Cuchlann: No, political relevance is completely unimportant.
Ghostlightning: it is significant, yes, but i dunno about ultimate significance
lelangir: how’s it irrelevant?
Cuchlann: It’s an after-affect of the passage of art through consciousness.
Pontifus: it’s sociology
Ghostlightning: yea how?
lelangir: [insofar as we mean political in the same way]
i thought we said all theories were equal
one theory claims art is something beyond theory
Cuchlann: And I’m giving you mine. That’s what this conversation is, yes? ^_^
lelangir: so…we agree to disagree
that’s the end right?
so its FOR FUNNNNN
Cuchlann: It’s always the end. But didn’t you enjoy yourself?
Ghostlightning: the art of conversation
Cuchlann: See, in my version, that’s the point.
lelangir: that’s actually the best conclusion lol
to enjoy yourself
Cuchlann: Aesthetic experience achieved.
lelangir: i still dont like that….
[i'm still pleasuring myself]
Ghostlightning: and with agreement, the feeling is intensified
lelangir: if one theory proclaims art above theory
Cuchlann: Well, on a personal level, let me put it to you this way–
lelangir: that seems contradictory
it needs itself to invalidate itelf
Cuchlann: I didn’t start reading because of a political end (in any sense of the word political). I read habitually because I read once and the aesthetic experience appealed to me more than other pursuits.
And I never claimed art was above theory. In fact, when people claim that, I get angry.
Ghostlightning: nothing is intrinsically valuable over another thing
lelangir: i dont get it though…
Ghostlightning: people assign values into heirarchies
Cuchlann: Don’t get what?
lelangir: how….art can be nothing
but it needs meaning to be described in such a way
no it doesnt
Pontifus: thus spake derrida, kinda
lelangir: its nothing regardless
Ghostlightning: all this, is nothing, empty and meaningless
Pontifus: art being nothing is what lets it mean anything at all
lelangir: it exists if i dont see it
Cuchlann: Who, like Zarathustra, found himself stinking in a cave, what?
lelangir: but then it doesnt exist…
Ghostlightning: its meaning is but a contingency of us meaning-makers
lelangir: so does that theory merely state that things are even if they aren’t?
Ghostlightning: and we, like the meaning, are ephemeral
Cuchlann: I never said art is nothing.
I said art has no intrinsic meaning. There’s a difference.
Pontifus: or, yeah
Cuchlann: Nothing has an intrinsic meaning.
Cuchlann: Trees don’t, or fire, or floods.
Pontifus: it is something that means nothing, inherently
Cuchlann: But they still exist.
lelangir: what i was getting at….hmmm
Ghostlightning: signs exist
lelangir: “existentialism” describes art as meaningless
do we even need existentialism for that MEANING in and of itself to continue to exist?
the meaning of meaningless
Cuchlann: Sartre… bleh.
Ghostlightning: kannagi exists, for the people who derive meaning from it (writer, producer, distributor, consumer, critic)
Ghostlightning: and everyone will have an opinion
lelangir: but art is different i think
it’s much more abstract
that made little sense
Ghostlightning: and the majority of agreements, will have weight
Cuchlann: Kannagi exists as a bunch of digital files, and possibly some animation cels — or more likely, more digital files.
lelangir: waitwaitwitw go back to sartre
or is that thought wrong?
Cuchlann: The meaning is in the watching, not the existence.
Ghostlightning: each social group/entity will make it mean something
lelangir: that active knowledge is predicated upon existence of a buttress for that knowledge
Ghostlightning: yes, the experience, not the existence
Cuchlann: Oh, my ex just really liked Sartre, so I go “bleh.”
Ghostlightning: not experience isn’t limited to watching
selling, creating, discussing
Cuchlann: Yes, the experience. And it isn’t, no.
Ghostlightning: all part of it
i prefer camus to sartre
Cuchlann: But the thing itself isn’t part of any of those, except as a thing. It offers no special, extra value that wouldn’t be achieved with any other show in its place.
Ghostlightning: yes, the thing in itself is meaningless
that meaningless is meaningful
Pontifus: or, maybe it wouldn’t be achieved, but the important thing, i guess, is that it could be achieved
Ghostlightning: all things, in themselves are empty and meaningless
Ghostlightning: AND IT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING that they are empty and meaningless
insofar as we don’t observe them
its meaningless inasmuch as you make it meaningless, which is sort of impossible sounding
Ghostlightning: as long as when we do observe, we assign meaning, then it has consequence
lelangir: how do you make it meaningless?
“this is meaningless”
but thats the same as “this is meaningful”
Ghostlightning: i cannot make it meaningless
lelangir: meaninglessness is another state of meaning
Ghostlightning: it is an acknowledgment that it has no ‘real’ ;true’ meaning
Ghostlightning: aside from what we make for it
that’s what i mean
not a reduction of meaning to oblivion
Ghostlightning: but an acknowledgment of the lack of ultimacy in the meaning i assign for the sign
Cuchlann: All right, with this new turn, I will retire. I have to get up early tomorrow.
Ghostlightning: thanks for participating!
Cuchlann: Someone save this and post it tomorrow.
Pontifus: i plan on it
lelangir: oh jesus