h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Check entries on above to see if

A) They exist

B) They are adequate

C) I should write about/add to them.

While I'm at it, check on

a) survival skills

b) good maners

c) respect

d) responsibility

e) Truth

f) Reality

g) Honesty

h) my hobby horse: Art and Artistic Content. The real issue is, is this a place for real issues?

Is there any such place?

interesting that you couple hobbie horse and art/artistic content.
i say this because it leads me to wondre if this was done perposefuly in allusion to the nihalistic art movement known as Dada, for if your un-aware is a randomly chosen frinch word meaning in closest translation, hobbie horse.
or if you hapened to acidentily lead me to such conclusions.
fore perhaps Dada, or art movements resulting from a progesion of their beleafs, is a place for real issues, i would think so but thats all just a mater of opinion and personal ethical stance, as if their was a diference.

by the by i just must add that i enjoyed your beat down of "Ricardo1" you have a good means of expression of that which i can mearly concive my frind.

well any way, have a nice day
-lord john-
the
-pixelking-

PS: i apologise for the spelling, i never have quite picked up a feal for that such art.

English spelling is an arcane and arbitrary art that even us native born speakers have problems with.

I am familiar with Dada and Kitch as movements which have largely been by-passed, though I don't think all the meat was chewed from those particular bones.

A 'hobby horse' is also an old metaphor for an imaginary steed that one rides into mock battles which are taken seriously by the rider. This is quite similar to what is going on in _Don Quixote_. My hobbu horse is the Esthetics of Theatre. This is so because most theatre artists don't care about this sort of philosophy. They are interested in what is called theatre theory which is concerned with the actual practice of theatre, the 'how.' They are perfectly willing to leave the reasoning behind the 'why' of theatre to vague, faith-based instinctual application.

The ones who *are* interested in esthetics generally approach it from the point of view of the audience member which doesn't help the artists and, more importantly, they don't really understand the practice of art so much of what they say doesn't make sense to a practicing artist. Additionally, theatre is considered too complex for their analysis so it is given very short shrift.

Recently, theatre has become more interested in understanding and focusing the artistic content and has begun to add a new member to the production staff called a dramaturg or dramaturge. This person works as a sort of in-house critic who works with the director as a sort of surogate audience. The result is a bit in my favor but there is still a long way to go.

I have, after several years examining and thinking about the problem, come to a certain point of satori where I believe I have an answer or at least a good definition for what the aesthetic content of any work of art is and does. That point is easily spoken but hard to explain. I was considering posting an article on it here.

Unfortunately, to do it properly I will need to start at the beginning of artistic criticism and move forward step by step in order to do the job right. That will take a lot of time and energy (not to mention reserching, verifying, and typing. So, I am procrastinating.

As far as Recardo1 goes, I try not to beat down anyone, but I will pursue a philosophical argument to its logical conclusion. I am simply exokaining and defending what I have written or what I expect to see written under those circumstances. If I am merely stating an opinion I also try to acknowledge that as well.

Barton

well thank you for your time and concideration, mostly for your opinion on the currnt state of your passion, theiter. and if you do post an artical on the astetics of art ifor one shall happily read it, ill keep an eye out for it.
and also dont get the wrong impression from my poor choice of diction in regard to the beat down of recardo1, i understand intirely your posision in the matter, it was quite implisist from your second to last intrie on the matter of truth(i think it was the second to last), its mearly that i am a youth my self and have trouble trancending the venacular of my high school peers.

well, any how have a nice day and continue the good work, i apreceate that some people out their still think about things.

-lord john-
the
-pixelking-

PS; i know spelling is arbatray but it does serve a purpose in comunication, and their by my continueal falure to meat such useful social constructs intales some form of apology, so again sorry for the hard read.

your spelling works just fine for me since I am used to sounding out what I read anyway. (Any written text is potentially a speech to a theater artist.)

Consider that spelling was not standardized till after the time of Shakespeare and well before the language stopped changing. Thus, we believe that Shakespeare's name originally had three or four syllables as opposed to the two of current pronunciation. You'll notice that he did all right.

All it take s to make me happy is that you would attempt to standardize how you spell and not taunt me with the vast number of different ways it is possible to spell the different sounds of English, which sounds, it seems, you do have at your command.

Take care.

Barton

Hey Barton, Dunno when you're going to see this. It seems the fires did not actually go out, and they didn't take the stake down. See the Royal we for some, and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F52180?thread=124786 for the rest. We may have to make like a victim of terrorism and run and hide. We can't make head, tail, or piranha out of any of it. The whole 'insecure' thing got blown so unspeakably out of proportion... that'll happen when people eavesdrop on sarcasm about them. Lurkers and flamers and terrorists. O. My. We don't want to let anyone run us off. We will not submit to abuse against which we have no legitimate way to defend ourself. Either there is something obvious, which we are simply missing, or this is simple, basic nasty-mindedness, and advantage being taken of our vulnerability. If you see any of the former, please let us know. We don't want to believe the latter, but we know all too well that it is absolutely real. This is BAD, actively destructive to our mental health. We wonder if it is not intentionally so. It's all so clever and manipulative and oh boy is she having fun. We feel like we're being vivisected. The pain went away, along with all feeling, about 45 minutes ago. We are not 'comfortably numb'. We're just numb. Dissociated. If we don't leave here, we leave... If you think of anything constructive or helpful, please let us know. No longer panicked. Apparently autonomic and fine motor functions are still intact. Mostly dead. Sara for LeKZ

In the interests of preserving the peace, we must

Unhappily understood

Barton