Fresh Links!

by Art Fag City on April 16, 2007 · 21 comments Fresh Links!

Tom Moody

It’s official. I’m addicted to the comments on Tom Moody’s blog. Read some of the most intelligent discussion on the web today, (this thread addressing vvork.) UPDATE: I feel I would be remiss if I didn’t say that I think some of the comments in this particular thread are overly harsh (Robert Huffmann.)

In other blogging news, paintersnyc a blog that posts a painting daily for commentors I often find annoying to converse upon, hasn’t uploaded anything in over two weeks. Art Fag City would like to encourage Painter to think about what will happen to her most active reader, Mr. zipthwung if he can’t post there.

{ 23 comments }

tom moody April 16, 2007 at 5:06 pm

You can’t make an omelette without breaking some egos, ha ha.
Thanks for the plug.

tom moody April 16, 2007 at 1:06 pm

You can’t make an omelette without breaking some egos, ha ha.
Thanks for the plug.

Art Fag City April 16, 2007 at 7:51 pm

There were a lot of good good comments in that thread, so it out weighs the few remarks I thought were over the line. p.d. for example when he says, “like in the same way that simpleness gets mistaken as elegance with “lo-tech” computery art, cleverness gets mistaken for the fact that someone has bothered to make something with a bit of deductive reasoning.” I think his point particularly with simpleness being mistaken for elegance extends much further than lo-tech computery art. I notice it’s a popular word in Walter Robinson’s vocabulary, and I have to keep myself in check when using it as well. It’s remarkably easy to be lazy.

Art Fag City April 16, 2007 at 7:51 pm

There were a lot of good good comments in that thread, so it out weighs the few remarks I thought were over the line. p.d. for example when he says, “like in the same way that simpleness gets mistaken as elegance with “lo-tech” computery art, cleverness gets mistaken for the fact that someone has bothered to make something with a bit of deductive reasoning.” I think his point particularly with simpleness being mistaken for elegance extends much further than lo-tech computery art. I notice it’s a popular word in Walter Robinson’s vocabulary, and I have to keep myself in check when using it as well. It’s remarkably easy to be lazy.

Art Fag City April 16, 2007 at 3:51 pm

There were a lot of good good comments in that thread, so it out weighs the few remarks I thought were over the line. p.d. for example when he says, “like in the same way that simpleness gets mistaken as elegance with “lo-tech” computery art, cleverness gets mistaken for the fact that someone has bothered to make something with a bit of deductive reasoning.” I think his point particularly with simpleness being mistaken for elegance extends much further than lo-tech computery art. I notice it’s a popular word in Walter Robinson’s vocabulary, and I have to keep myself in check when using it as well. It’s remarkably easy to be lazy.

tom moody April 17, 2007 at 1:41 am

I wasn’t sure what (or who) you thought was harsh–thanks for clarifying.
Still not sure what you mean about p.d.’s comment. Which word is overused, or lazily used, by Robinson or whomever–simple?

tom moody April 16, 2007 at 9:41 pm

I wasn’t sure what (or who) you thought was harsh–thanks for clarifying.
Still not sure what you mean about p.d.’s comment. Which word is overused, or lazily used, by Robinson or whomever–simple?

Art Fag City April 17, 2007 at 3:13 am

opps. Stream of consciousness thought. I think the word elegance is over used. “Simple elegance” for example is often used to describe things that just aren’t very complex or interesting.

Art Fag City April 17, 2007 at 3:13 am

opps. Stream of consciousness thought. I think the word elegance is over used. “Simple elegance” for example is often used to describe things that just aren’t very complex or interesting.

Art Fag City April 16, 2007 at 11:13 pm

opps. Stream of consciousness thought. I think the word elegance is over used. “Simple elegance” for example is often used to describe things that just aren’t very complex or interesting.

zipthwung April 17, 2007 at 6:20 am

rss feeds and google analytics are cool.

zipthwung April 17, 2007 at 6:20 am

rss feeds and google analytics are cool.

zipthwung April 17, 2007 at 6:20 am

rss feeds and google analytics are cool.

zipthwung April 17, 2007 at 2:20 am

rss feeds and google analytics are cool.

Art Fag City April 17, 2007 at 6:24 am

Seriously though, where are you going to comment now that Anonymous Female Artist and Painter seem to be slowing down?

Art Fag City April 17, 2007 at 2:24 am

Seriously though, where are you going to comment now that Anonymous Female Artist and Painter seem to be slowing down?

tom moody April 17, 2007 at 2:14 pm

In p.d.’s defense, “elegance” has a slightly different meaning in the sciences than in art–a theorem is said to be elegant when it uses the least number of steps. Whereas in art it is often used to mean “stylishly spare.”
Beauty is part of the concept in both, but in science it implies some functionality as well. So when he paired simplicity and elegance in the first part of his analogy he wasn’t just being redundant.

Just to clarify his sentence a bit (or at least how I interpreted it):

“In the same way that simpleness gets mistaken for elegance with ‘lo-tech’ computery art, cleverness gets mistaken [in ‘art world’ conceptual art] for the fact that someone has bothered to make something with a bit of deductive reasoning.”

tom moody April 17, 2007 at 2:14 pm

In p.d.’s defense, “elegance” has a slightly different meaning in the sciences than in art–a theorem is said to be elegant when it uses the least number of steps. Whereas in art it is often used to mean “stylishly spare.”
Beauty is part of the concept in both, but in science it implies some functionality as well. So when he paired simplicity and elegance in the first part of his analogy he wasn’t just being redundant.

Just to clarify his sentence a bit (or at least how I interpreted it):

“In the same way that simpleness gets mistaken for elegance with ‘lo-tech’ computery art, cleverness gets mistaken [in ‘art world’ conceptual art] for the fact that someone has bothered to make something with a bit of deductive reasoning.”

tom moody April 17, 2007 at 2:14 pm

In p.d.’s defense, “elegance” has a slightly different meaning in the sciences than in art–a theorem is said to be elegant when it uses the least number of steps. Whereas in art it is often used to mean “stylishly spare.”
Beauty is part of the concept in both, but in science it implies some functionality as well. So when he paired simplicity and elegance in the first part of his analogy he wasn’t just being redundant.

Just to clarify his sentence a bit (or at least how I interpreted it):

“In the same way that simpleness gets mistaken for elegance with ‘lo-tech’ computery art, cleverness gets mistaken [in ‘art world’ conceptual art] for the fact that someone has bothered to make something with a bit of deductive reasoning.”

tom moody April 17, 2007 at 10:14 am

In p.d.’s defense, “elegance” has a slightly different meaning in the sciences than in art–a theorem is said to be elegant when it uses the least number of steps. Whereas in art it is often used to mean “stylishly spare.”
Beauty is part of the concept in both, but in science it implies some functionality as well. So when he paired simplicity and elegance in the first part of his analogy he wasn’t just being redundant.

Just to clarify his sentence a bit (or at least how I interpreted it):

“In the same way that simpleness gets mistaken for elegance with ‘lo-tech’ computery art, cleverness gets mistaken [in ‘art world’ conceptual art] for the fact that someone has bothered to make something with a bit of deductive reasoning.”

Art Fag City April 17, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Oh, I see where you were confused. I was using p.d. as an example of GOOD commentary. I share your thoughts.

Art Fag City April 17, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Oh, I see where you were confused. I was using p.d. as an example of GOOD commentary. I share your thoughts.

Art Fag City April 17, 2007 at 10:23 am

Oh, I see where you were confused. I was using p.d. as an example of GOOD commentary. I share your thoughts.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: