What is art ?
In order to understand this concept we must follow its roots. Art, as the term is used in English and understood in Europe and its coloniesi is wholly a product of the dissolution of the feudal system in medieval France. Items identified as "art" dating to previous eras, such as "caveman art" are bare exercises in anachronism, betraying a very pedestrian understanding based on wholly unexamined cultural impactionsii, with the exception of classical art, which is the exact same thing in different times for different peopleiii.
At the time art was born, the land was practically speaking barren, here and there dotted by ruins of a previous time. The lower class went about scraping the bare mud with their bare hands in attempts at what generously may be called agriculture, and followed herds of sheep and pigs around the land. The middle class ran back and forth with sticks, sometimes (rarely) on horseback. The upper class consisted mostly of one guy. Here and there a collection of tree trunks more or less orderly piled together constituted a "castle" and "seat of power".
Apparently it sucks living under these conditions, not just as a lower class mudpackeriv but even as a sole upper-class guy.
Why would it suck, we should ask ourselves ? Inasmuch as the ruins of a long fané'dv glory are just that, ruins, you wouldn't expect the mud packing or pike chasing horde to miss anything in particular, at least not any more than they'd miss the wings they never had, or the throne of China they never saw.
While this argument is sound, and the troglodyte swarm that at some point in the flow of time had the unconscionable good fortune of being our ancestorsvi wasn't depressed on the grounds of its sorry state, it is nevertheless the lot of mankind to seek diversion. In such an environment as described diversion isn't hard to have, in fact it could be manufactured. If everyone is outdoors all the time, put a chosen few indoors. Make it so they will not handle mud or ever touch a fighting stick. Instead of work they shall do naught but speak and look, instead of carryng a stick of war they shall carry a mockery of one.
This would be quite factually diversvii and it does construct a "better world" : in a dispute between two plots of land, countries unto themselves, one may defeat the other by the use of sticks. If neither can safely or expediently defeat the other with a pointed stick, there's left the avenue of the rounded stick : once people from either side of a river agree that the left side country sucks and the right side country's cool, the end result is pretty much the same.
As any instrument of war, the rounded sticks burden with cost : all the people running around doing nothing useful (which is to say, involving mud) still have to eat, as in spite of all the pretense no amount of talkingviii yielded any mana yet. So for the purpose of feeding these alternate armies a special arrangement was constructed, whereby a special plot of land was allocated by the lord to feed the blatherers.ix This was called the advowson, and for a time it was a valuable bit of real estate, yielding no actual koku but allowing the lord to name the head chanter.x
This system, as any system, died eventually. As the crafter subclass of the underclass slowly created a parallel economy that ballooned to immense sizexi it came to control the currencyxii and with it the state whole. It didn't however feel any obligation to the previous owners of these trappings, much like Bitcoin feels no obligation to the previous owners of capital, or the state. It simply took all the bits it liked, and discarded all the rest, much in the manner a victorious male moving into the ex-household of some random, anonymous douche that thought himself "his enemy" - as if such a thing could ever be - will keep all the women he likes, dispatch, sell or move to the kitchen the rest, and then apply the same procedure to all the children (but with a little more bias towards "dispatch", in the "gory dismemberment and left to bleed" sense of "dispatch"). Much in the manner Bitcoin is treating the obsolete fiat world.
One of the bits that were taken over, stripped of the old petticoats and taught to dance in garter belts and high heels to please the new masters was art. Art, you see, had been originally the endeavour of the rounded sticks. 'Tis true that nobody knew at the time that what they were doing was simply art, nothing more, nothing less. For that matter, a certain gentleman had no idea he ordinarily spoke in prose. So what if he had no idea ?
The captured art was changed in some fundamental ways, other than finally being given the name "Art". Rather than the artist being nominated, for life, like the bishop or priest of yore, the artist is invited to join a capitalist quest for patronage. Any one underclass twerp may, perhaps, be an artist, if he pleases a lord. Because that's what ontologically institutes art : a lord saying "this is art". Nothing more, nothing less. There is no God above to turn pepsi into wine and to make priests anything. The lords saying "you shall be a priest now" enacts as reality the new social status of the artiste. And if society wishes to pretend social status comes with transcendent toppings, that's still entirely a social problem.
Natura non facit saltus, and so today you think Dali is an artist whether you understand why or not,xiii much in the manner a millenia ago you'd have thought your parish priest is the priest, whether you understand why or not. What "why" ? The lord said so. Fuck you.
The same principles are at work, today as back when you were packing mudxiv. Art is the icon of privilege for the consumption of the underclass. That the original medieval inventors were using it with heavy qualifications to enter, whereas the later burgeois lord let the barrier lower and the even later "national state" sham put them into museums and forced mudpacking schoolchildren to visit them, kneel and pray ? Minor differences, perhaps more related to the "how likely are these idiots to get mud on them" function than anything else.
In this sense, protesting that something ain't art because it's commercial is missing the point about in the same manner and to the same degree those nuts seeing "art" in prehistoric caves miss it. Art is exactly intended for mass consumption, that's what it does : it reminds every worthless fuckwit on the planet that the reason he's allowed to draw yet another breath is that the people much better than him who decide what shall be art haven't decided to terminate him yet, as it is their right and privilege to do, they being the actual human beings in this entire discussion.
So, now that you know what it is, how do you like art ? How worried are you about the decay of "good art" and the rise of "bad art" ? How important do you think art is for young people, to help shape their minds and by that shape their futures ? And how unfair is it that people who are just as good (for instance, you) as more famous artists aren't famous at all ?
Sorry to have been the one to break it to you. Next week we do an article about Santa.
———- Such as both Americas, as well as China, India and so on. [↩]
- Ideas are mental representations in which the subject takes an active role. Cultural impactions are mental representations in which the subject takes the passive role, with other agents holding the cock. [↩]
- Which is to say, Latin art is the product of the dissolution of the original kingdom in Latium, whereas Greek art is the product of the dissolution of the original, pre-Greek states in that cultural space. [↩]
- Which always, in all times and all places sucks, because it has to, because if it doesn't the entire incentive structure of human society collapses and you simply can't get anything done anymore, at all. [↩]
- Here's a little funny for you : fane in English denotes "a type of shrine". Isn't that a little vague ? What type of shrine ?
Meanwhile fané in French denotes a certain result of decay over time, something at the intersection of wizened and withered. So... what type of shrine ? [↩]
- Think of all the other legions that had no such luck before you think about how impious this correct representation is on the grounds that it twerks at your various mental impactions. [↩]
- This, incidentally, is an old word. [↩]
- Chanting, praying, whatever you call it makes no difference, it's still blather of the gab. [↩]
- This practice incidentally yielded a serious problem down the road : as the original lords didn't have the foresight to actually marry the whore (aka church) and thus impose the yoke on her neck, she was left free, able and willing to obtain donations and to service for pay any old Schmoe. As a result, it soon became common practice for Schmoes a little richer than dirt to leave a little something of their ownership to the universal whore (aka, the church) in order that it may suck their cock "forever", in the ethereal and unproductive manner it does (aka chanting). Since people are inconsequential but land is forever, the whore slowly increased its share of ownership of the actual land over the generations, to the point it had to be beaten into a pulp, stripped and mostly killed in order to disgorge later on. A little bit of early foresight would have saved a lot of toil down the road, as it usually is the case. [↩]
- Which turned to great importance later on, for instance during the gin wars. [↩]
- If you wish to compare, think about the share in the GDP of today held by raw grain, cattle and sheet metal. That was the medieval economy, completely. Everything else, over and on top of that is "burgeois" let's say, rather than medieval. [↩]
- Much in the way the current world-as-you-know-it is being reduced to a footnote of history these days. [↩]
- Here's the story of how this article was born :
KRS1 Jay-z..heh..i've seen local rap artists better than him. He has had a few really good hits other than that...meh. But that is just my opinion.
benkay "Artists". Still just moving product. I've yet to meet the artist who's a better capitalist than the jiggaman.
mircea_popescu I thought rapper guys did it for the principle of the thing.benkay The artists always do. The capitalists never do.
mircea_popescu What about Dali ?benkay What does that have to do with rap?
mircea_popescu But you said artists/capitalists! Was is strictly a rap phenomenon ?benkay Hey man i'm an american idiot. You can't expect me to have opinions about real art like Dali.
deadweasel LSD is Dali.
mircea_popescu Lol. Ok, the point here is that while it'd be hard to argue Dali wasn't an artist, it's well established he was a capitalist whore, to a degree even people like Andy Warhol seem little babies.benkay My point is that rap isn't art. It's a product manufactured for Americans.
mircea_popescu So then no rappers are artists. I can see it.mod6 benkay: Umm...
benkay Some may think they are, in the same way that some Americans think they're CEO's when funded by idiots.
deadweasel They would probably describe themselves as businessmen. Slingin' and what not.
mircea_popescu But listen, is painting an art ? Or is it a product manufactured for Dutch people cca 1700 ? Or Italians cca 1600 ?pankkake Painting wasn't always art, it was mostly used because we didn't have cameras yet.
mircea_popescu So vacation pictures are art, but rap ain't ?deadweasel Vacation pictures are torture.
benkay Can't have a reasonable conversation in black and white, mp. Everything exists on a spectrum. Mainstream American rap is product. There are rap artists. There are rap producers. There are humans in between. Some mainstream rap may even be art to some people. I find some of j's wordplay rather elegant, myself.
mircea_popescu benkay okay, but something has to be something or not be something at some point. Otherwise we can't have a conversation at all, outside of ∀ = ∀.benkay How about an analogue.
mircea_popescu Not without an explicit mapping function of some sort.benkay Is this art or design? http://hannahstafford.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/alessibystarck.jpg
mircea_popescu That's a dildo.benkay What is art? What design? What is product? What is art?
mircea_popescu Well, i guess i am writing an article now. Isn't life wondercool.benkay Better you than me. I stopped writing about this highly subjective stuff back when I decided to stop convincing people of things. (It's an orange juicer, for those not in the know.)
[↩]
- Are you sure you're no longer packing mud, by the way ? On the grounds of what, that you live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune, that you take it by turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week and that moistened bints distributing swords are no basis for a system of government ? Well bully for you. [↩]
Saturday, 2 November 2013
Actual art does not require the permission of an authority. Who stamped Trilema and said it's okay? What you've described here is art's adventure through the numbing labyrinth of bureaucracy. That shit'll indeed make any and everything look damned depressing.
Saturday, 2 November 2013
Trilema is only art inasmuch as my limited power to opress dissenters imposes it as art. It fares better than the average similar productions because it's propped on more actual power. Proposing that it's art in and of itself is not unlike proposing that it's objectively "good".
Saturday, 2 November 2013
Well what am I going to call expressive things that exhibit fine qualities and which I find pleasing?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Art. There's no contradiction here.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
So if I find some expressive item in which I recognize fine qualities, and I find the item pleasing, and I call it art, am I lying if the item is found to lack the appropriate lord-erly certification?
Or are my recognition and pleasure essentially programmed by said lorderlies?
Or is my grok borkt?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
"I recognize fine qualities" = "I find my lord's stamp etched on it". How could it lack it, if you've just found it ?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Naturally the theory/delusion would be that I have access to some wires & tubes not included in that lascivious mound of the Statal Teat.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
But even if you did. How would you use them ?
Extreme solitude leads to "insanity". Why ?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
But what about digging in the mud, artfully?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Just how do you explain "mass consumption" drifted from nice paintings to some tourette gestures nigger shouting fuck the jews, without calling it a drift from good art to bad art because art is just art?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
I've got a portrait of a mouse-eared man with a penis for a nose on my wall. I find this portrait very aesthetically pleasing; I wonder which of my lords has stamped it?
It's not even the creator's choice as to whether or not something is art; that's a decision left to the particular viewer. For example, while I unequivocally reject a sideways urinal with "R. Mutt" scrawled on it as "art" (and, indeed, the creator of said piece would agree wholeheartedly with me), several national art galleries beg to differ. Who's right? Who's the lord here, anyway, or are we choosing our own lord to fit the occasion?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
I got bashed on this site for rejecting that urinal two years ago.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
I'm not unequivocally rejecting it, I'm unequivocally rejecting it *as art*. As a cultural artifact, it's very significant; each copy (the original was tossed) represents a moment in time when the snake was no longer satisfied with merely eating its own tail, and gobbled up its own head, as well.
Its existence is a net positive, but it's still a piece of shit.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Snake lol wut.
Re-read the article, the point is there's no art. There are fools tricked into buying "art".
I'd still like to believe there is some more educated market who buys paintings instead of rap cds but when you're thinking about it... what's the point in buying some painted fruits which hang on your wall for over nine thousand usd? But there were a lot of people bidding for it!
Artist is quite a newspeak word, the same as engineer. Sucking dicks? Porn artist. Making hamburgers? Cook artist. Replacing light-bulbs? Electrical engineer. Making gestures? Dance artist. Making sounds? Sound engineer. Tying shoe laces? Fucking Einstein.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Gibberish. You're confusing two very different things here: art as a commodity and art as a thing which evokes an emotional response in the observer.
Consider that some art isn't even sold, but given away.
Consider that some art isn't even sold, but painted on the side of buildings.
Consider that the kid who chose a cool picture for his desktop wallpaper because he likes looking at it is more a fan of art than the guy who bought a $300k van Gogh just so he can brag about owning it.
OR insist that everyone who likes any form of art is a fool who was tricked into paying money for something with no aesthetic value, because aesthetics are imaginary and all those people who get enjoyment out of art are full of shit and making the whole thing up to be cool. Totally a valid point!
Sunday, 3 November 2013
art student pls
download a porn movie, get a boner, emotional response in the observer :D
>full of shit and making the whole thing up to be cool
see ctrl+f "Here’s the story of how this article was born :"
Sunday, 3 November 2013
B.Sc., joint major comp sci & pure math. nice try tho.
Re: porn, the minimum threshold for what constitutes "art" differs from person to person (big surprise). I'll leave the distinction between emotional response and sexual response alone, for the sake of brevity.
Quoted text consists mainly of people bickering about what the point is, which is generally how these discussions end up. Such discussions are, in and of themselves, a form of art, and sometimes fascinating to observe. Ctrl-f, "each copy". The occasional snake gets the feeling that there's something subtly masturbatory about the whole thing as he's scarfing his hemipenes. The truly rare specimen wishes there was someone filming the act.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
>The occasional snake gets the feeling that there’s something subtly masturbatory about the whole thing as he’s scarfing his hemipenes. The truly rare specimen wishes there was someone filming the act.
time to ingest dem pills tho
Sunday, 3 November 2013
ah yes, regarding art. the point of this shit was discarding the nigger music as art because there's this white greek statue in the museum and so the nigger must be this niggers consumer shit and i'm better with muh statues, which is false. the little virgin girl is pure and untanned and get your dirty price tag off her! it's art!
nothing wrong with personal taste/spending money, money circulates and the world goes round round and times go really really slowww
and hey mr troll, i'm not mircea, ask him
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Motto : What is art ? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more!
@Chett That part of reality is too complex for the current simplification and has therefore been amputated. (Notice it's also ambiguous, do you mean artfully in the sense of fastidiously ineffectual or do you mean artfully in the sense of the Zen butcher that never needed his knives sharpened because he wasn't cutting through the meat, he was cutting through the spaces between the meat?)
@анон Exactly the same way you explain the drift of beer from nicely fermented to soda with added "naturally identical" flavouring.
@nubbins Let's see here.
Not your place to know, really. Inasfar as art consumption goes, your position is that of the eugenic lady. They with the cocks may have some idea as to whose baby is cooking inside your womb, but you personally weren't really there.
No, the viewer contributes even less than the creator, and yes the creator contributes little if anything. Art is enacted by the patron, the owner of the museums, the lord. Who can, and has enacted soup can labels into art. In fact most of the XXth century art is a nude and rude expose of "I am the cockholder, hear me roar" on his part.
You are choosing your lord exactly in the sense these people are. If you don't have one (because none could be currently be bothered with your sorry, useless ass) you know, because your life feels hollow. If you somehow acquire one (in the sense of one deigning to accept your efforts) you also know, also because your life suddenly feels worth living. Such it is, the slavery of the underclass.
It is indeed so significant, if you're a historian of culture. Nevertheless, you are not in a position to reject that or anything else as art any more than you're in a position to reject Facebook as a social media site. You need a lot of money, or more generally (and correctly) a lot more power to reject things "as art".
Art does not evoke an emotional response in the oberver any more than viruses evoke an imunological response in the host. On their own, art and viruses, are about as inert as salt. They can be refined out of tissue (individual or social), stored into a bottle, they'll sit there forever.
What evokes an emotional response is your own slavery. It gets you hot and bothered under the collar. To girls that have worn chains for years, chains are a point of interest ; to girls that have had their ass, thighs, tits and so on belted for years belts are vaguely erotic ; art is nothing more than the sound of the Marschstiefel on concrete.
You're misrepresenting the situation, much like someone who attempted to describe a riverside idillyc afternoon consisting of picnic and lovemaking by focusing solely on the anthill nearby. As a result there's two major interpretations of your otherwise meaningless proposition : either some pointless poseur (think "art major" barrista) is distributing little bits of ruined canvas and generally broken raw materials and calling it "art" in a completely ineffectual and wholly wasteful endeavour of "you can do anything", "law of attraction" and "fake it till you make it" or else an actual lord is distributing "free" meals, which is to say you pay for them later, more than it'd have cost outright.
Consider that some items aren't even sold, but exchanged for Bitcoin.
What is this naive nominalism you got going ?
Only in your own ideological interpretation of what matters, which is transparently geared towards denying the underlying reality of the matter. You could as well say that the girl that only gazed at the cock is a better lover than the girl that swallowed it whole, but who'd give a shit you're saying that ? We'd just figure you can't for the life of you get the missus to swallow and are settling into an ideology that makes that fact less bothersome. 'Cause you suck.
The proposition that "aesthetic value" exists in the sense caloric capacity value exists is beyond naive. There's no such thing as "aesthetic value". The proposition that buying and selling is reducible to paying money also flies in the face of reality : lots of US citizens who have no absolutely no money buy and sell houses, cars and whatnot all the time.
Not more than all those people who get enjoyment out of being tied up and stretched to suit a third party's ideas. It's an acquired taste.
Actually it does tear a hole in your own theoretical representation of things.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
So it's the same as that glass that cripples, it's the industry. Time for luddism.
Monday, 4 November 2013
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-enjoys-thing-informed-he-is-wrong,7057/
Monday, 18 November 2013
http://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/tema-saptamanii/articol/scrisoare-deschisa-creatorii-arta-urita-0
Monday, 18 November 2013
Identificati autorul, si odata cu autorul ce blog rescrie prost copchilu' proletcultist Mindruta in Dilema pentru uzul cititorilor lor, care nu-s chiar ase de straluciti ca ai nostri, si intr-o vreme nu ierau nici chiar ase de proletculti ca Mindruta.
Succese. De preferinta, online.
Friday, 8 July 2016
Not sure, whether you watch such old threads, I assume you do. Because you mention them while chatting.
To the point. Once, I took part (important part) in an event aimed at erecting a sculpture in the middle of a city. The figure of this sculpture depicted an übermensch. The purpose of this experiment was to see whether anyone will notice and/or oppose. It turned out that only the city council did, due to formal requirements. In the process another funny conclusion appeared (totally predictable). One, with will strong enough can subdue the whole city council, just by exploiting natural for most of people slave habits.
So art can have multiple incarnations. Can be a commodity (and is most often), can exist to please our esthetics (the second most popular function), ultimately can serve as a tool to play with society (the conscience of society being played with isn't obligatory).
Friday, 8 July 2016
Not hard to watch, there's a Recent Comments list on the right side column, see ?
Anyway, I guess I'm just not sure what it is you're saying.
Friday, 8 July 2016
Actually, my point was in the last paragraph of my previous post.
You stressed some uses of art to make your reasoning consistent. I respect your choice as I like your way of kicking illusions in their butts.
The only purpose of my post was to show an alternative perspective - art can be a tool in hands of sarcastic individuals. This doesn't invalidate your conclusions, rather adds my voice to discuss (because I'm selfish and narcissistic).
Friday, 8 July 2016
Let's take this apart. First off, here's a set of propositions :
I. There are no "uses" of art that may be considered independently of the user. Art is not a thing in itself, but like property or slavery - a social construct.
II. There are no alternative perspectives possible. Much in the sense there's no "alternative perspectives" possible about the sum of the angles inside of a triangle, or E=mc2, there are no alternate perspectives available about the nature of art.
III. It is true that fundamentally ignorant people may deny II above, but much like in the case of denial of fundamental geometric or physical properties of the world, such denial speaks of them not of the world. The activity may be politically motivated - as for instance when Luce Irigaray goes on a rampage of stupid with her famous "E=mc2 is a sexed equation because it priviledges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" - the nigger intension is evident, she is merely trying to obtain a [bigger] share of the looting of the public treasury. Nevertheless, whatever the motivation, explanation or excuse, ignorance is always both a prerequisite and a sufficient cause.
IV. That you split up from the social mainstream, created your tiny version of a sovereign, reactionary republic in the vein of La Serenissima and within its dominions you erected a piece of art does not change the fundamental facts of the matter : it is art only inasmuch and only because you, as ruler of a sovereign, declare it so, and it could not be art in any other way or for any other reason ; for people outside of your dominions, it is merely a chunk of crap someone put on the sidewalk, or perhaps, at the very most, "this item of dubious qualities whom this sovereign we recognize has pronounced art". This is the deep meaning of your fight with the "people" or "the council" : you did not fight for art per se, you fought a political battle, destroyed THEIR sovereignity, replaced it with yours and within it enacted some crap to be art.
V. Outside of this political function, art has no other substance. What you call "aesthetic pleasure" is strictly the secret, buried thrill of the slavegirl that beholds her Master ; what you call commodity is no more and no less than traffic in arms, which yes - pays well, and always will. Art is, entirely, "playing with society", which is to say, enforcing someone's sovereignity over the other.
Now, so exposed, clearly and in the open, can we continue the discussion ?
(Obviously the smallest possible quanta of "sovereign individual" is a lone male that perceives himself a sarcastic individual, and by way of excuse selfish and so on. But this has little bearing on the general discussion, I think ?)
Saturday, 9 July 2016
I can continue this discuss with pleasure - this is what a discuss is for.
As to being exposed, I'd like to point to some suppositions in your list of prepositions that does not to be so obvious as you try to paint them.
Ad. I: Agree - never claimed otherwise;
Ad. II: In view of (I) there are alternative perspectives given the fact that a social construct isn't something strictly definable and sound. Deficient definitions can be observed in your statement about angles inside a triangle - without explicit statement regarding the actual space the triangle is constructed. If we consider a spherical surface it will be more than Pi (up to 2Pi), if Minkowski's surface - less than Pi. Minkowski would be disgruntled by your statement I assume;
Ad. III: Here you go deeper trying to compare incomparable - subjective and fuzzy in logical sense social construct effects and verifiable and falsifiable scientific theories. The example you brought up is funny, shows utter ignorance and stupidity and ultimately shows also how applying a fuzzy logic of social relations fails pathetically when confronted with hard facts. Actually, besides a form that I value in what you write, I see neither purpose nor sense of this exact proposition. I assume that this is a kind of stylistic interludium only as it later leads nowhere. Unless you try to pin a straw man to me - if so, you missed;
Ad. IV and V: Here I can fully agree. Art is substance-less (is an empty word if considered in the light of Hume's fork) and depends on the eye of the beholder as well as on intents of a creator. Thus every discourse about its actual value is meaningless in terms of strict definitions and exact placement in social environment.
Both yours and mine positions are only subjective in this matter, and are our perspectives based only on our experiences, not on objective factors.
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Rf Ad II : No person lives in a Minowski space. Thus therefore, while theoretical such perspectives can trivially be shown to exist, they are not in fact germane to our discussion, which is about art as is, not about art as it may be in the livresque environment of, say, a science fiction work.
Otherwise, it'd seem we're in agreement :)
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Actually it seems that Minkowski's space fits pretty well in terms of description of our space-time except some degenerate cases as singularities. But it's still a matter of debate, so let's assume at the moment that it's not decided yet in what exactly kind of space we live.
Nevertheless the sphere perspective remains valid in our everyday life.
As to this theoretical perspective example - I laughed a lot when I first saw it published by Buterin. Guys from Ethereum have a unique skill to depict rather simple concepts (here limited graf) using catchy allegories with no deeper sense (except marketing of course).
Besides, I also think that we are in agreement - so not much sense to follow the trail in vain. Thanks for discuss.
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Maybe consider showing up in #trilema sometime.
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Will consider, with pleasure. Now I have some issues that considerably limit my time, but these should soon resolve. Hardly I found time for our small discuss. But no regret.