# Why are people who don't like modern art so ignorant?



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ha ha, not really! I was just doing a cheap and dirty retaliation for that other thread. :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

You got me fooled! 

I fell for it!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Well the little boy was naive and ignorant when he said the emperor had no clothes. Sorry to use that again! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Well the little boy was naive and ignorant when he said the emperor had no clothes. Sorry to use that again! :lol:


I can't really tell from that which side you are on.

You got a problem with nudity? No clothes? A paint drip is a paint drip, and a brush stroke is a brush stroke. Nobody on either side ever said anything to contradict that, as far as I know. It is what it is.

A hippopotamus is not a zebra.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> You got me fooled!
> 
> I fell for it!


Yes, that's the idea, but more importantly...which side are you on?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's the idea, but more importantly...which side are you on?


I am on the same side as the professor in that video clip. Pure and simple. He is a professor and correct.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

That's too obvious Art. Nobody will engage in argument with that.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> I am on the same side as the professor in that video clip. Pure and simple. He is a professor and correct.


Well I wasn't going to pick a side, but you force my hand. He may be a professor but he's still only expressing opinions and I disagree with them.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> That's too obvious Art. Nobody will engage in argument with that.


Welcome to the forum, .... wait a minute...Richannes Wrahms?!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Well I wasn't going to pick a side, but you force my hand. He may be a professor but he's still only expressing opinions and I disagree with them.


To which you are entitled to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Because everyone is ignorant.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2016)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> That's too obvious Art. Nobody will engage in argument with that.


The clue is in the word "simple."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> To which you are entitled to.


Did that start out to be a sentence or a palindrome?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Opinions are "outer-directed." Who should listen? 

Nobody, if they are truly in touch with what they hold to be sincere and valuable art and music.

Are our identities so shallow, so weak, that we forget to look within, for our own private connection to the truth? Our connection to the true, valuable, and sacred, and ultimately, what some may call "God"? I hope not.

Subjectivity is the only truth that matters in a rapidly changing, deteriorating state of existence, and when we die, we go alone.

That is, unless you are presently existing in an aberrant state of absence; absence of truth, absence of love. In this case, your existence is like a diseased organism, based on absences and "nothingnesses." The hate and opinions do not really exist, except as voids in the truth, as disease, as pathology.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Because everyone is ignorant.


To some degree. Stupidity is an inability; ignorance is when we should know, but don't.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Anyone who is outwardly directed, stating simplistic opinions, expert or otherwise, is trying to create conflict. He is not a peace with himself. This is evidence of a deficiency or lacking.

Vote for Donald Trump.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

dogen said:


> The clue is in the word "simple."


I think it's the combination of factors that make it ununseenable, even in the highest of odds and the blindest of rages to the dumbest people but also unattractive to the fallacy fans and moral idiots.

The fact that 'Pure and simple' has been transposed to the middle of the paragraph (as opposed to it's natural cadential place) is a huge deal.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> To some degree. Stupidity is an inability; ignorance is when we should know, but don't.


Ignorance is simply not knowing. "Should" is for know-it-alls.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Anyone who is outwardly directed, stating simplistic opinions, expert or otherwise, is trying to create conflict. He is not a peace with himself. This is evidence of a deficiency or lacking.
> 
> Vote for Donald Trump.


Not being an American, can I ask Is Donald Trump real? He seems like a character out of a Kubrick film.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dogen said:


> Not being an American, can I ask Is Donald Trump real? He seems like a character out of a Kubrick film.


He seems unreal to us, too. Most Americans are horrified at the thought of a Trump presidency.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dogen said:


> Not being an American, can I ask Is Donald Trump real? He seems like a character out of a Kubrick film.


Being an American, I wish I could answer you in the negative. I promise to get back to you if I wake up and he's gone.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> He seems unreal to us, too. Most Americans are horrified at the thought of a Trump presidency.


I'm not worried. If he wins I'll just go and live on another planet.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dogen said:


> I'm not worried. If he wins I'll just go and live on another planet.


That's what we said about George W. Bush. It turned out that the other planets weren't taking any more refugees from America.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

If we end up with a Trump/Sanders match-up, the rest of the world will really think we've lost our minds.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> If we end up with a Trump/Sanders match-up, the rest of the world will really think we've lost our minds.


But God, wouldn't the debates be fun?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> But God, wouldn't the debates be fun?


They might be something like this...

"I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired… I am certainly not and I'm sick tired of being told that I am…"

"Well I meet a lot of people and I'm convinced that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right…"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> They might be something like this...
> 
> "I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired… I am certainly not and I'm sick tired of being told that I am…"
> 
> "Well I meet a lot of people and I'm convinced that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right…"


Whoa, you're good! Why aren't you running?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Whoa, you're good! Why aren't you running?


Well I have to give credit where credit is due... Took me a minute to find the source but I'm amazed I remembered it word for word.






So much funnier with their inflections...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Ignorance is simply not knowing. "Should" is for know-it-alls.


Originally what you are describing was called _nescience_.

Technically ignorance is when someone is aware to some degree of certain knowledge but are willfully ignoring it. At some point the word ignorance became commonly used in place of nescience.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> He seems unreal to us, too. Most Americans are horrified at the thought of a Trump presidency.


According to my US history teacher, it would historically follow that a President Trump would not be able to do anything major or drastic because of the governmental checks and balances. 
However, it might be amusing to watch him try.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I can't really tell from that which side you are on.
> 
> You got a problem with nudity? No clothes? A paint drip is a paint drip, and a brush stroke is a brush stroke. Nobody on either side ever said anything to contradict that, as far as I know. It is what it is.
> 
> *A hippopotamus is not a zebra.*


Unless...










By the way, I am on the modern side. I am listening to atonal right now and _loving it..._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> Originally what you are describing was called _nescience_.
> 
> Technically ignorance is when someone is aware to some degree of certain knowledge but are willfully ignoring it. At some point the word ignorance became commonly used in place of nescience.


I believe you, but I don't even find the distinction mentioned in several online dictionary sites. Does anyone actually use the word "nescience"? People now say "willful ignorance."


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

mstar said:


> According to my US history teacher, it would historically follow that a President Trump would not be able to do anything major or drastic because of the governmental checks and balances.
> However, it might be amusing to watch him try.


Uh.. Right now unless the election changes things the republicans have house and senate majority so they might just go along with what he tries...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

The problem is that they are not ignorant.

They are so smart that they think if they do not like something it must be bad.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> Uh.. Right now unless the election changes things the republicans have house and senate majority so they might just go along with what he tries...


And risk disenchanting the majority of the American public? 60% of Americans are moderates. Trump, on the other hand, is certainly not a moderate...


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

mstar said:


> And risk disenchanting the majority of the American public? 60% of Americans are moderates. Trump, on the other hand, is certainly not a moderate...


If you really think any politician's first priority is the American people, you don't know politicians...


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> If you really think any politician's first priority is the American people, you don't know politicians...


They want votes. Votes come from people. Majority rules. The majority is moderate. Therefore, they want to draw in the moderates.

That's why neither conservatives or liberals are happy with the government. Even conservatives are blasting the Republican Congress, claiming it isn't doing much for the party.

Additionally, the largest voting bloc in the US is the Latinos, the overwhelming majority of whom vote Democrat. They alone could play a major role in keeping Trump out of office if he wins the primaries.

Then again, I could be wrong. In that case, it will be an intriguing 4 years.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

mstar said:


> They want votes. Votes come from people. Majority rules. The majority is moderate. Therefore, they want to draw in the moderates.
> 
> That's why neither conservatives or liberals are happy with the government. Even conservatives are blasting the Republican Congress, claiming it isn't doing much for the party.
> 
> ...


Ug, intriguing isn't the right word. More like horrifying.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I believe you, but I don't even find the distinction mentioned in several online dictionary sites. Does anyone actually use the word "nescience"? People now say "willful ignorance."


I don't (believe tdc). There is a suggestion that because 'ignorant' is derived from 'ignore', it implies wilful setting aside of knowledge, and it is certainly true that 'ignorant' is used that way, but both words come from roots that simply mean 'not knowing'.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I believe you, but I don't even find the distinction mentioned in several online dictionary sites. Does anyone actually use the word "nescience"? People now say "willful ignorance."


Well, I use nescience now since the distinction was pointed out to me by an individual who studied Greek and Latin at the college level. But you are right about the online dictionary sites. I noticed that too, and find it kind of disturbing. I suspect the information I was given was (at least at one time) correct, and perhaps our language is slowly being degraded over time.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2016)

tdc said:


> Well, I use nescience now since the distinction was pointed out to me by an individual who studied Greek and Latin at the college level. But you are right about the online dictionary sites. I noticed that too, and find it kind of disturbing. I suspect the information I was given was (at least at one time) correct, and perhaps our language is slowly being degraded over time.


Even people who studied Latin and Greek at college level can be wrong...as can the internet, of course. I suspect that we'd have to search classical sources to find how the roots of the term have been used, and not just take internet references at face value. For example, try this...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ignorant



> present participle of _ignorare_ "not to know, to be unacquainted; mistake, misunderstand; take no notice of, pay no attention to,


So we are told there are two meanings - but no source for this. Checking my own _Smith's Smaller Latin-English Dictionary_ (London 1968) I find this for "ignoro":



> I. not to know...[etc]: Pl., Cic., Hor. [etc] II. to take no notice of, disregard (rare): Pl., Cic.


So the two meanings are acknowledged, but the second is 'rare' in the literature, only two references, whereas there are several for the first (I just haven't set them all out.)

Even so, whilst a classical scholar might be able to establish the etymology, you'd need an English scholar to trace the uses of the term through English to establish that there has been more than one accepted meaning; and then accept the idea that language should not be subject to change: that 'ignorant' should continue to mean what it has always meant.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Even people who studied Latin and Greek at college level can be wrong...as can the internet, of course. I suspect that we'd have to search classical sources to find how the roots of the term have been used, and not just take internet references at face value. For example, try this...
> 
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ignorant
> 
> ...


Well-researched and -reasoned. Thank you, prof. Maybe the second meaning does survive in the occasional use of "ignorant" as an insult, as if the state of ignorance were essentially voluntary. Or maybe I'm just being fanciful. In any event, it's relieving to know that my ignorance of ten million things isn't something I'm morally obligated to correct.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Why are people who don't like modern art so ignorant? 
Same deal as for modern music, only less traumatic (because looking is easier than hearing). If you can't bear to look, you can't know.

Personally, if the art-piece doesn't cast a hook, I can stare at it indefinitely with no internal stirring beyond mild amusement - and with weldments a critique of the welds.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Why are people who don't like modern art so ignorant?
> Same deal as for modern music, only less traumatic (because looking is easier than hearing).


Oh, I don't know--there are some images from modern art exhibits that I _really_ wish I could get out of my mind. All the music I've hated is long forgotten.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Both are true: looking is easier (less time-consuming) than hearing at the time, but harder (more painful) in retrospect.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2016)

Now there's an idea for a thread: *is looking more difficult than listening?* 
Is it more difficult watching historical footage of the shoveling of dead Jews into burial pits worse (more difficult) than hearing (or imagining) their screams of horror and despair being marched into the gas chambers? Or is being a homicide detective reviewing a murder scene worse than the screams prior to their brutal death? Or on the other hand, in the case of the Moors murders (UK, 1963-65/Brady & Hindley), is it worse hearing the tapes of the victims being murdered but never finding their bodies?
By extension, are we asking that *looking* at some modern art (let's take Damien Hirst's 'Shark' as an example) is harder to "take" than *listening* to some work by (let's say) Boulez?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Even people who studied Latin and Greek at college level can be wrong...as can the internet, of course. I suspect that we'd have to search classical sources to find how the roots of the term have been used, and not just take internet references at face value. For example, try this...
> 
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ignorant
> 
> ...


You may be right, but as you have admitted yourself the words can be used in precisely the way I described, so personally I prefer to use them in that way, so there is less ambiguity. I think both words just have a more clear intuitive meaning that way because of how they are spelled.


----------

