for the ladies that watch sex and the city

[deanna11]

doo wah diddy diddy dumb did he do

[deedlez]

omg, can someone answer the girls fucking question???? LOL, i guess i will...i can relate to all of them...i see a little bit of each character in me...but i do LOVE shoes like carrie hehe

deedz

[roadrunner]

Okay, you want me to break it down for you?

I never mentioned giving an "Objective" viewpoint of the subject matter.

But you did say, "The relation of the self to the art form is the most direct and clear account (aesthetcially speaking)".

Do you know what aesthetically speaking means? It implies an objective set of criteria. Webster's defines it as: "A guiding principle in matters of artistic beauty and taste; artistic sensibility," and while this set of principles may be open to debate, it certainly is not subjective. If it were, it could not be defined as a set of principles.

Starcapone's question clearly depicted an identification with the characters on a personal level.

Regardless of what Star's question was, you took it upon yourself to define the proper way to understand an ART FORM "Any individual who wishes to thoroughly understand an art form (whether it be theatre/television/film/etc) must identify with and relate one's self to the character that is being observed. And you are simply wrong here. First of all, you have to seperate the 'art' from the 'art form'. An art form does not necessarily even have characters. When stripped to its barest bones, what is film? A series of pictures which give the effect of movement, and sound to accompany them. So we have pictures taking place over time. The time is set by the creator of the film. The viewer cannot manipulate it. The viewer is passive. The "action" unfolds on the screen. This is the art form of film. The art and the form are distinct.

Now to get on to some of your other fallacies.

if one were watching a film and trying to figure out exactly how the character could get to the point of murdering another individual, etc, one would need to look within one's self and place one's self in the situation. You completely missed the point. The character is psychotic. Unless you are psychotic, it's impossible to place yourself in the character's situation and draw the conclusion that murder is a logical response. Because we are familiar with the concept of psychosis, we can comprehend the character's line of reasoning, but it is not necessary to place oneself in this situation, and in fact may be potentially hazardous to view all art works this way. While it may give a more empirically "true" understanding of the art (not the form), it could also dive you literally crazy. Art informs us of different lifestyles and mentallities without forcing the rigor of actually experiencing them.

Many writers of the past, such as Frederick Douglas for instance, have written the most beautiful work from an objective standpoint while stuck in turmoil; but if a closer look is taken at the work, the objectivity is nothing more than an attempt to separate one's self from the one's surroundings because it is too difficult to deal with at the moment. Exactly proving my point. Psychologically, the pain of his surrounding was too great for the writer to directly deal with. How can we, the readers, hope to place ourselves in a situation that the writer could not subjectively place himself in?

But like aesthetics in general, most of what I'm saying is bullshit, so take it with a grain of salt.

------------------

*i'm in love with the modern world*

[rudeboyyouth]

If you read more carefully, the commentary stated that Douglas wished to separate himself from the condition, but only after the internalization of the material began. Only at that point for Douglas is he usefully "objective." His objectivity is self willed, not inevitable. His work explicitly cites his choice to differentiate himself from those around him, including his fellow slaves; not only was the condition too overbearing, but it was humiliating; Douglas chose to differentiate himself not only because of turmoil, but self advancement. Throughout his work, he wished to identify himself. A clear understanding and appreciation of his own condition was done before any of his objective writing or psychological isolation began. The objectivity did not precede his internalization of the work; it succeeded it. It was not needed to understand, but merely to convey to an audience. The experience takes shape and sequence, serving to have oratorical power over the audience; serving to sway them. Such is the only useful purpose of objectivity in this case.

The definition of "Aesthetics" as you describe, is a set of Principles. However, beyond what you've stated, it is a particular set of principles that relates to the self; the self that is observant. It is based upon one's particular tastes and approach toward a work of art. It is inevitably subjective. The understanding of the work will ultimately be impacted by this subjectivity, and various criticisms arise as a result.

An art form is created by the individual. The individual lends his own tastes/styles/motives/etc to the work of art. His manipulation of the art form ) is specifically designed to take on a certain mold; hence, a plot. It is also (especially in film) meant to evoke a feeling, which relates to self. One can wholesomely appreciate this work of art even before it has been observed in its entirety. The plights of the character within the film evoke personal emotion within the viewer because the viewer is Forced to experience. That experience then stays within the mind of the viewer when the work is observed in its entirety; it is internalized and it becomes subjective. As the characters rise and fall, the subjectivity begins; that is inevitable. The art form is the medium in which the message/emotion is conveyed by the artist. In this case, it is through cinema/television. The actual film that the shots are imbedded upon, is not the art form; you are slightly confused. A creator of films has a preconceived notion of what the film will look like in its entirety: that is the art form. The entire creative process of shooting and organizing is part of, but not the actual form of art. The art form is created through looking at the actual reel of film; the product of the light combined with the reel of film. The shots all work in sequential order to convey the art form. The art form is not the lifeless reel of film, but the product of the light and film; ultimately the picture being observed by the viewer . This is the medium in which the creator conveys his message. The tools such as film, are used to create the form; the form takes shape upon the screen, which is the artist's ultimate intention. And as I mentioned previously, the art form is impossible to wholsomely understand without the relation of the form to the self (observer).

You are wrong in your elaboration on Art as well. Inevitably, it does force the viewer to experience a lifestyle, in many ways. In some forms of art, such as writing, the art form forces the reader to experience the lifestyle of the character or writer (depending on what is being written about of course). It does not impose any truths or fallacies upon the viewer, but it does force an experience upon them. That is what separates true art from the bullshit criticism that you have given it. It is the responsibility of the observer to try and understand the character that is psychotic. The movie depicts a killer in action, but the viewer would be an imbecile to not wonder how the killer has reached this point. For the viewer to not try and understand how the killer has reached this point is impossible. The art form (being the projected picture, not the misinterpretted definition you suggested) must be appreciated from as many angles as possible. As with poets and writers of the past and present, their works have been investigated and researched in order to discover what lead to the finished product. The main character within the art form must be given this same insight, regardless of how much is suggested, or how "incomprehensible" psychosis may seem. Without such insights, artwork would not have, or never would have the useful criticism that it does, it would merely have haphazard explanations without a thorough understanding, such as what you are writing.

Credibility must be given to the art, the creator, and the character; it must not merely be dismissed as "incomprehensible." Understanding is not limited to what the creator of a film allows; is goes far beyond that, as with any art form. Criticism of art stems from the attempts to understand; and those attempts vary in range. Those attempts are all at one point related to the self (whether it be the perspective of the creator or character that is being studied). It is a natural process of any creator or observer of art. True appreciation of art does not take on a one dimensional form; it takes on a multidimensional form. The viewer is taken on a roller coaster of emotions (depending upon the work) and is in many ways forced to be curious about the character(s). It does not make one crazy to try and figure out the behaviors of the characters, regardless of how "impossible" they may be to explain. Insight into such aspects not only spark further criticism, but useful plot elaborations. Such insights are the root of artwork. That is fairly obvious.

As for Aesthetics, it is far from bullshit. Since the birth of Aestheticism, the impact has been undeniable. The results of such an impact have lead to beautiful criticism and artforms that cover a wider range than once thought.

Your points would be entirely valid if you thought them through a bit more carefully. And as such, they read like bullshit; regardless of whether or not that was your intention.

------------------

"I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

[This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-05-2001).]

[dale77]

I'm probably the most like Charlotte, which is too bad b/c she kind of annoys me. LOL. But we have a lot of same ideals and she's kind of reserved like I am and stuff.

------------------

You're only young once

[kittn920]

ok so i thought this was gonna be a fun post to respond to but i guess some people are really touchy about sex& the city it was a simple question that was suppose to be fun...but i guess not everyone knows what fun is. whoever was so upset with the question needs to realize that people are going to relate to fictional characters on any show, movie, play or book. anyways the answer to the original question is a mix of charlotte and carrie.

------------------

"I always get what I aim for and your heart and soul is what I came for"

<3 920-143 <3

[playboychick]

Originally posted by starcapone:

which character reminds u of yourself/have similiar traits with?? i have a lil' bit of carrie + samantha in me = great combo

Samantha definitely, although I can't count claim to the "numbers" she has.

I feel like the others are always looking for men to complete them, unlike Samantha. She's just as content being with a man as she is alone, she's comfortable with her sexuality, and she says what's on her mind...no holds barred.

------------------

[kitkatt]

WHOA... Never thought I'd see a response to the original question. And its a good one at that. The answer however is not so easy. I see a little of myself in all all of them.

the down to earth but still has her bad days Carrie

the innocent/prudish charlotte

the independant Miranda

the sexpot on Samantha

[roadrunner]

rudeboyyouth-

pick a critic (art, film, etc.) you respect, and I'll pull quotes to prove you wrong.

------------------

*i'm in love with the modern world*

<IMG SRC="http://bbs.clubplanet.com/ubb/uploads/roadrunner/gethigh2.jpgg

[rudeboyyouth]

You are a very good quote finder, I don't doubt that. Your ability to prove me wrong thus far however, has been weak. It's not about proving wrong little Runner, it's about stating the truth. Pull your head out of the gutter; formulate your own thoughts, and knowledge will blindside you. I find it a bit difficult to respect one who revels in pullings quotes from another. Pulling quotes is hardly an honorable deed if one can't make sense of the information, or understand it.

Aside from that, your worthless attempts at refutation take the shape of a childish moan left unheard. Children are good at finding things however. I have faith you will find a good quote. Good luck, and keep up the search.

------------------

"I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

[This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-07-2001).]

[kewlgirl]

holy mother of christ lord jesus son of sam...wtf??? a very simple question....why oh why must we over analyze such a simple question? why oh why oh why???