Science Forums 2

[paigetheoracle]

As people still don't get what I'm on about - here's something else thrown into the spectrum to clarify things. Watching 'Strictly Come Dancing' on UK TV, I was struck by the beauty of the performance by Rachel and Vincent. It was so powerful that it nearly brought tears to my eyes and held my attention captive. Then on came John Sargeant, who plodded around the stage but was voted in by the public over the judges, which meant a decent couple had to leave the competition in order for him to stay in. His personality won over the public not his performance as a dancer. In other words, the art of his dancing was attrocious but his charisma got him votes (The Cuddly Bear factor).

If I wanted somebody to paint my house, I would want a professional that might be laconic but got on with the job, not a talkative conman that couldn't even paint his fingernails: If you're paying for a craftsman, you want somebody that is going to do a good enough job that the house doesn't fall down around you of burst into flames from faulty electrical work or flood because of poor plumbing, wouldn't you? Or maybe not? Perhaps you'd like a pretentious idiot that robs you blind and you have to take to court because he doesn't have the faintest idea what he is doing (George Bush) or is just out to rob you blind?

Put this practically it's a question of quality (depth of thought over shallowness): The more you put in, the more you get out. These pieces of art stink from this perspective because they are no more than the wanderings of a child compared to the adults of the past and occasionally creative individuals of the present. This supposed art is not about art but pretense (As they say in The Church of the Subgenius "Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes - pull the wool over your own eyes"). This is lazy effort, unworthy of regard in my opinion.