Vasilivros's Profile


Anime Stats
Days: 17.3
Mean Score: 6.87
  • Total Entries202
  • Rewatched0
  • Episodes1,002
Anime History Last Anime Updates
Boku no Hero Academia 2nd Season
Boku no Hero Academia 2nd Season
Apr 21, 7:00 AM
Watching 3/25 · Scored -
Owarimonogatari 2nd Season
Owarimonogatari 2nd Season
Mar 4, 6:47 AM
Completed 7/7 · Scored 9
Mar 3, 4:40 PM
Completed 12/12 · Scored 10
Manga Stats
Days: 7.7
Mean Score: 5.71
  • Total Entries74
  • Reread0
  • Chapters1,151
  • Volumes155
Manga History Last Manga Updates
Apr 21, 6:59 AM
Reading 24/705 · Scored -
Mar 19, 5:08 PM
Completed 8/8 · Scored -
Mar 19, 5:06 PM
Completed 66/66 · Scored -


All Comments (107) Comments

Would you like to post a comment? Please login or sign up first!
czxcjx Apr 14, 2:03 AM
czxcjx Apr 10, 6:16 PM
Sure! Thanks for checking my stuff out.
Abusaeed Apr 10, 1:49 PM
There's just no reason behind many things that I do¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Abusaeed Apr 10, 1:36 PM
That is indeed a good question
Fvlminatvs Mar 25, 8:33 AM
I'm not sure. It's a neat little project but I have no idea if it will truly be able to create a convincing Rembrandt painting.
Fvlminatvs Mar 13, 12:59 AM
I'm not sick of you, just busy. I figure I had best terminate the art conversation because we were getting nowhere and I simply don't know enough about it to explain myself clearly.

And yes, it is an issue. I don't know what you get on the news where you live but ever since Trump was elected the entire American political and journalism sphere has gone absolutely haywire. It is far worse than it was when the book was published.
Fvlminatvs Mar 5, 3:44 PM
I know what color theory is--I was taught it in middle school. I don't see how an artist who is aware of color theory but either deliberately breaks from it or simply ignores it fails to make art.

As for the Rape of the Masters, fine. It is primarily a political critique. I fail to perceive how that invalidates what is said on page 59.

1. Criticism and composition are two entirely different skills. They can, and have been known to, complement one another but the one is not necessary to produce a cogent assessment with the other.

2. I know a few. A small percentage of the whole. Enough to notice things like the golden ratio or the rule of three, complementary colors, distance and perspective, etc. I admit that what I know is the merest fraction of what there is to know.

At this point, I find that our conversation has arrived at an impasse and therefore a fitting terminus. I have very much enjoyed this discussion and found much of it quite fruitful. You've posed some very challenging questions to me that prompted me to go back and re-evaluate many of my previous assumptions. For that, I thank you.
Fvlminatvs Mar 5, 10:31 AM
Vasilivros, I don't know how else to put this but to say, "You don't know what you're talking about." Your opinion is not only uninformed, when it comes to the effectiveness of Mark Rothko, you're wrong (see "Chapter 2: Inventing Mark Rothko." in Kimball, Roger. THE RAPE OF THE MASTERS. Specifically see pg. 59 here:

That reference is just a start. I trust I need not continue to provide demonstrations that you're wrong about the efficacy of Rothko's work.

As for myself being ignorant of art--I've not read much but I have read about modern art. I do not believe that what I've read is enough to make me an expert by any stretch but it has given me the capacity to appreciate it much better than I once had. As for the subconscious impact of environment on an individual's mood and thinking, I need only point to the half-dozen or so psychology courses I had to take in order to get my M.Ed.

Of course, you can choose simply not to take my word for it. Or not to take Roger Kimball's word, either, although HE, unlike ME, actually IS an expert. From my experience, arguing against an expert does little more than demonstrate one's own ignorance.

So you can choose to develop a degree of humility and approach the subject with an admission of your lack of expertise or you can persist in demanding that I accept your judgment as the final arbiter of artistic taste. If you choose the former road, we'll continue to get along quite well. If you choose the latter, you should prepare yourself for disappointment. Forgive me but I am more likely to listen to experts in the field than to you.

You can also choose to take this personally, which will not serve you well in any real capacity, or you could consider your own limitations of knowledge and sophistication with regards to art appreciation. Again, I willingly accept that I don't know enough about this to make any solid judgments despite being rather certain that I've read more and been taught more in the field of modern art appreciation than you have. My impressions are informed, however, by giving a degree of time and effort to learning about it.

Your taste is not something I will dispute. You are allowed to not like Mark Rothko's paintings. However, if you put forth an uninformed opinion that unilaterally states Mark Rothko's work is not art or fails to achieve its aims, while dodging a number of my counter-arguments (such as how I point out you are criticizing a work for not doing what it never intended, for example), your behavior will not be intellectually honest in any capacity.
Fvlminatvs Mar 4, 9:47 PM
1. Interesting. I see what you mean but I'm not certain I agree. I have to think on it.

2. Could you do what Mark Rothko did? If so, why is he the first person who really pulled it off? Is there something wrong with simplicity? I think I mentioned how much I hated the White Stripes because I thought their music was so simple, anyone could do it. Then I heard the guitar solo from "You Don't Know What Love Is" and all of a sudden I GOT IT. I understood. I was wrong the entire time--the music was simple, but simplicity was the point and no, I couldn't do what Jack White was doing with his two-person band. Jack White understood musical principles better than I. He knowingly and deliberately broke music down to its barest pieces possible for those pieces to still be considered "music." There was a purity and rawness to it. I'm sorry, I lack the musical vocabulary to really understand what it is I experienced that allowed me to understand it any better than this, unfortunately.

Similarly, I lack the painter's vocabulary, so I'm somewhat at a loss to explain why that simplicity is important and what it achieves. I doubt you or I understand painting to be able to pull off what Polluck or Rothko did, even as cheap imitations. If I can tell the difference between a Polluck and an imitator, anyone could be able to tell the difference between us and a Rothko. Let's be frank, here--neither you nor I know the first thing about painting beyond the fact that you need a brush, paint, and a canvas. We've no concept of brush strokes, types of paint, what sort of textures they create on the canvas, etc. So for us to sit there and critique Rothko would only make us look like complete idiots in front of somebody who actually knows art.

An opinion from a position of ignorance is basically worthless. Yes, we're allowed our opinions. No, nobody has to respect them--ESPECIALLY if those opinions are uninformed.

3. Again, you're making tremendous assumptions. Are they boring? Are they devoid of meaning? Says who? Says you? Why should I listen to you? Where did you study art? What do you know about brushstrokes? Oil-based paints or watercolor? Different types of canvas?

I'm not doing this to blast you (and I hope it doesn't come off that way) but to get you to think how what you perceive may simply be your own preferences and assumptions making demands because pattern recognition tells you Rembrandt's THE NIGHT WATCH is art (it fits the patterns) but Rothko's works aren't (because it doesn't appear to). You say they're boring. Great. However, they have an effect on atmosphere, like I said. I clarified that I don't know who the intended audience WAS but I believe that the intended EFFECT was to produce that sense of calm. In that, evidence suggests it was successful.

So you're judging a work for not producing an effect it was never intended to produce. That's like criticizing a car because it doesn't fly like a plane.
Fvlminatvs Mar 4, 8:09 AM
Okay, I've had some time to think about your questions and I think you've some assumptions you're bringing that should be addressed.

First, you're assuming there's a difference between breaking rules and not incorporating them whatsoever. Is there a difference? I would posit for the moment that ignoring a rule is functionally the same as breaking it. I am curious to see if you agree and why or why not and see where that leads us.

Secondly, we cannot just assume that Rothko is ignoring or breaking color theory by choosing colors at random. Again, I believe that there are subconscious reasons, even if Rothko himself isn't consciously aware of them, for breaking or ignoring color theory. I would suggest that none of his works are meant to be viewed by themselves but that is my own supposition.

Thirdly, you are also assuming that it is necessary for him to have straight lines in his work since that would be more aesthetically pleasing. Would it? Or would it give a more artificial, perhaps industrially precise, quality whereas the more wavy lines give it a more organic asymmetry?

We must always be aware that personal taste will cloud our judgment. This is why subjectivity is such a prominent obstacle. We can never truly know if we are approaching any sort of objective assessment so we should always approach the task of assessment with a degree of humility and an acknowledgement of our own personal tastes.

Taste cannot be argued away. It cannot be argued against. This is why I refuse to argue taste--to say someone has "bad taste" is as useless as saying that they have "good taste." To argue the merits of a work of art outside of taste without having that argument colored by taste might be impossible but worth trying. Tastes, however, can change as one ages, learns, and practices within a field. Where I once loved DRAGONBALL Z as a teenager, I now have little ability to tolerate its abysmal pacing, poorly animated fight scenes, and (mostly) two-dimensional characterizations. Did DRAGONBALL Z change or did my tastes change? We both should know that it is the LATTER.

This is the great paradox, I'd say, of criticism. Those who say objectivity is impossible and everything is subjective aren't wrong--they're missing the point. The same goes for those who consider themselves the guardians of good taste, which is why I hate how "elitist" is a pejorative--the "elitists" have poisoned the well while missing the point themselves.

To return to Re:Zero--I BELIEVE we're correct in assessing its story and characterization as being quite poor. Applying standards and metrics is important because it allows us to articulate why we dislike the show. However, is it because we adopted those standards and metrics as a way to shape our taste? Or did we adopt those metrics as a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc position to justify our tastes? This is a question we should always be asking ourselves.

Anyway, I apologize for this gigantic digression. You should see me in class sometimes--I once spent half of a class talking about how much I love Aristophanes' THE WASPS instead of discussing the Peloponnesian Wars. I'm the king of digressions.

Back to your questions and arguments:

I never said that the intended audience for Rothko's paintings were people with health issues. I simply said that I've seen hospitals use them (I assume) because they create a relaxing, calming atmosphere. I would honestly be surprised to find out Rothko intended them for hospitals. I make that assumption because 1) I've seen hospitals (both in South Korea and here in New Jersey) use them, 2) I've read in a couple of art books that this is the effect they generate, and 3) I've read about how the design of an environment have a direct psychological impact on the moods and attitudes of people within those environments. I've made an assumption, true, but it's an informed assumption--an "educated guess" as we say. But I admit that it is still an assumption.

Anyway, we'll really have no idea what Rothko's motivations were unless Rothko himself told us somewhere (a memoir, an interview, etc.). Even then, without a full psychological workup, we'd have gaps in our understanding.

Also, keep in mind that artists go through periods of interest. Picasso is one of the best examples of this--each period, he was interested in exploring something different in his art. In his youth, I recall, he drew and painted birds. Later on, he had his famous Blue Period. Truly understanding a single work that emphasizes the color "blue" without reference to the greater context of his Blue Period might be impossible.

As for a double-standard... that I really don't know about. You make a very interesting point. I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and kind of write what I'm thinking at this exact moment so don't take what I say as 100% what I believe. I'm still processing this.

I don't know if you can compare Rothko's or Pollock's work to, say, Rembrandt or van Gogh. Maybe you can. I'm not an expert in art. It rubs me the wrong way to say, "you can't compare the two." It's hard, though, because of the differences. How does one compare Italo Calvino's INVISIBLE CITIES to Shakespeare's MACBETH? I read INVISIBLE CITIES--it's a fascinating read about these imaginary places that never existed but there's no real coherent story that obviously emerges. However, INVISIBLE CITIES is considered an essential addition to the Western Canon just as much as MACBETH.

So here I sit, in a bit of a pickle. I've taken more than a week to consider your questions and I still haven't gotten a solid answer except that "maybe there isn't a double standard?"

My literature pal revels in these sorts of things. As a historian, I like to dig up solid answers. He lives in a world where everything is a question and he finds joy in all of their implications.
OtakuDeity Mar 3, 11:11 PM
You do know that Hypothesis is just a synonym for Theory right ? The same thing.
Fvlminatvs Mar 1, 8:36 AM
Oh, that's true--you can't trust the feedback. I can usually tell when the feedback is not genuine from the tone and vocabulary used in the review.

Buying used books usually isn't a problem. Buying used DVDs and Blu-Rays, though, I avoid because I've heard about a lot of people having problems. If I buy anything that isn't a book on Amazon, I generally buy it direct from Amazon itself.
Fvlminatvs Feb 28, 10:46 PM
Yeah, kind of busy. It's mid-term season.

Both copies look fine to me. I think I've got a copy of both the 5th and 6th editions and they're nearly identical. There shouldn't be any tremendous differences.

Out of curiosity, what have you read about Amazon? I use it all the time but that's just here in the States. I've no idea about Amazon's reputation outside of North America.
NihilisticLoner Feb 28, 4:40 PM
I didn't. I just noticed that he dissapeared from my friends list. I messaged him asking why, but he hasn't answered yet.
I think he and henriiz are just fucking with me intentionally.
OtakuDeity Feb 26, 9:43 PM
No most of them are theories, because their based on my ideas.