Jezer's forum posts

#1 Posted by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

I just slaughtered a Final/Torts exam...like, I went medieval on it.

I feel like I own a giant mecha suit that shoots spirit lasers.

#2 Edited by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@princearagorn1 said:

Well, that escalated quickly.

This is almost an understatement.

She went full Gundam on them. Lmao. So brilliant!

Its funny, because everyone was downplaying Kuvira as a threat. Korra's faced Bloodbenders(essentially the strongest bending) who can take bending away, a Dark Avatar who could control spirits and almost destroyed the Avatar legacy, and an Anti Team Avatar made up of the deadliest benders, with some using rare and destructive abilities....Kuvira was just a good metal bender, we exclaimed, racked with confusion. How could she be the final enemy of the Legend of Korra series?......Then, she pulls out a fucking mech-gundam suit going all Pacific Rim which she's able to control--not solely with controls---but more intimately through her metal bending as an extension of her own body....Damn that's impressive.That's taking the metal bending potential to an insane level.

I almost want Kuvira to win. That's how impressed I am. Excuse my language.

Btw- How funny would it have been if Loyal by Chris Brown played while Kuvira was firing the laser at Batar Jr.'s location?

#3 Edited by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22 said:

@jezer said:

@nick_hero22 said:

@jezer said:

@nick_hero22 said:

I understand your point of contention, but the way rgat you worded it seemed like a sweeping attack on art practices outside of "physical" things like drawing and sketching, but this is where my disagreement with you is coming from. I believe that a historical survey of artistic ideas and people who practice the craft helps promote culture in our society, communicate the trends and popular movements in art, and explain the foundations of art. All of these aspects are important for a good artist and a productive human being.

Here is some information from UT Austin about potential job prospects for majors in Art History.

http://www.utexas.edu/finearts/sites/default/files/attach_download/art_history_career_guide.pdf

I know that psychology is a social science, I wasn't insinuating that you were a science major bashing non-science majors. Art is important aspect of human life, it is a mechanism through which we express ourselves and our value, and by reflecting on those things we can promote positive change in society. Again, I think that the extent to which humanities majors influence society is very understated!

That's a very impressively small list of jobs(almost two handfuls)....that essentially have no impact on society. Lol. I said "abundant", there are job prospects in anything. Also, you're definitely overhyping art.

There are other avenues through which culture is refracted(such as language and literature). I remain unimpressed by art..... ('-' )

Moreover, let's not forget that artists sometimes have their own flavor of snobbery/elitism equal to other professions...In a way, you're demonstrating it(I am art, I am the soul of society!). Theirs is just the least respectable *wink* I would laugh at someone in real life if they tried to act impressive in some way because they had an "eye" for art.

What would be a job that has a meaningful impact on society? And, there are other websites that have a list of job prospects for Art History majors. Just because there are other avenues through which culture is expressed doesn't negate the fact that art and its history has made important contributions to culture. I find it very puzzling that you would be unimpressed by art when your a user on a comic book site, comic books must have some level of influence in your life?

No, I don't see how that follows? I never said that art is the soul of society or that it is the primary contributor of culture. What I have advocated so far is that art's contribution to society has been understated because of stigmas in the academic and intellectual paradigm in this country. I have never heard or seen the level of snobbery in the humanities as I have seen and heard about in the sciences, in fact in the humanities I believe that there is a healthy dose of respect to scientific disciplines. I regularly heard about in the academic circles on the blog-sphere about professional scientist denigrating philosophy and humanities in general. This is extreme to me, especially when science was "Natural Philosophy" just a couple of hundred years ago.

Telling me that more may exist somewhere else does not indicate that they are abundant. Especially considering that a prudent University, like UT, would try to gather a list that consists a high percentage of the available opportunities for their students. There are other websites, but how many of them mostly just overlap with the ones with UT?

You didn't actually address my main points here.1 You haven't defined what types of jobs have meaningful impacts on society which would allow us to understand the rift between where you are coming from and where I'm coming from about the value of art history. 2. I never claimed that there was an abundant of job prospects, but you were trying to downplay the number of different opportunities that can be taking advantage of with a degree in Art History.

1. How can that be a "main point" when I literally just brought it up myself as a digression that wasn't intrinsic to the rest of my paragraph(check the bolded portion of my quoted post)... and you've only asked one question about it? If I say something, and you respond to it, and then I continue talking about other things I'd already brought up -- how is that me not addressing your "main point"(can a main point even be in reaction to a point someone else makes, conceptually?)? If I have to address every response made to some train of thought I start, when am I ever allowed to stop talking? lol Surely you don't expect me to respond to every response you have to a throwaway comment that's tertiary to my argument. That's how long digressions are created.

2. Its always tricky to say things like "I never claimed this" when the implication is understood from context or when your responses were answers to a question I had. I could simply say "I never claimed you claimed they were abundant" and that leads to an infinite cycle. Here is the progression of statements:

"And you say there are job prospects in art history....um how abundant are they? haha" Question. (Me)

"Here is some information from UT Austin about potential job prospects for majors in Art History. (You)

http://www.utexas.edu/finearts/sites/default/files/attach_download/art_history_career_guide.pdf "

"That's a very impressively small list of jobs(almost two handfuls)....that essentially have no impact on society. Lol. I said "abundant", there are job prospects in anything." (Me)

"And, there are other websites that have a list of job prospects for Art History majors." (You)

"Telling me that more may exist somewhere else does not indicate that they are abundant. Especially considering that a prudent University, like UT, would try to gather a list that consists a high percentage of the available opportunities for their students. There are other websites, but how many of them mostly just overlap with the ones with UT?" (Me)

"I never claimed that there was an abundant of job prospects, but you were trying to downplay the number of different opportunities that can be taking advantage of with a degree in Art History." (You)

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

Do you see how....off that is? How could you have been answering my original question, "how abundant are they", and then later say you're not talking about them being abundant? That literally means you simply never actually responded my original question over the course of your posts, while you attempted to pursue other subjects to discuss....This is how conversations rage out of control.

If your ultimate point was simply that art history jobs do indeed exist, then how is that a response to me saying "That's more along the lines of Art history....which probably has lower job prospects than underwater basket weaving." an exaggerated statement which, nonetheless, necessarily implies that some number of job prospects exist, even though they are low? You really spent a number of posts telling me something already acknowledged in my original post you were responding to... how is that an efficient use of time?

Let me tl;dr this for you: If my posts downplayed the amount(of art history job prospects) and asked if they were abundant, and you responded to them simply to tell me they exist--showing me a link with a very small amount(which ultimately served to prove the point I made, which you were responding to, thereby establishing that I wasn't "downplaying" but right)--did you ever really answer my question?.....If a tree falls in a forest, no one's around to hear it, and everyone's too busy talking about Jersey Shore, then did that philosophy question ever exist? Lol

#4 Posted by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@nick_hero22 said:

I understand your point of contention, but the way rgat you worded it seemed like a sweeping attack on art practices outside of "physical" things like drawing and sketching, but this is where my disagreement with you is coming from. I believe that a historical survey of artistic ideas and people who practice the craft helps promote culture in our society, communicate the trends and popular movements in art, and explain the foundations of art. All of these aspects are important for a good artist and a productive human being.

Here is some information from UT Austin about potential job prospects for majors in Art History.

http://www.utexas.edu/finearts/sites/default/files/attach_download/art_history_career_guide.pdf

I know that psychology is a social science, I wasn't insinuating that you were a science major bashing non-science majors. Art is important aspect of human life, it is a mechanism through which we express ourselves and our value, and by reflecting on those things we can promote positive change in society. Again, I think that the extent to which humanities majors influence society is very understated!

That's a very impressively small list of jobs(almost two handfuls)....that essentially have no impact on society. Lol. I said "abundant", there are job prospects in anything. Also, you're definitely overhyping art.

There are other avenues through which culture is refracted(such as language and literature). I remain unimpressed by art..... ('-' )

Moreover, let's not forget that artists sometimes have their own flavor of snobbery/elitism equal to other professions...In a way, you're demonstrating it(I am art, I am the soul of society!). Theirs is just the least respectable *wink* I would laugh at someone in real life if they tried to act impressive in some way because they had an "eye" for art.

What would be a job that has a meaningful impact on society? And, there are other websites that have a list of job prospects for Art History majors. Just because there are other avenues through which culture is expressed doesn't negate the fact that art and its history has made important contributions to culture. I find it very puzzling that you would be unimpressed by art when your a user on a comic book site, comic books must have some level of influence in your life?

No, I don't see how that follows? I never said that art is the soul of society or that it is the primary contributor of culture. What I have advocated so far is that art's contribution to society has been understated because of stigmas in the academic and intellectual paradigm in this country. I have never heard or seen the level of snobbery in the humanities as I have seen and heard about in the sciences, in fact in the humanities I believe that there is a healthy dose of respect to scientific disciplines. I regularly heard about in the academic circles on the blog-sphere about professional scientist denigrating philosophy and humanities in general. This is extreme to me, especially when science was "Natural Philosophy" just a couple of hundred years ago.

Telling me that more may exist somewhere else does not indicate that they are abundant. Especially considering that a prudent University, like UT, would try to gather a list that consists a high percentage of the available opportunities for their students. There are other websites, but how many of them mostly just overlap with the ones with UT? I was simply pointing out that art is not unique in its expression of culture, and such people can get their "cultural fix" from other sufficient sources. I prefer literature, which likely has more cognitive benefits, and that's why I have no issue dismissing art. That's cool, I also use tvs and they technically have influence on my life, but that doesn't mean I'd suddenly respect someone who went to school to learn how to make tvs, nor does that mean I respect the learning of media. Lol

It follows in the fact that you've been arguing elitism from other areas, yet the reality is that artists have their own elitism commonly known as art snobbery. It involves use of pseudo-intellectual language describing art and arrogance towards those who don't see it, I typically imagine it as people overhyping art (artworks specifically) and its place in society. A big issue here is that you keep responding to my comments about art with comments about the humanities, when my comments were specifically made about art. You're conflating the two in your response. Why talk about science snobbery towards humanities when I'm talking about art snobbery? The truth is that snobbery exists in most fields and my comments were never directed at humanities in general---so why mix that in as if in talking about it, you're responding to me? For the record, the main difference I see between the snobs in every field--since they exist in every field--is how valid the basis is for their arrogance; art drew the short straw in that regard. lol

As much as we've digressed(and I won't honor any more digressions for the sake of time better spent elsewhere), the reality is my original comment, that you were replying to, was about art history---and it really is not arguable that they lack abundant jobs compared to other areas. Its not arguable that most people don't go to college to learn art facts. Its not even arguable that higher chances of finding a successful career are found in other areas which people go to college for....What left is there to argue? I'll extend you the last reply on the above two paragraphs.

#5 Edited by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22 said:

I understand your point of contention, but the way rgat you worded it seemed like a sweeping attack on art practices outside of "physical" things like drawing and sketching, but this is where my disagreement with you is coming from. I believe that a historical survey of artistic ideas and people who practice the craft helps promote culture in our society, communicate the trends and popular movements in art, and explain the foundations of art. All of these aspects are important for a good artist and a productive human being.

Here is some information from UT Austin about potential job prospects for majors in Art History.

http://www.utexas.edu/finearts/sites/default/files/attach_download/art_history_career_guide.pdf

I know that psychology is a social science, I wasn't insinuating that you were a science major bashing non-science majors. Art is important aspect of human life, it is a mechanism through which we express ourselves and our value, and by reflecting on those things we can promote positive change in society. Again, I think that the extent to which humanities majors influence society is very understated!

That's a very impressively small list of jobs(almost two handfuls)....that essentially have no impact on society. Lol. I said "abundant", there are job prospects in anything. Also, you're definitely overhyping art.

There are other avenues through which culture is refracted(such as language and literature). I remain unimpressed by art..... ('-' )

Moreover, let's not forget that artists sometimes have their own flavor of snobbery/elitism equal to other professions...In a way, you're demonstrating it(I am art, I am the soul of society!). Theirs is just the least respectable *wink* I would laugh at someone in real life if they tried to act impressive in some way because they had an "eye" for art.

#6 Posted by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio
#7 Edited by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22 said:

@jezer said:

@nick_hero22 said:

@jezer said:

You realize most people don't go to college to learn art?

Correction: Most people -- who don't want to be homeless -- don't go to college for art knowledge.

I do understand where you are coming from, but this sounds kinda of elitist to me in a certain sense. A degree in art does have job prospects, so the career outlook isn't as bleak as you have painted it.

To be fair, I purposely said art "knowledge" not skill, such as painting, drawing, etc. which is generally associated with art, as well as actual success in art. For most people, art isn't even learnable--and actual artists go to art schools to develop their already present skill.

I said "knowledge" because in this case he's simply asking art facts. That's more along the lines of Art history....which probably has lower job prospects than underwater basket weaving.

Well, I take a degree in art to consist of formalized training in art "knowledge" because in order to have those art "skills" they have to be based on certain principles and observations which is essentially what we call knowledge. Regardless, if the talent is already pre-existent before college, that talent is predicated on knowledge that is self-attained. So, those art "skills" must be grounded upon something, and I think that we would call this thing knowledge. Art history can be used to help students to understand the foundations of certain technique and artistic concepts that influences students's ability as artistic such as their style and inspiration.

Again, there are job prospects with a degree in art history. This kinda of rhetoric has elitist undertones! Me being a humanities and social science major: Philosophy and Sociology (with a Biology minor), makes me upset when I hear people who have majored in science try to bash non-science majors.

Let me ask you this: Do you not see a difference between "formalized" art training--e.g. learning drawing forms, proportions, etc.--and art knowledge such as that in the Original Post? Do the art facts you see in the OP encapsulate the art "knowledge" that is the base for artists to improve their skills, even as youngsters? I can answer for you, since everyone in my district was forced to take art classes in elementary school and I took it out of my own volition in high school. The answer(to my second question) is no--knowledge vs training, mental vs actual performance. Key differences between what I was commenting and what you're talking about....Your argument is based on superficial wording, but the reality is that there is a material difference between practicing art and learning art history.

True, formal techniques are knowledge, technically lol, but my post was in response to the OP/title, so the context should be clear about what sort of art knowledge I was actually talking about. And you say there are job prospects in art history....um how abundant are they? haha

And, for the record, Psychology is a social science + I dabbled in Philosophy in undergrad, a least one class a semester. Additionally, I minored in English. Lol

EDIT: Don't get me wrong though, I definitely look down on the average art student.... ('-' )

#8 Edited by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22 said:

@jezer said:

You realize most people don't go to college to learn art?

Correction: Most people -- who don't want to be homeless -- don't go to college for art knowledge.

I do understand where you are coming from, but this sounds kinda of elitist to me in a certain sense. A degree in art does have job prospects, so the career outlook isn't as bleak as you have painted it.

To be fair, I purposely said art "knowledge" not skill, such as painting, drawing, etc. which is generally associated with art, as well as actual success in art. For most people, art isn't even learnable--and actual artists go to art schools to develop their already present skill.

I said "knowledge" because in this case he's simply asking art facts. That's more along the lines of Art history....which probably has lower job prospects than underwater basket weaving.

What was your undergraduate major?

Psychology.

#9 Edited by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@renchamp said:

@jezer: Someone is taking a law class. I say B.

Its C. Statute of Frauds.

I actually just had my final in that class(Contracts) yesterday, and it was surprisingly easy. (First lawschool Final ever...I was expecting so much more)

#10 Edited by Jezer (3171 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil said:

@princearagorn1: Not much new ideas they can come up with

Korras redemption storyline is same as Aangs.

Kuvira has the same motives as Ozai, ultimately.

Simply seeming to have the same motives does not make repetitive.

Kuvira's motives, as far as we know, began with her trying to unite a country being torn apart in chaos. That is admirable, and as far as we know, her lust for power may be incidental or simply a matter of corruption(after all, she begged Suyin to be the one). In Kuvira's argument with Suyin at the very beginning, when she chose to get involved, I can't say she was wrong at all when world governments were pleading for someone to take the reins. Control is necessary at times.

For that reason, it is different from Ozai's motives. As far as I know, he simply wanted power and had no intentions that didn't focus more on benifitting himself. Toph herself commented that the motives of the villains have been good, but they were simply unbalanced individuals lost in their ambitions.