4428  Who v. What

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:07:32 -0400
From: "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Who v. What
To: tango-L@mit.edu

Re: Andy's argument:

I disagree wholeheartedly.

The premise that we have limited reading time is true. Researchers,
students, and people who work in the communications industry know this
all too well. But reserving our attention solely for those with
credentials-- for "the authorities," or the well known, or the publicly
visible-- is an idiotic attitude. I can't count the number of times I've
seen supposed experts rehash something in a TV interview that was
blatantly false. I've personally stopped op-ed pieces from going to the
press (in a former job) because, despite their rhetorical heroics, they
were plain wrong in the details. Experts, you see, have limited time
too; and the more exalted they get, the more they rely on that evil of
the modern world-- the summary.

Greenspan is notorious for _not_ doing this, and for speaking in precise
technical terms on television. We might call him the paragon of detailed
exposition, where public figures are concerned. People insist, however,
on summarizing, excerpting, quotifying his statements, and reacting to
the summary-- and blowing it out of proportion because he's Chairman of
the Fed. This is the same sheepish conduct that has been making most
men look stupid as long as there have been men. It also annoys sane,
sober market-watchers to no end, as such distortions of his message
wreak havoc on actual stocks.

The Mass Media Age has only perpetuated this sloppy behavior, and makes
it seem acceptable. Being pressed for time is nothing more than our
era's most popular excuse. It is the status quo writ small. Meanwhile,
there are plenty of intelligent people out there, with little or no
audience, making valid, valuable points. You might know them by name,
but it's What they say that keeps you coming back.

We must be selective, sure: we must choose when to skim, when to read
closely, and when to do something else. This is called being responsibly
subjective. But if you're going to read, read not through ad hominem
glasses-- that is my point. Make the choices you must, then read the What.

As for multiple identities making ideas seem more "popular"-- hmph. I
really don't pay that any mind. We're discussing ideas here, not
determining which ones are right by the popularity of reader-response.
Plenty of people who read this stuff don't post, and plenty of people
who are pursuing this stuff don't even read the list. It's here in case
someone finds it valuable, now or later. If you're not assembling a
personal scrapbook of the clips most useful to yourself, that's your
problem. And if you need an "authority" to make an argument before
you'll think about it deeply, that's also your problem.

That aside...

If you've seen these arguments before a hundred times, I have to wonder
why you're still reading the list. People have been saying that
everything has already been said since the days of Plato. And people
have said new things anyway.

As for me, I'm not just a theory-loving jargonhead. I'm simply not put
off by theory, and willing to use theoretical terms to determine both
what is commonly known about the tango and what is unknown, or
unexplored. That is what my (now infamous) "Prologue to an Aesthetics"
was about. Anyone with a semester's worth of experience in actual
aesthetics (whether from the artistic or the philosophical angle) will
recognize that I haven't written anything that complex.

And at any rate, anyone may opt to Not read the follow-up. I simply hope
that those who do read will consider what I've typed, not which fingers
I typed it with. There are people here arguing that the tango is an art,
not just a recreational activity. Well, I think it's both, and I'm going
to do my best to treat those rare moments when it becomes an art the
same way that every art has been treated by its intelligent
practitioners: I'm going to subject my imagination and intuition to the
format of reasoned discourse, and I'm going to write about it. It's
really nothing more than the organized musings of one dancer, who's
unwilling to rely on such summaries as "The tango is about a man and a
woman," no matter whose mouth they come from.

A normal human,

Jake Spatz
Washington, DC


astrid wrote:

> Joanne Prochaska wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>> Well Said!
>>
>
> I agree
> Astrid
>
>
>> your argument sounds great. Look at the ideas, not at the names! From a
>> theoretical point of view (I know you love theories) you are perfectly
>> right. But let us look at the limited possibilities a normal human has.
>> Do you read all newspapers in your country? Do look at all pages on the
>> web? It might be some very interesting and valuable thoughts out there!
>> I am sure you don't. You make a choice, you have your personal selection
>> which information you look at and which you ignore. You made this based
>> on your experience that some sources are good, others are biased by
>> ideologies, others are simply poor. The same is with authors. You don't
>> go to the library and read all books in the shelf from left to right. If
>> you already know an author and you found he is writing nonsense you will
>> not read all his books and hope one day he might express one genial
>> thought.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:45:22 -1200
From: "Michael" <tangomaniac@cavtel.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Who v. What
To: spatz@tangoDC.com, tango-L@mit.edu
Cc: tangomaniac@cavtel.net

Jake wrote:

> Greenspan is notorious for _not_ doing this, and for

speaking in precise technical terms on television. People
insist, however, on summarizing, excerpting, quotifying his
statements, and reacting to the summary-- and blowing it
out of proportion because he's Chairman of the Fed.
NEWSFLASH:
Greenspan is NO longer Chairman of the Fed and HASN'T been
chairman for 5 months. Yes, he spoke in precise tehcnical
terms that only he understood.

Michael Ditkoff
Washington, DC

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:58 +0100 (BST)
From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Who v. What
Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com

Jake wrote:

> That is what my (now infamous) "Prologue to an Aesthetics" was about.
> Anyone with a semester's worth of experience in actual aesthetics
> (whether from the artistic or the philosophical angle) will recognize...

Damn, that must have the semester I skipped off to dance...

Meanwhile <smile!>, Sergio wrote

> let's go to our business: TANGO.

Yes let's!

So, this stuff on sweeps:

> if you don't accompany your "foot push" by a leader's body movement
> that reinforces what she should be doing, you'll soon discover ...

Leader's body movement? What leader's body movement? In sweep or any step.

When the guy keeps his upper body static relative to hers, and she to his,
thence the union. Within that union, the lead is just kinesthetic gesture,
only the suggestion to move... as one.

I thought "leader's body movement" is what happens at the front end of a
panto cow.

Chris

PS Note for US readers ;) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime_cow

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:33:54 -0400
From: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Who v. What
To: spatz@tangoDC.com, tango-L@mit.edu

>From: "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
>Reply-To: spatz@tangoDC.com

>But reserving our attention solely for those with
>credentials-- for "the authorities," or the well known, or the publicly
>visible-- is an idiotic attitude. I can't count the number of times I've
>seen supposed experts rehash something....

Snip

Your premise is quite good, but for even more valid reasons that you posit.
In our little world of the TANGO-L there are some who might be considered
"experts" by others (or perhaps only by themselves ;-)). What I want to know
is who accredited the so-called experts of the TANGO-L? Please people, think
a little bit and really consider the source of the various opinions and
arguments in this forum. I would suggest to try to get to know the people
personally, speak with them face to face, watch them dance or dance with
them. Only then one can make a good decision about taking their words as
good, knowledgeable advise or opinion. Otherwise it's just so much more
noise and fury.

Sincerely,

Manuel

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:07:44 -0400
From: "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Who v. What
To: tango-L@mit.edu

Hi Manuel,

I'm not willing to discount someone's opinion here on the grounds that
they're not a great or even good dancer. It's the argument that I attend
to, not the person who puts it forward.

This is a recurring problem in the arts and in philosophy, but one that
has been answered consistently by pointing out that discourse about a
topic (e.g., criticism, theory, reviews) does not have to be backed up
by real-life ability. If this were so, we'd expect our movie reviewers
to be capable of making movies. I don't believe they need to be, in
order to say something valuable about the movies that are made. (Not
that all of them do that...)

But this is to defend the audience. To defend the creator, we might
consider Schopenhauer's response to the criticism of his philosophy,
when someone said he was being a hypocrite because he didn't live by the
ethics he wrote of. He remarked that he didn't have to: Neither do we
expect the painter of a beautiful picture to be, himself, beautiful.
(The criticism, he implied, was not of his philosophy at all, but of his
person.)

That's my stance on the postings here, anyway. I'll consider any
argument on its merits. A beginner might dream of something that I can
use; or I might dream of something a more advanced dancer than myself
might use. What others say here I can test against my own experience, or
re-test with experiment. Anyone else possessed of a questing spirit will
probably do likewise.

Best to all,

Jake Spatz
DC


WHITE 95 R wrote:

> I would suggest to try to get to know the people personally, speak
> with them face to face, watch them dance or dance with them. Only then
> one can make a good decision about taking their words as good,
> knowledgeable advise or opinion. Otherwise it's just so much more
> noise and fury.

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:22:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Who v. What
To: tango-l@mit.edu

Jake (spatz@tangoDC.com) writes:

> Hi Manuel,
>
> I'm not willing to discount someone's opinion here on the grounds that
> they're not a great or even good dancer. It's the argument that I attend
> to, not the person who puts it forward.

[ etc.]

It seems to me you're missing two things here, Jake:

1. You're quite right, of course, that a critic need not
be proficient in the art that he's criticizing, so if
a person who dances poorly has, nevertheless, seen
many great dance performances, he is well worth listening
to with regard to a critique of a current performance
running in the theater or out on the milonga floor.
But that's not really the situation we're dealing with
in this instance. There is a big difference between
offering critical review of art and offering technical
advice on how to do art.

If this same person cannot dance, how on Earth can he
offer practically anything to advance the technique of
someone who can? (other than by saying, why can't you
dance like Naveira, you dummy? :) If the best I can
manage is a stick-figure drawing, why should a capable
artist pay attention to anything I say by way of
technical advice with regard to how to physically paint?

2. You say you consider an idea on its merits. Well that's
fine for you if you have a lot of technique mastered
yourself, thus giving you an internal database to which
you can refer to make some kind of educated judgment,
but how is a beginning dancer supposed to consider an
idea on its merits if he himself doesn't have the
slightest idea yet what a merit is in the dancing world
in the first place? It seems to me that his only logical
choice would be to seek out the advice of someone with
proven credentials (we can quibble over what "proven"
means, but you get the idea).

> That's my stance on the postings here, anyway. I'll consider any
> argument on its merits. A beginner might dream of something that I can
> use; or I might dream of something a more advanced dancer than myself
> might use. What others say here I can test against my own experience, or
> re-test with experiment. Anyone else possessed of a questing spirit will
> probably do likewise.

I agree to a great extent, and I worship the open mind, but
there are some limiting factors, to say the least.

Huck

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:52:09 -0400
From: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Who v. What
To: huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu, tango-l@mit.edu

Huck,

Thanks you for the wonderful explication of my brief post. I was about to
answer Jake myself, but you've done a great job of it. Jake, there is one
thing that needs clearing up a little bit. I don't discount a persons
opinion on the grounds that he or she is not a good dancer. I do however
question their credentials as tango dance instructors.

Anyway, my main point is that it is good to get to know the people who opine
so freely and with such authority so you can make an educated decision to
accept their expertise or not. This is not something only applicable or
unique to the TANGO-L. It's very common to read some very forceful and
compelling opinions and advise about things such as how to build up your car
for top performance from people who do not even own a high performance car,
have never worked on one and have no empirical knowledge or hands on
experience at all. They might sound terrifically wise, educated and expert,
but in reality they are just dilettantes who are parroting a mish mash of
opinions and words they've read from other people who probably read them in
some forum which way back was written by some would be expert....

No the results of taking such advise seriously can be disastrous. You'll end
up wasting tons of money and time just screw up a perfectly good car... In
tango it's not quite so bad, but you can indeed end up wasting a lot of
time, money, effort and emotions and not learning to dance tango... My
advise for what it's worth is "let the listeros beware".... Words in the
computer screen can be totally unconnected to reality.....

Sincerely,

Manuel

visit our webpage
www.tango-rio.com

>From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu>
>To: tango-l@mit.edu
>Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Who v. What
>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:22:49 -0700 (MST)
>
>Jake (spatz@tangoDC.com) writes:
> > Hi Manuel,
> >
> > I'm not willing to discount someone's opinion here on the grounds that
> > they're not a great or even good dancer. It's the argument that I attend
> > to, not the person who puts it forward.
>
> [ etc.]
>
> It seems to me you're missing two things here, Jake:
>
> 1. You're quite right, of course, that a critic need not
> be proficient in the art that he's criticizing, so if
> a person who dances poorly has, nevertheless, seen
> many great dance performances, he is well worth listening
> to with regard to a critique of a current performance
> running in the theater or out on the milonga floor.
> But that's not really the situation we're dealing with
> in this instance. There is a big difference between
> offering critical review of art and offering technical
> advice on how to do art.
>
> If this same person cannot dance, how on Earth can he
> offer practically anything to advance the technique of
> someone who can? (other than by saying, why can't you
> dance like Naveira, you dummy? :) If the best I can
> manage is a stick-figure drawing, why should a capable
> artist pay attention to anything I say by way of
> technical advice with regard to how to physically paint?
>
> 2. You say you consider an idea on its merits. Well that's
> fine for you if you have a lot of technique mastered
> yourself, thus giving you an internal database to which
> you can refer to make some kind of educated judgment,
> but how is a beginning dancer supposed to consider an
> idea on its merits if he himself doesn't have the
> slightest idea yet what a merit is in the dancing world
> in the first place? It seems to me that his only logical
> choice would be to seek out the advice of someone with
> proven credentials (we can quibble over what "proven"
> means, but you get the idea).
>
> > That's my stance on the postings here, anyway. I'll consider any
> > argument on its merits. A beginner might dream of something that I can
> > use; or I might dream of something a more advanced dancer than myself
> > might use. What others say here I can test against my own experience, or
> > re-test with experiment. Anyone else possessed of a questing spirit will
> > probably do likewise.
>
> I agree to a great extent, and I worship the open mind, but
>there are some limiting factors, to say the least.
>
>Huck