Did dusken post that? I guess he did.
Harvard Row Over Sex And Science
#41
Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:12 PM
Did dusken post that? I guess he did.
#43
Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:52 PM
Evelina, I've always been a big fan of yours when it came to discussing these kind of issues in this forum. I was wondering where you were
Do you know Dusken? Was he really serious in his arguments or is he just fooling around, wanting to see our reaction to his "opinion"? Now I'm getting confused. I'm starting to wonder if at this day and age someone can publicly state an "opinion" without any support regarding the intellectual level of some group of people and do so with utmost seriousness.
#50
Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:10 PM
If you were paying any attention to what I posted at all you would see that I never denied there was oppression.
#51
Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:14 PM
I was not reffering to the opression in question, but it was rather a way to show you that artists popularity does not represent the men/women ratio of artists... if there was no way for a women to be popular to begin with.
#52
Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:15 PM
Do you know Dusken? Was he really serious in his arguments or is he just fooling around, wanting to see our reaction to his "opinion"? Now I'm getting confused. I'm starting to wonder if at this day and age someone can publicly state an "opinion" without any support regarding the intellectual level of some group of people and do so with utmost seriousness.
I am serious in my opinion. You are making it seem like I said something awful and I did not. You are acting as though I called women stupid and I did not. What I said was not unreasonable. You are putting "opinion" in quotes but it is an opinion I was expressing I was doing so to illustrate that it is as reasonable to agree with me as it is to disagree with me and to express that there are differences in the genders that result in an overall balance. Stop making it seem like I committed genocide.
#53
Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:37 PM
This is tied in with what I said earlier about snuffed potential. You can show me all you want that the female potential was hindered but you cannot show me what that potential was. And this is very similar. If you are not going to base what you are saying on something that can be quantified then you are speculating as much as you claimed I was. I told you that earlier. Your statement regarding the artistic community is vaccuous. I showed you that generally, there are more represented males than females in the visual arts and you will find that to be true, even if you narrow the scope to just the second half of the 20th century and just in Europe and the United States. The contemporary U.S. is extremely forgiving in terms of gender and race issues, particularly in the artistic community (artists have always been the most open-minded), and we have here female gallery owners and gallery and museum coordinators but even with that infuence there are more male artists. Seeing lists of represented artists in individual galleries have supported that idea. My estimates as to the ratio (and this is based on my peresonal experience in studying galleries so you will not be convinced at all) is that the ration is probably 4:1 and even factoring in oppression generously we can assume that it will not shrink to anything beyond 2:1. I have no doubt that the oppression in Armenia early last century was very great. But it is for that reason that it tells us nothing because the more you try to factor in the oppression the less connection you have to what illustrates potential. Europe and the U.S. were sources for international contribution and recognition, as opposed to countries like early 20th century Armenia where the intellectual and artistic communities were less focused on international recognition and influence, and were (and are) more open. That is why your sampling method is flawed and misleading. I am sorry I am using visual arts as my example but it what I know best and I believe the ratios would be true to any form of artistic expression.
#54
Posted 26 January 2005 - 01:15 PM
It is not for me to show you what was women potential, don't forget you were the claimer not me.
You claimed that in general men are more intelligent and more creative than women... it is to you to bring evidences to support such a theses and not for me to show you why women potential was not under or above that of men.
Visual art, do you want real datas? OK! I will provide you the link to the most important visual art(painting) forum on the web.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/
Over 50 thousands member, thousands and thousands of active members, on average there are above 500 viewer always on that site. This is data, and I read that forum regularly, the conclusion? There does not seem to be more men than women on that site...(I will tend to believe it is the opposite based on that site) what seems to be different though is the ratio of men vs women in different types of paintings(acrylic, oil, water based, casein, etc.), but when taking the site as an all, your claim fall short... because on average the ratio seems to be equal.
You can see it by yourself by visiting and participating in that board, and there are as well popular artist there.
The site in question has enough registered members to consider it a good representation... go there see by yourself, this is about NOW!!! Not about what it was etc.
As for your claim regarding other artistic fields, bring data's number, not of what it was once or the popularity of artists, but about NOW!!!
Edited by Fadix, 26 January 2005 - 01:20 PM.
#55
Posted 26 January 2005 - 01:32 PM
#56
Posted 26 January 2005 - 01:47 PM
It is not for me to show you what was women potential, don't forget you were the claimer not me.
You claimed that in general men are more intelligent and more creative than women... it is to you to bring evidences to support such a theses and not for me to show you why women potential was not under or above that of men.
Visual art, do you want real datas? OK! I will provide you the link to the most important visual art(painting) forum on the web.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/
Over 50 thousands member, thousands and thousands of active members, on average there are above 500 viewer always on that site. This is data, and I read that forum regularly, the conclusion? There does not seem to be more men than women on that site...(I will tend to believe it is the opposite based on that site) what seems to be different though is the ratio of men vs women in different types of paintings(acrylic, oil, water based, casein, etc.), but when taking the site as an all, your claim fall short... because on average the ratio seems to be equal.
You can see it by yourself by visiting and participating in that board, and there are as well popular artist there.
The site in question has enough registered members to consider it a good representation... go there see by yourself, this is about NOW!!! Not about what it was etc.
As for your claim regarding other artistic fields, bring data's number, not of what it was once or the popularity of artists, but about NOW!!!
You just said I need to "bring evidences" again! This means you still do not get my point! I do not need to show you any evidence because I am not claiming that you need to agree with me! Why is this so difficult?! I am done. I cannot believe I even answered you again.
Again, it is not "datas." There is no such word. "Data" is plural. "Datum" is singular. All you need to say is "data." That is not hard either.
That forum is a forum with no selectivity. It does not guarantee that the members are serious about art or even produce art. Anybody with an opinion can potentially join. The website I directed you to is the website and it shows all artists that are represented by galleries. And do not tell me that I am talking about the done and gone. That is nonsense. I specifically said that what I was illustrating is applicable to the present and recent past. Putting "now" in capital letters will not change that.
Now I am done.
Edited by dusken, 26 January 2005 - 01:48 PM.
#57
Posted 26 January 2005 - 01:55 PM
Again, it is not "datas." There is no such word. "Data" is plural. "Datum" is singular. All you need to say is "data." That is not hard either.
That forum is a forum with no selectivity. It does not guarantee that the members are serious about art or even produce art. Anybody with an opinion can potentially join. The website I directed you to is the website and it shows all artists that are represented by galleries. And do not tell me that I am talking about the done and gone. That is nonsense. I specifically said that what I was illustrating is applicable to the present and recent past. Putting "now" in capital letters will not change that.
Now I am done.
It's fun isn't it? Like blindfolded on a merry go round.
#58
Posted 26 January 2005 - 02:07 PM
Again, it is not "datas." There is no such word. "Data" is plural. "Datum" is singular. All you need to say is "data." That is not hard either.
That forum is a forum with no selectivity. It does not guarantee that the members are serious about art or even produce art. Anybody with an opinion can potentially join. The website I directed you to is the website and it shows all artists that are represented by galleries. And do not tell me that I am talking about the done and gone. That is nonsense. I specifically said that what I was illustrating is applicable to the present and recent past. Putting "now" in capital letters will not change that.
Now I am done.
Anyone that does creat by painting IS an artist... the website I presented is about visual art, and IS a good representation, on the other hand, the list you have presented is of popular artists... and does in no way represent the entire artistic community.
Edited by Fadix, 26 January 2005 - 02:09 PM.
#59
Posted 26 January 2005 - 02:16 PM
It is not of popular artists. My father is on that list and nobody knows who he is. They are represented artists. There is a difference. And it would represent the ratios. There is no reason why it would not. If an artist is not represented he is either not serious as an artist, is not good enough, or is painting for him or herself. All three of those apply to both men and women. And like I said, that website has no selectivity. Just because someone is a member does not mean they are an artist. It does not ask whether someone has painted something. Plus where do you draw the line about who is an artist. Almost everyone has drawn or colored something at some point. That would make almost everyone an artist. That in turn means nothing in terms of creativity relative to a population. Representation is a threshold that would illustrate the idea best.
#60
Posted 26 January 2005 - 02:47 PM
I've checked someone in the family whom paint and has exposed in various occasions, and her name is NOT on the list.
Furthermore, one has to take from that list only those whom the arts covered from the 80s to now to compare, have you done so?
Let apply a scientific method to this.
Let ask two members not implied in this discussion to choose randomly 100 persons each from that list, one would choose 100 women, the other, 100 male.
And then, posting it here and compare the average year those artists have performed and see the year deviation between men and women.
If it happen that the average year women have performed is over 10 years above those of men, the list you present does not represent what you claim it represent.
Why? Because it would mean that the ratio between men and women on the site is decreasing significantly.
Then, we could perhaps ask another member to randomly chose 100 names, and count after from them the number of men and women and draw a mathematical function of the variation of the ratio by approximation.
After doing this, you could present this data as evidence.
But even then, don't forget I was refering to the artistic community as an all, and not one aspect of art.
Now about the site I presented, the site is a better indication than what you present, I have read, and participated in that site, and have read technical discussions that not newbies or those just interested would know... discussions such as the pigment load, paint consistancy, the differences between different paint manufacturers... paint mediums etc. In those technical discussions there was no more men than women... and I told you visit the site and see by yourself.
Edited by Fadix, 26 January 2005 - 02:50 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users