Talk:African aesthetic/Archive 1

Notes on possible sources for future article development

A google yields such statements as:

• "Coolness is a metaphor for proper living; it symbolizes moral aesthetic ... 'An Aesthetic of the Cool.'"[1]
• At Africans-art.com in an article titled "Aesthetic and meaning": "Self-composure:

The person who is composed behaves in a measured and rational way; he or she is controlled, proud, dignified, and cool. "[2]

• From "Looking at African Masks": "texture, pattern, African masks, colour, tone, form, visual elements, purpose, reason, smooth, shiny, healthy, earth tones, categories, healthy, scary, proud, dignified, cool, vigour, ability to work."[3]
• "Digging the Africanist Presence in American Performance: Dance and Other Contexts - 2, Popular Music and Society, Summer, 1998": "The Black body in rhythmic motion. Contrapuntal configurations and curvical bodily articulations. Hips in undulating motion while the head is ever so still. Cool and hot expressiveness ever so fused. Earl "Snake Hips" Tucker. The cakewalk. The Lindy Hop. [Michael Jackson's moonwalk: motion and stasis (my note).] Deconstructed Linearity. Asymmetricality of movement as an aesthetic choice."[4]
• "'Cool', though an amorphous quality--more mystique than material--is a pervasive element in urban black male culture. As sociologists Richard Majors and Janet Mancini Billson evince in Cool Pose: The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America (1992), African-American men employ "cool" as "a tool for hammering masculinity out of the bronze of their daily lives" (2). It is a 'strategic style' that 'allows the black male to tip society's imbalanced scales in his favor' (2). Importantly, too, "coolness means poise under pressure and the ability to maintain detachment, even during tense encounters" (2). To further define the indefinable, Majors and Billson produce a pantheon of cool: 'Black athletes, with their stylish dunking of the basketball, spontaneous dancing in the end zone, and high-fives handshakes, are cool.... (Though X is absent here, Imani Perry believes that his style suited 'the cool aesthetic in [African-American] folklore [which] respects composure and asserts the importance of personal control over a situation [179].) Crucially, in Majors and Billson, coolness involves a willingness to engage in violence (33), to risk death (34), to suppress emotion (in interactions with friends, family members, lovers, spouses, and children), to value spontaneity, expressiveness, and stylishness (71), and to prize verbal dexterity (99). These qualities of cool render it an essential survival mechanism in a society in which 'except for people over age eighty-five, black males are dying at a higher rate than any other group at any age' (19). Given this vicious context, any moral code that signals meaning, community, and purposefulness, that is to say, that combats anomie, is potentially irresistible. Coolness is one such code."[5]
• From the page of a Univ. of Chicago Professor: "My interests in the twentieth century concern the "cool" aesthetics of post-World War II/pre-Civil Rights Movement black fiction, and why this remarkable literary movement and its signature aesthetics - what I call "literary cosmopolitanism" - have been neglected in African American literary studies."[6]
• From "Now This is Cool: Even Westerners can appreciate The African Art Experience.": "This might be news to James Dean and Miles Davis, but the Yoruba people of Nigeria invented cool. They call it itutu, and someone who possesses this mystic quality is generous and calm, possessing a sense of certainty."[7] Deeceevoice 06:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• From "Cool Jazz--History of Jazz": "First of all, 'cool' itself is a term with broad aesthetic implications. As a highly performative art that emphasizes spontaneous excitement and a kind of cumulative, trance-like energy, jazz is often characterized as 'hot.' And yet 'coolness' is a quality that scholars such as Robert Farris Thompson have found at the heart of a generalized African aesthetic: behavior characterized by poise, relaxation, and self-possession even in moments of great tension and effort."[8]
• From "The Death of the Cool" (primarily an interesting examination of cool in the pop culture context, but somewhat useful here): "'Cool' is perhaps the only appellation to survive for as many generations as it has. Fifty-year-olds and five-year-olds seem to have a common understanding of "cool" and that whatever is cool is good.... Cool is that aloof, independent, self-contained, rebellious, strong, proficient, iconoclastic, vanguard attitude that Miles embodied. He was powerful, controlled, self-directed, and incredibly talented. Cool is still generated among the poor. The regions that 'cool-hunters' prowl are the ghettos and inner-city neighborhoods where young people have no stake in the status quo. Cool has re-manifested itself repeatedly and has become in many ways the core cultural expression of America. Cool is our greatest export. It is assiduously sought by marketers and manufacturers. To find it is to connect with the most powerful commercial force on the planet. For whatever is perceived to be cool will sell at premium prices."[9]
• From the PBS website "Great Performances: Free To Dance - Behind The Dance - The Revolution Will Be Danced": "As historian Halifu Osumare wrote in the ADF booklet African American Genius in Modern Dance, Fagan's fusion reflected 'a distilling of emotion to its physical, muscular components, rather than the dramatic display of character or the overt display of emotion itself. This abstraction of emotion through the tool of juxtaposition of the cool and the hot is simultaneously an age-old use of an African aesthetic principle, Fagan followed in the footsteps of some of his predecessors, choreographing the Broadway show "The Lion King"; he became the second black choreographer, after George Faison, to win a Tony Award." [10]
• Afritopic, a website dealing with African art, repeats some of the same seminals elements of an African aesthetic, including "self-compsure," or "cool."[11]
• Another listing of similar or same characteristics, citing Susan M. Vogel's African Aesthetics, New York: Center for African Art, 1986).[12]
• An interesting online discussion regarding the "Aesthetics of Cool," which yields interesting sources at Dissensus.[13]
• From a book review on soulstepping, the step shows of black "Greeks" -- sorority sisters and frat-bwois at HBCUs: "This is particularly noted during the 1960's and 1970's among sorority women whose counter clock [sic - "counterclockwise"] pattern of stepping is associated with the African dance patterns [preserved through the centuries in African-American religious observance (my note)] of the ring shout and the patting jumba.... In contrast to the aforementioned aesthetic characteristics that are considered 'hot' practices, steppers also demonstrate 'cool' aesthetics in their movements by striving for uniform visibility and clarity in their motions. Invoking the names of the founders and organization's history by the steppers as well as the practice of looking smart [also part of the African cool aesthetic (my note)] by entering and exiting the show properly rounds out the expressions of other 'cool' aesthetics presented by Greek members during step shows."[14]
• Sources from the article slated for delection itself here[15] at "Mystical coolness and the 'mask of the cool'."
• "From Tutu in Yoruba Aesthetics":

  According to Frank Willet's introduction to African art, tutu, serenity, coolness, or composure is a desirable quality in both art and life: "In sculpture it is shown by the absence of violence in the facial expression or gesture; in the dance by the withdrawn expressionless face of the dancer; the chief should always behave calmly and unemotionally" [213]. Susan Mullin Vogel similarly notes this particular meeting of social, political, and aesthetic values:

The state of being composed, often noted in the field studies, is an ethical/aesthetic quality nearly al- ways portrayed in figural sculpture. The person who is composed behaves in a measured and rational way; he or she is controlled, proud, dignified, and cool. An essential quality in a ruler, composure is particularly evident in images of kings. [Aesthetics of African Art: The Carlo Monzino Collection, N.Y.: Center for African Art, 1986, 21][16]

I have read other references to African cool in the rest of the African diaspora, as well -- not just in African-American culture. I am virtually certain that if one were to read, say, the accounts of dancer-choreographer Katherine Dunham in her travels (her autobiography African Rhythms, or of Zora Neale Hurston in Haiti (Tell My Horse), one would find similar descriptions of expressions of African cool in spirituality, comportment and movement/dance. I'll have to rummage through my personal library -- when I can get around to it. Deeceevoice 11:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. This is not "pan-African stuff" -- any more than scholarly work treating a generalized "European cultural aesthetic" is "pan-European stuff." The fact is certain African cultures/peoples do share aesthetics in common. There is clearly an African aesthetic: e.g., the way African dancers get low to the ground when they approach ecstasy, or the Divine or simply become caught up in the dance, in the polyrhythmic cadences, which can be mesmerizing. They "get down" -- low, near the earth. It's a common, recurrent theme throughout West African dance, and in other portions of the continent, as well. And in African-American dance. (And throughout the African diaspora -- in Haiti, in Brazil, in Cuba.) "Get down, get down, down. Get down, get down, down. Jungle boogie, jungle boogie." Sound familiar? That's Kool and the Gang. Another: "Let's dance. Let's shout. Shake your body down to the ground." That's Michael Jackson (the creator of the moonwalk: classic motion and stasis; hot and cool combined simultaneous motion/non-motion.) It's a hallmark characteristic of African movement that has survived the Middle Passage, slavery and the decades since.

Again, from a source quoted above:

...it is obvious that certain aesthetics observed during stepping are deeply entrenched within the music and dance of African culture. For example the percussive dominance where the stepper throws down a sharply percussive rhythm with the feet while the hands beat out a counter rhythm and the head enunciates another beat is one obvious characteristic present during step shows. This is particularly noticeable when steppers use canes to increase the complexity and audibility of the sound. Such a routine has its origins in northern Zaire, Sudan, Zambia and Mozambique while the familiar "get down" position commonly observed when steppers often begin and [end] a step by bending deeply from the waist can be traced to many Central and West African cultures. [emphases added][17]

In contrast, white folks want to soar when expressing the same emotions -- as in ballet. They get up on their toes. They think in terms of being soft, ethereal, taking flight. Black folks get fierce and "take it down to the ground." And that's just one well known, well referenced example. You don't know the subject matter, and you have no idea what you're talking about. You're merely making facile assumptions, based on ignorance, that there's some sort of political agenda at work here -- when there's absolutely nothing of the sort. Deeceevoice 22:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, it talks about "style", which is, if not the same, very similar to "aesthetic" — but I'm no art scholar.

Increasingly in this period, style was seen by art scholars as affected by historical experiences (see Poynor, 1987). Daniel Biebuyck (1969: 2-3; 1986), an anthropologist and specialist in Zairian art, emphasized that styles spread across "tribal" or ethnic lines by means of institutions such as initiation or other religious sodalities. The move away from the earlier belief in one style being normative for each "tribe", as suggested by Bravmann and Rubin, revived interest in distributional studies to illuminate style history. Interest in borderland styles is especially strong among those who study peoples of the West African Sahel, an easily traversed region with ancient traditions of long-distance trade (See Frank, 1987;

Green, 1987).

This is from the source I quoted "Adams, M. (1989) "African Visual Arts from an Art Historical Perspective" in African Studies Review", I can dig up the linked references if anyone is interested. - FrancisTyers 15:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

original research

this looks like original research to me, esp. the first paragraph. maybe some cited content will appear but after the "cool" "african philosophy" fiasco i'm not so hopeful.

Justforasecond 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Did you not even have time to click on the link. Perhaps you'd like to make specific complaints instead of vague statements. - FrancisTyers 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Be civil Mr. Tyers. The link does not include the information in the paragraph such as "While the African continent is vast and its peoples diverse, certain [weasleword] standards of beauty...are held in common among various indigenous African societies" or the use of "cool". Justforasecond 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm being entirely civil. Many thanks for the precise criticism. I have provided a source. - FrancisTyers 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion and whatnot

I'd really hate to see this go to Afd. I really hope folks would think twice before doing that, look how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (2nd nomination) went. All that time and energy spent for a "no consensus". Why would we do any better with an Afd on this, which is very nearly the same thing? Friday (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I can't understand why you want to spend so much time and energy trying to get an article that you don't particularly care about deleted. The mind boggles. Perhaps at the next AfD we'll get balloons. ^____^ - FrancisTyers 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a POV fork. I explained all that at Afd. I wasn't the only one who thought so. Friday (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Would an article on African aesthetics be a POV fork too? - FrancisTyers 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, it's too early to say. Right now this article is a lot like the other, but it did just start. I'm wary, though - it reads like a personal essay. Maybe it can be fixed, I don't know. Friday (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest thats how most "art history" or "anthropology" reads to me, but then I don't expect it to read like a paper from Computational Linguistics. Have you read any encyclopaedias of Art to compare the style with? Not every article is going to read like VDM-SL. I guess it must be frustrating to not understand a subject, but then I get annoyed with myself when I try to read up on Information theory, or almost anything to do with Mathematics too :) Btw, if you really can't stand this article, you should check out Skull (symbolism) :P - FrancisTyers 02:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You bet you'd "hate to go to AfD." You'd lose. Hands down. Deeceevoice 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

Why not write an article about the book? Wouldn't that spend a lot less time getting deleted? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should the article be limited to one book? - FrancisTyers 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How does writing an article about the book preclude writing a article with larger scope as well? Is there a good reason not to write an article about the book, which is apparently "seminal"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And just which book are you referring to? There are several monographs on the subject -- and several additional scholarly sources, as well. If you want to write an article about a particular book, then you are certainly free to do so. This article is not a book report. Deeceevoice 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Deeceevoice. I fear I may be misunderstood here. I don't want to write an article about a particular book, no. What I know about this subject I know from reading AfD and DRV discussions, as well as the article itself, in various incarnations. Apparently, African Art in Motion is a "seminal" book written by Dr. Thompson, that people at DRV are bitching is the "only source" for this article. (I'm not agreeing with them; I'm referencing them.) I tried to find out more about this important book, and my first instinct was, that maybe it's got a Wikipedia article. But no. So, I thought I'd suggest here that such an article might be a good thing to write. Is that ok?

To be very clear: I do not think that this article is or should be a book report. I'm not saying that this article should be abandoned in favor of an article about a book. I'm saying that an article about a book seems uncontroversial, and might be a good thing to have around, seeing as this article seems to spend at least part of the time in a deleted state, for whatever fair or unfair reasons.

I don't really care about any of it, except that Dr Thompson's theory sounds interesting and plausible, and I'll probably read more about it, until I'm bored of it. Someone who thinks that African Art in Motion is an important book might want to write about it for that reason alone; that's my suggestion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what they've admitted to you about their objections. Let me just say this (it's on my user page): Don't believe everything you read. :p And, no. The only source isn't African Art in Motion. There are several monographs on the subject; AAIM is an extremely highly regarded art exhibition catalogue with (then, 30+ years ago) groundbreaking and eye-opening scholarship on the subject. If you're truly interested in the subject, I would recommend some of Thompson's other works (among others). Deeceevoice 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't believe anything, whether I read it or not. You'll note that I'm not claiming that AAIM is the only source. I don't care whether or not it is. I'm saying that, because it's "an exteremely highly regarded art exhibition catalogue" with "groundbreaking scholarship", then wouldn't it be cool if we documented it in its own article? I guess I have a lot to learn about communicating, if that suggestion somehow came across as contentious, or as any kind of attack against the African aesthetic article. I apologize for any misunderstanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Don't misinterpret my directness as animosity. (One of the problems of Internet communication.) Peace 2 u. Deeceevoice 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Abysmally uninformed bias

THIS COMPLETELY BAD-FAITH DELETION WAS PRECIPITOUS AND NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL BEFOREHAND. The article hasn't even had a chance to develop yet, having been up for less than a day. Deletion was precipitous and not even discussed before this action was taken. I notice there was a tag that suggested it be merged with African art -- a bad move. One most understand that the widely accepted elements of an "African aesthetic" are observable throughout many traditional African cultures, and not just in art. This African aesthetic mediates not only artistic expression, but how individuals comport themselves, even how they speak, sit and stand. There is an article on Japanese aesthetics. There also should be an article treating the set of aesthetic/cultural values that has been observed in many traditional, indigenous African societies across tribal groupings, across national boundaries, and which underpins so much of the life and art of African peoples.

The very suggestion that the subject matter be merged with an article on art makes it very clear to me that those who support such a merger have no clue just what the African aesthetic is and how far-reaching its influence is. This very process is absurd on its face, and the precipitous deletion and the manner in which it was handled -- if it isn't illegal in terms of Wikipedia procedures, it certainly should be. The people who support the deletion of this article are also under the mistaken impression that they can and should shoehorn a discussion of the complex phenomenon of African cool (only one aspect of a very complex African aesthetic) as it exists in traditional African cultures into an article quite clearly and explicitly devoted to pop-culture cool, which features the Fonz as an example of cool. This is ridiculous and an utter trivialization of the traditional African phenomenon (just as the character Fonzie -- engaging as he was -- was a sit-com caricature/trivialization of bad-boy biker cool; even he wasn't the real thing). Frankly, such (mis)treatment is an insult to African culture(s) and betrays just how shallow/nonexistent people's knowledge/understanding of traditional African cultures is. And that is all the more reason this article should be restored. And immediately. This talk page clearly presents list of online sources for possible inclusion in the article. It doesn't even begin to touch upon the various monographs that can be useful in article development. The article contains a partial listing of the constituent elements -- a glimpse into the complexity of the aesthetic. There is no unsourced information in the article; it is all readily and easily verifiable.

If there are problems with the article as it develops, then let it be evaluated and scrutinized the way other articles are treated on this website.

As it is, the bad-faith deletion of this article is tantamount to censorship born of abysmally uninformed POV/bias.Deeceevoice 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My main concern

I'll be perfectly honest here. My main concern over this article is the problematic behavior of the author. I frankly don't trust her to come anywhere close to neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic writing. Her essays may be good writing, but they're not suitable for this venue. Given her long history of edit warring, inability to edit peacefully with others, biased writing, and racist remarks, I automatically distrust a new article like this, coming from her. I know, I should AGF, and actually I do- I think she's trying to make Wikipedia reflect (her own personal idea of) The Truth. I don't doubt that she's doing what is right, to her. However I don't feel she's doing what's right for Wikipedia. I have no confidence that she'd let this article be anything other than her own personal essay- she has demonstrated article ownership problems many times before. Friday (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, then your problem is with the author, not the article. Take the necessary steps according to policy to deal with the problem — the author. Any steps taken to deal with the author via deleting this article are just liable to inflame the situation. You are aware I presume that the author is under probation from ArbCom and that any admin may block her for those problems you highlight above. - FrancisTyers 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My response about your "concern"

"Racist remarks"? That's hilarious -- and totally off-the-mark. I don't care what you may think of me personally; you don't know me. You seem to forget how you were admonished and then named in the recent fractious, contentious RfA against me for threatening to block me after I responded to a blatantly racist attack and not saying a mumblin' word to the offender. And who's racist here?

But that's hardly the issue here. You say I have "ownership" issues? No, I don't. But I do have problems with someone misusing my knowledge and what I've written to denigrate/insult the culture: like shoehorning African cool into an article about essentially Western pop culture and Fonzie, that cartoonish caricature from "Happy Days," as though the subject is somehow subordinate or a subset of the subject -- when pop-culture cool is actually a derivative form, filtered through the African-American experience.

Let me tell you something: it seems you have personal issues. The subject matter does merit an article of its own. Your high-handed and precipitous censorship -- supporting the obliteration of a perfectly legitimate piece you say you 'automatically distrust' because of its source reads like a personal problem. Let me turn the mirror around, dearie: and you think your approach is "doing what's right for Wikipedia"? Rather than trying to play psychic and anticipate words that have yet to be written, you might consider how your attitude and actions work to perpetuate the pervasive, systemic bias of the project.

"The good of the project" -- that's the same b.s. excuse admin what's-his-face (his name escapes me) gave for flat-out lying on me during the RfA process.

It's gotten real old real fast.

You've finally admitted the "truth", so it's my turn to brutally frank. I'll tell you what I think. I think this entire matter -- with "cool" and everything else -- is all about cultural appropriation, racism, the myopia of youth (no "memory" beyond drivel like "Happy Days", hence no historical sense/perspective) and that old and pervasive sense of entitlement; you thought you owned it. Then someone comes along, some uppity, loud-mouth negress, to say what pretty much anyone over 50 with a modicum of knowledge about this country's cultural heritage knew all along: you can't lay claim to it; it was never yours to begin with. Yep. Like just about everything else innovative and original in American culture, it started with them damn black folks. Like niggers a woodpile, you dig deep enough -- and, gott-dammit, sho' nuff, dere we iz.

You don't like being called on your ignorance by an Afrocentric blackwoman you can't refute (you still got nothin') and who won't back down, who won't slink away and disappear. And to make matters worse, she can write better than most, if not all, of you. And that's not bragging; it's not pride (I know my limitations -- and yours are on display here, as well); it's mere fact. You don't like being told that what you value came from a people for whom many of you have an abiding contempt. What you can't appropriate/claim/control, you seek to destroy. And that is what most African-Americans will tell you about yourselves. That's been our experience. If it ain't King Tut, it's that hillbilly Elvis Presley.

And the way you've misused your administrative privileges in this matter, IMO, is just another in a long series of demonstrations of sheer arrogance and utter bad faith. Classic Wikipedia. It's the racism of this website. It's why tireless contributors like Furious Freddy and The Encyclopedist have said *uck it and walked away. It's why this project will never attract and keep intelligent, well-read, literate black people. Furious Freddy was a tireless contributor to the project and produced a number of fine featured articles primarily related to African American musical expression and animation. And, hell, Encyclopedist was young, amazingly intelligent and bright and eager and enthusiastic and idealistic and open and kind and forgiving and sweet, and he bought into the Wikipedia ideal hook, line and sinker. And where is he now?

Dat bwoi dun gon'. An' Furious, 2.

Your profound loss.

And you don't know this, but white folks have sent me e-mails, saying they've left (or are leaving) the project in complete disgust. Keep it up, and the only people left around here will think like you and look like you. But, then, from your actions thus far, it appears that's precisely what you want. Deeceevoice 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

DCV, you don't seem to understand Friday's concern very much at all. His concern appears to be purely about your adherence to policies, and has nothing to do with you being a negress (although the loud-mouthed thing isn't exactly very cool). Elvis Presley is several decades dead. Even white folks who liked string-filled Rock don't care about him anymore(fun fact, James Brown called him a "soul brother"). Get over it.--Urthogie 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No. You don't understand anything about what I don't understand. The point is whatever her concerns may be, the deletion of the article was inappropriate, precipitous and completely unjustifiable. Her "concerns" are utterly irrelevant. Deeceevoice 21:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people may agree with you on that, that the article shouldn't have been deleted like that-- and you'll likely get a lot of support in that realm(probably from me, unless Zoe provides a good reason). But I was mainly addressing your comment: "You don't like being told that what you value came from a people for whom many of you have such contempt. What you can't appropriate/claim/control, you seek to destroy. And that is what most African-Americans will tell you about yourselves." is completely unwarranted. What do the overall actions of white society have to do with User:Friday as an individual? He can have any thought run through his head, just like you. The fact that you are incapable of insulting his actions, and must resort to insulting the actions of a group he had no choice but to be born into, shows a lot of prejudice.--Urthogie 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just some plain-speak in return. The user's charge of "racism" is inaccurate. Indeed, given his/her prior conduct, his/her own motives might be called into question. And, yep, definitely prejudice -- but born of experience. If you touch an unlit burner on a stove and you get burned, you'd be a damned fool to touch one in the future, not knowing if it is hot or cool. The kind of attitudes and behaviors I've described are precisely the way lots of white people think and act on this website -- and in the real world. And accept it or not, it's a commonly held perception -- and not one pulled out of thin air; it's one born of objective experience. One comment: if the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then don't. Deeceevoice 21:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What's to lose from assuming someone doesn't hold racist prejudices?--Urthogie 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't automatically assume anything -- but I always regard it as a definite possibility. And if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck.... What's to lose? You ask that of a blackwoman? Your life. Deeceevoice 21:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:)--Urthogie 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of getting off topic, I can clarify one thing: I don't even believe in the concept of "race", as it applies to humans. It's a myth. Biology does not support the idea. The world would be far better off if other people didn't believe in it, either. I have a very hard time understanding anyone to whom race is an important concept- this type of thinking splits us apart rather than bringing us together. Friday (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me what you say you believe. I don't care what's in your heart. After all, this IS cyberspace. There are plenty of people out here talkin' high and walkin' low. It's what you do and the consequences. What you did contributes to the systemic bias -- in this case, the racist/anti-black bias -- of this website. And that's what matters to me. Deeceevoice 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Every individual editor is supposed to be biased however they like. What they should avoid is being prejudiced. Simply put, on a systemic level the goal is to avoid bias, and on an individual level avoid prejudice.--Urthogie 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And how does one know who is prejudiced? By their actions. What's important/at issue here is this: one should avoid acting on one's prejudices, e.g., like deleting an article without justification simply because they suspect what may happen to it in the future. *x* Deeceevoice 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ZING! ^___^ - FrancisTyers 22:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That could explain your attitude towards Zoe (who deleted the page), but I don't see how Friday's actions in any way suggest racial prejudice on his part.--Urthogie 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Read my post. Deeceevoice 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read your post(s) and still don't understand why you brought up the issue of racial prejudice in reference to Friday.--Urthogie 22:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, perhaps you should read his/her post, who introduced the issue, made the initial charge. Deeceevoice 22:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read the rest of your [Friday's] comment. You say you "have a very hard time understanding anyone to whom race is an important concept...." That's too bad because, like it or not, the social, political and economic implications of race as a construct have far-reaching pervasive -- and very often insidious -- impacts upon much of the world. As a non-black, you may be able to discount the notion out of hand. You have the luxury of walking out your door every day and not thinking about the color of your skin. Precious few black people who live "in the belly of the beast" can say that. In fact, I don't personally know a single one. It's not a burden; it's a responsibility. You see, it's rather difficult to convince someone with a gun pointed at their skull to ignore it because it doesn't exist. And pardon us if we look at you like you're a stark, raving lunatic. Try telling that to the Scottsboro Boys, young Till, or James Byrd, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King (were they still walking and moving among us) -- or Nelson Mandela. Perhaps it's your kind of thinking that splits us apart. Deeceevoice 22:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

After the creation of several POV forks, and 2 years of edit wars about DCV's incorrect assertion that philosophy of cool into five distinct elements: visibility, luminosity (of motion) or "looking sharp", smoothness, rebirth and reincarnation and composure of the face (the "mask of the cool"). [18] it's quite interesting that DCV's last version of this article states now that: African aesthetic, the constituent components of which are: luminosity of motion ("looking sharp", youthfulness, smoothness (patina), clarity of form and detail, complexity of composition, composure of the face, or cool." [19] Not that I complain about it, I think it's great that DCV finally got something right. I just hope that enough editors will stay around to prevent new incorrect and irrational edits and to ensure that DCV will not revert this version back to her old incorrect concept once the discussions died down. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see how DCV is going to explain how the great number of Africans who don't believe in the spiritual or religious system of Orisha and the concept of "Itutu" fit into this "collectively", "generally accepted" concept. CoYep 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CoYep is simply incorrect. There's nothing substantially new, nothing different in this latest version. As I've already explained, I've decided not to use Thompson's language of "philosophy" and use the more commonly accepted "aesthetic" -- for a number of reasons. The only difference here is Thompson approaches elements of the African aesthetic as a gestalt under the rubric of "cool" and then goes on to elaborate upon other characteristics, as well -- all of which, generally speaking, is very much in sync with other scholarship. The only thing different is how others have organized and grouped the constituent elements.

Note that the above post clearly demonstrates the other problem here: CoYep and others of his ilk who would rather sit on their hindparts, play skeptic and criticize -- without lifting a finger to contribute useful information -- because they have little to no knowledge of the subject, but stand ready to offer uninformed criticism, offering little more than personal opinion, and pick and pick and pick. They gut a piece and then complain that it lacks substance. *x* Deeceevoice 00:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Of course it is always possible that they have access to neither libraries nor search engines. But then the question is why would you try to work on something you don't understand? A dangerous game certainly... Perhaps because many people don't respect Art as a specialisation in the same way that engineering is. But then, that's their issue to confront. - FrancisTyers 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you know the answer to that, FT. Improving the project isn't the purpose. Much of it is petty animus, which should be fairly evident. And I've already alluded to the rest. Deeceevoice 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Retreading old ground

It is a fundamental difference if you say:

The elements of Cool are: visibility, luminosity (of motion) or "looking sharp", smoothness, rebirth and reincarnation and composure of the face (the "mask of the cool") which was the factual incorrect core assertion of all your POV forks

or if you say:

The elements of African aesthetics are: luminosity of motion ("looking sharp", youthfulness, smoothness (patina), clarity of form and detail, complexity of composition, composure of the face, or cool.

I have little hope for this article if you fail to understand the difference. CoYep 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, over the past 2 years, DCV started edit wars with almost all editors who tried to contribute and/or tried to correct DCV's irrational edits and factual incorrect POV forks. CoYep 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: the elements are a partial list and likely will be added to. The article was put up quickly, partly because I was determined the subject matter and the text I'd authored would not be hijacked into an article on an aspect of Western pop culture. I haven't yet compared all the various sources and parsed through the differences yet. Who knows where this article will go? Time will tell. :p

Gee, CoYep. Edit warring? (gasp) You should know, eh? :p You should also know that I don't care what your assessment of me is, either. Bottom line: I will continue to challenge the kind of b.s. and administrative abuse that happened with this article and the pervasive racism of this website ... until I decide to leave. Could be sooner, could be later. But it'll be my decision when -- and Lord knows I'll be sorely missed. God. It's been two years? Time sure flies when you're having fun. *urlch* Deeceevoice 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In his work,"African Art in Motion", Robert Farris Thompson outlines ten of what he calls cannons of fine form. Ephebism: Ephebism describes the stronger power that comes from youth. It is a fine form that is continuously admired in Africa. Beauty comes out of bodies which are mo st alive and young. No matter the age of the dancer, the dancer returns to str ong and youthful patterning, obeying the vitality with in the music.

Afrikanische Aufheben: This word describes the suspending of the beat in dance in Africa. Off beat phrasing is very common in African rhythms. This is what we call syncopation or swing.

Get-Down Quality: Describes both dance and music. Many of the rhythms in Africa follow a similar pattern; a steep rise followed by a gentle slope and repeated again. These high-affect combinations are also seen in the characteristic of the dance. Dancers start out high, and gradually get closer to the ground, and then start over again.

Multiple Meter: Multiple metering is the layering of more than one rhythm on top of each other. African music has as many as four rhythms in command at once. The dancer is expected to dance to each drum with a different part of the body.

Looking Smart: This term deals with the phrasing and vividness of the dancer. Moving with flair. It can basically be described as the kind of style a dancer brings to a dance.

Correct Entrance and Exit: Patterns and dances must have clear boundaries. The soloist controls the song and has the power to end it properly. The dancer signals to the drummers, through dance, when to begin and when to end.

Vividness Cast into Equilibrium: West Africans nurture divinity through traditions of personal balance. Also known as straightness, it is the presentation of the self through stability. Representational balance is a sort of mid-point between the real and abstract. Beauty is an average of midpoint qualities.

Call-and -Response: African songs are antiphonal, they are sung by a soloist and then by a chorus. Much like the choirs in church.

Ancestorism: This is the belief that the closest harmony with ancient ways is the highest of experiences. It is the force that enables a man to rise to his destiny.

Coolness: Coolness is a strong intellectual attitude. It is a place where a person can clear their head and allow ideas about generousity, harmony with others, and worthy of destiny to enter in. [20]

Note that "Coolness" is just one of many elements of artistic expression, but in DCV's "Cool" POV forks she turned the whole concept upside down and asserted that the different elements are all elements of "cool". CoYep 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've said what I needed to say. Already. More than once. You need to reread Thompson. And please note that "coolness" and "cool" are not the same things. (Duh.) This is old ground. Perhaps you should continue this on the talk page of the failed Vfd. This is a new article, and this discussion thread is completely counterproductive and goes nowhere -- which, presumably, is your intent. *x* Deeceevoice 08:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"And please note that "coolness" and "cool" are not the same things. (Duh.)" (Deeceevoice)

Interesting. Your "Cool (African aesthetic)" POV forcs dedicated a whole chapter to Mystical "Coolness", and this chapter talks about the alleged characteristics of "Cool", and cool only. [21] CoYep 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting? Not terribly. "Cool" as in various hot and cool elements (it can be movement and stasis in art or music, or red and blue, or conflict and peace) is different from coolness, which I've seen used to refer to something that human beings possess or exhibit (mental attitude, facial composure, etc.) You will note that in the information presented, "mystical coolness" refers to the latter ("the mask" of cool. In everyday African-American culture, however, you won't hear the term "coolness"; it sounds odd. The term is simply "cool." But again, all this is old business. I'm not going to waste any more time on an article that was gutted and that is now dead as a result. I'm awaiting the outcome of the undelete proceedings for this article -- which I don't believe is in doubt. :p Deeceevoice 07:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)