Mark Suciu 'Verso'

[versacekid420]

musoc 

[WarmUpZone]

I know I'm risking a heavy kooking here, but after a month of watching Verso nearly every day and typing words into a computer and then erasing them and trying again, I wrote a blog about it:
https://warmupzone.wordpress.com/2019/11/02/mark-suciu-verso-and-the-chiasmus-vs-the-blubba/

The short version: after I shoehorn in references of all stuff the gleaned from this thread (the Jenkem article, the artist's statement at the Atlas premiere, the website that diagrams the mirror tricks, Mark's scolding regarding mentioning Verso during his hype of Brandon Nguyen's part, etc), I basically think that the middle New York section is by far the best portion of the part and it's a shame the whole "chiasmus" thing got all the attention.
I also weakly try to use the Metric red pill / blue pill analogy.

[HyperBeam]

I think that's some language gymnastics right there that leaves out all the interesting specifics. Also: Why do you want such a strict division between body and mind, between moving and being passive? Why all these categories?

You can consume music very actively, too: You can concentrate on the beat, on the harmony or the musical ideas you can dance to it in your mind, you can let it influence the way you perceive your surroundings. Listening to music does not have to be passive at all. Some songs you can listen to hundreds of times and still discover new patterns. Also when you play music it is very active. It is impossible to play the same song twice and in a way a jazz standart resembles a statue in that you can approach it from a thousand angles. There are also endless ways of creating architecture I would imagine. Some of which might be close some forms of producing music. You need to be concrete with comparisons or you're just stating generalities that do not mean much.

Is it my "language gymnastics" or is your reading comprehension lacking something?

I made no distinction between mind and body (in fact the word "mind" doesn't even appear in my paragraph). Nor is mind/body a substitute distinction for "moving/being passive." In the context of what I'm saying, you should be able to see that I'm not using activity/passivity to describe mental activity. I do make a distinction between visual and aural modes of perception, and the ways in which the body itself is either more active or more sedentary in deploying the organs of these senses (ie eyes and ears).

As for "concrete comparisons," will you please tell me where the comparisons made between painting/sculpture, dancing/skating, seeing/hearing are insufficiently concrete? Or where there is a surplus of generality?

[S.]

Expand Quote

I think that's some language gymnastics right there that leaves out all the interesting specifics. Also: Why do you want such a strict division between body and mind, between moving and being passive? Why all these categories?

You can consume music very actively, too: You can concentrate on the beat, on the harmony or the musical ideas you can dance to it in your mind, you can let it influence the way you perceive your surroundings. Listening to music does not have to be passive at all. Some songs you can listen to hundreds of times and still discover new patterns. Also when you play music it is very active. It is impossible to play the same song twice and in a way a jazz standart resembles a statue in that you can approach it from a thousand angles. There are also endless ways of creating architecture I would imagine. Some of which might be close some forms of producing music. You need to be concrete with comparisons or you're just stating generalities that do not mean much.

[close]

Is it my "language gymnastics" or is your reading comprehension lacking something?

I made no distinction between mind and body (in fact the word "mind" doesn't even appear in my paragraph). Nor is mind/body a substitute distinction for "moving/being passive." In the context of what I'm saying, you should be able to see that I'm not using activity/passivity to describe mental activity. I do make a distinction between visual and aural modes of perception, and the ways in which the body itself is either more active or more sedentary in deploying the organs of these senses (ie eyes and ears).

As for "concrete comparisons," will you please tell me where the comparisons made between painting/sculpture, dancing/skating, seeing/hearing are insufficiently concrete? Or where there is a surplus of generality?

nice. Even though it is kind of dumb and obvious, of course you need to walk arround and look to experience architecture (visual) and if you want you can lie on the couch and zone out on some music (aural). Let me ask you this, though: Could a blind man not also experience architecture, by walking arround a building and experiencing distance and touching surfaces?

Why do you feel you need to compare the reception of architecture to the reception of music? I don't see what you are trying to accomplish. Do you want to elevate the art of architecture, by stating it is more demanding to perceive it (properly), because you need to walk arround to see the thing from different sides? Also, isn't simply listening to recorded music, kind of like watching a movie of a building, or walking arround the digital replica of a house on a computer? Shouldn't you compare experiencing a concert to experiencing architecture?

I think there are intersting ways to compare architecture to music, but comparing the very generalized reception of the things (to me) is kind of pointless.


 

[Deputy Wendell]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I think that's some language gymnastics right there that leaves out all the interesting specifics. Also: Why do you want such a strict division between body and mind, between moving and being passive? Why all these categories?

You can consume music very actively, too: You can concentrate on the beat, on the harmony or the musical ideas you can dance to it in your mind, you can let it influence the way you perceive your surroundings. Listening to music does not have to be passive at all. Some songs you can listen to hundreds of times and still discover new patterns. Also when you play music it is very active. It is impossible to play the same song twice and in a way a jazz standart resembles a statue in that you can approach it from a thousand angles. There are also endless ways of creating architecture I would imagine. Some of which might be close some forms of producing music. You need to be concrete with comparisons or you're just stating generalities that do not mean much.

[close]

Is it my "language gymnastics" or is your reading comprehension lacking something?

I made no distinction between mind and body (in fact the word "mind" doesn't even appear in my paragraph). Nor is mind/body a substitute distinction for "moving/being passive." In the context of what I'm saying, you should be able to see that I'm not using activity/passivity to describe mental activity. I do make a distinction between visual and aural modes of perception, and the ways in which the body itself is either more active or more sedentary in deploying the organs of these senses (ie eyes and ears).

As for "concrete comparisons," will you please tell me where the comparisons made between painting/sculpture, dancing/skating, seeing/hearing are insufficiently concrete? Or where there is a surplus of generality?

[close]

nice. Even though it is kind of dumb and obvious, of course you need to walk arround and look to experience architecture (visual) and if you want you can lie on the couch and zone out on some music (aural). Let me ask you this, though: Could a blind man not also experience architecture, by walking arround a building and experiencing distance and touching surfaces?

Why do you feel you need to compare the reception of architecture to the reception of music? I don't see what you are trying to accomplish. Do you want to elevate the art of architecture, by stating it is more demanding to perceive it (properly), because you need to walk arround to see the thing from different sides? Also, isn't simply listening to recorded music, kind of like watching a movie of a building, or walking arround the digital replica of a house on a computer? Shouldn't you compare experiencing a concert to experiencing architecture?

I think there are intersting ways to compare architecture to music, but comparing the very generalized reception of the things (to me) is kind of pointless.

i agree with cheetahsheets--anything that keeps this thread on the front page of Photos/Videos during SOTY season, is good...but regarding your last comment, have you read through the last half-dozen pages (or so) of this thread?

[S.]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I think that's some language gymnastics right there that leaves out all the interesting specifics. Also: Why do you want such a strict division between body and mind, between moving and being passive? Why all these categories?

You can consume music very actively, too: You can concentrate on the beat, on the harmony or the musical ideas you can dance to it in your mind, you can let it influence the way you perceive your surroundings. Listening to music does not have to be passive at all. Some songs you can listen to hundreds of times and still discover new patterns. Also when you play music it is very active. It is impossible to play the same song twice and in a way a jazz standart resembles a statue in that you can approach it from a thousand angles. There are also endless ways of creating architecture I would imagine. Some of which might be close some forms of producing music. You need to be concrete with comparisons or you're just stating generalities that do not mean much.

[close]

Is it my "language gymnastics" or is your reading comprehension lacking something?

I made no distinction between mind and body (in fact the word "mind" doesn't even appear in my paragraph). Nor is mind/body a substitute distinction for "moving/being passive." In the context of what I'm saying, you should be able to see that I'm not using activity/passivity to describe mental activity. I do make a distinction between visual and aural modes of perception, and the ways in which the body itself is either more active or more sedentary in deploying the organs of these senses (ie eyes and ears).

As for "concrete comparisons," will you please tell me where the comparisons made between painting/sculpture, dancing/skating, seeing/hearing are insufficiently concrete? Or where there is a surplus of generality?

[close]

nice. Even though it is kind of dumb and obvious, of course you need to walk arround and look to experience architecture (visual) and if you want you can lie on the couch and zone out on some music (aural). Let me ask you this, though: Could a blind man not also experience architecture, by walking arround a building and experiencing distance and touching surfaces?

Why do you feel you need to compare the reception of architecture to the reception of music? I don't see what you are trying to accomplish. Do you want to elevate the art of architecture, by stating it is more demanding to perceive it (properly), because you need to walk arround to see the thing from different sides? Also, isn't simply listening to recorded music, kind of like watching a movie of a building, or walking arround the digital replica of a house on a computer? Shouldn't you compare experiencing a concert to experiencing architecture?

I think there are intersting ways to compare architecture to music, but comparing the very generalized reception of the things (to me) is kind of pointless.

[close]

i agree with cheetahsheets--anything that keeps this thread on the front page of Photos/Videos during SOTY season, is good...but regarding your last comment, have you read through the last half-dozen pages (or so) of this thread?

No, I haven't. I just picked out one comment that I disagreed with and replied to that. Do I have to read all that?

[S.]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I think that's some language gymnastics right there that leaves out all the interesting specifics. Also: Why do you want such a strict division between body and mind, between moving and being passive? Why all these categories?

You can consume music very actively, too: You can concentrate on the beat, on the harmony or the musical ideas you can dance to it in your mind, you can let it influence the way you perceive your surroundings. Listening to music does not have to be passive at all. Some songs you can listen to hundreds of times and still discover new patterns. Also when you play music it is very active. It is impossible to play the same song twice and in a way a jazz standart resembles a statue in that you can approach it from a thousand angles. There are also endless ways of creating architecture I would imagine. Some of which might be close some forms of producing music. You need to be concrete with comparisons or you're just stating generalities that do not mean much.

[close]

Is it my "language gymnastics" or is your reading comprehension lacking something?

I made no distinction between mind and body (in fact the word "mind" doesn't even appear in my paragraph). Nor is mind/body a substitute distinction for "moving/being passive." In the context of what I'm saying, you should be able to see that I'm not using activity/passivity to describe mental activity. I do make a distinction between visual and aural modes of perception, and the ways in which the body itself is either more active or more sedentary in deploying the organs of these senses (ie eyes and ears).

As for "concrete comparisons," will you please tell me where the comparisons made between painting/sculpture, dancing/skating, seeing/hearing are insufficiently concrete? Or where there is a surplus of generality?

[close]

nice. Even though it is kind of dumb and obvious, of course you need to walk arround and look to experience architecture (visual) and if you want you can lie on the couch and zone out on some music (aural). Let me ask you this, though: Could a blind man not also experience architecture, by walking arround a building and experiencing distance and touching surfaces?

Why do you feel you need to compare the reception of architecture to the reception of music? I don't see what you are trying to accomplish. Do you want to elevate the art of architecture, by stating it is more demanding to perceive it (properly), because you need to walk arround to see the thing from different sides? Also, isn't simply listening to recorded music, kind of like watching a movie of a building, or walking arround the digital replica of a house on a computer? Shouldn't you compare experiencing a concert to experiencing architecture?

I think there are intersting ways to compare architecture to music, but comparing the very generalized reception of the things (to me) is kind of pointless.

[close]

i agree with cheetahsheets--anything that keeps this thread on the front page of Photos/Videos during SOTY season, is good...but regarding your last comment, have you read through the last half-dozen pages (or so) of this thread?

I read up on the past two pages. I liked how you guys grappled with that Goethe quote and how people put pressure on you to explain it to them. Dude, you are teaching free classes on slap! Are you doing your phd on German literature? What is your disertation on?

Technically I am still working on a dissertation in media theory and art, but I gave up on working in academia about four years ago. Doing science is fun, academia fucking sucks!

[Deputy Wendell]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I think that's some language gymnastics right there that leaves out all the interesting specifics. Also: Why do you want such a strict division between body and mind, between moving and being passive? Why all these categories?

You can consume music very actively, too: You can concentrate on the beat, on the harmony or the musical ideas you can dance to it in your mind, you can let it influence the way you perceive your surroundings. Listening to music does not have to be passive at all. Some songs you can listen to hundreds of times and still discover new patterns. Also when you play music it is very active. It is impossible to play the same song twice and in a way a jazz standart resembles a statue in that you can approach it from a thousand angles. There are also endless ways of creating architecture I would imagine. Some of which might be close some forms of producing music. You need to be concrete with comparisons or you're just stating generalities that do not mean much.

[close]

Is it my "language gymnastics" or is your reading comprehension lacking something?

I made no distinction between mind and body (in fact the word "mind" doesn't even appear in my paragraph). Nor is mind/body a substitute distinction for "moving/being passive." In the context of what I'm saying, you should be able to see that I'm not using activity/passivity to describe mental activity. I do make a distinction between visual and aural modes of perception, and the ways in which the body itself is either more active or more sedentary in deploying the organs of these senses (ie eyes and ears).

As for "concrete comparisons," will you please tell me where the comparisons made between painting/sculpture, dancing/skating, seeing/hearing are insufficiently concrete? Or where there is a surplus of generality?

[close]

nice. Even though it is kind of dumb and obvious, of course you need to walk arround and look to experience architecture (visual) and if you want you can lie on the couch and zone out on some music (aural). Let me ask you this, though: Could a blind man not also experience architecture, by walking arround a building and experiencing distance and touching surfaces?

Why do you feel you need to compare the reception of architecture to the reception of music? I don't see what you are trying to accomplish. Do you want to elevate the art of architecture, by stating it is more demanding to perceive it (properly), because you need to walk arround to see the thing from different sides? Also, isn't simply listening to recorded music, kind of like watching a movie of a building, or walking arround the digital replica of a house on a computer? Shouldn't you compare experiencing a concert to experiencing architecture?

I think there are intersting ways to compare architecture to music, but comparing the very generalized reception of the things (to me) is kind of pointless.

[close]

i agree with cheetahsheets--anything that keeps this thread on the front page of Photos/Videos during SOTY season, is good...but regarding your last comment, have you read through the last half-dozen pages (or so) of this thread?

[close]

I read up on the past two pages. I liked how you guys grappled with that Goethe quote and how people put pressure on you to explain it to them. Dude, you are teaching free classes on slap! Are you doing your phd on German literature? What is your disertation on?

Technically I am still working on a dissertation in media theory and art, but I gave up on working in academia about four years ago. Doing science is fun, academia fucking sucks!

got it...and no on the German literature, I just came across that quote at one point years back, and couldn't stop thinking about it. and i'm pretty disillusioned with my field/department right now myself, so i agree in many ways--academia does fucking suck...

...but not completely. i'm just over the Humanities right now...everything i work on is colored by the growing understanding of the fact that i'm much more of an urban/suburban historian, than a cultural theorist, although if all of the espousals of "interdisciplinarity" in the humanities (and on my dissertation committee--a whole other shit-show that i'll spare you) were sincere, that wouldn't be a problem.

and since a couple of people asked, to put it very broadly and clumsily, my dissertation is basically a cultural history of the single-family house and the lot on which it stands, and one of the places my whole line of inquiry began, was in the following words of William J. Levitt (the man behind Levittown NY):

"No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do."

[HyperBeam]

nice. Even though it is kind of dumb and obvious, of course you need to walk arround and look to experience architecture (visual) and if you want you can lie on the couch and zone out on some music (aural). Let me ask you this, though: Could a blind man not also experience architecture, by walking arround a building and experiencing distance and touching surfaces?

No, he could not.

Why do you feel you need to compare the reception of architecture to the reception of music? I don't see what you are trying to accomplish.

I felt the need because I was trying to show a way in which the metaphor "architecture=frozen music" can be an intelligible statement.

Do you want to elevate the art of architecture, by stating it is more demanding to perceive it (properly), because you need to walk arround to see the thing from different sides?

No. I have no horse in the race concerning which of the two arts requires a finer palate for reception. The passion and genius with which you and that other guy listen to music is unharmed by my argument. Don't worry.

I think there are intersting ways to compare architecture to music, but comparing the very generalized reception of the things (to me) is kind of pointless.

Sure. Would you mind sharing what some of these ways are?

If what I've written is pointless to you, so be it. But it's also clear to me that you didn't take the time to read what I had written with much care or attention.

Also your comment about the virtual experience of music and/or architecture is irrelevant to me. Virtual experiences are rather their own category of aesthetic object, which is my entire point: there are limits to comparison between different aesthetic objects, which is why the metaphor "architecture=frozen music" required our elaboration in the first place.

[silhouette]

[one-off]

Pretty excited about how Nolan remade this part in Tenet

[Gabagoolslide]

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

[donny2chugs]

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

Just rewatched, Verso is still the best part ever made

[Paperclip20]

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

Bad opinion right here

[Gabagoolslide]

Expand Quote

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

[close]

Bad opinion right here

Marks style is too constipated and the tricks/video part are too contrived.

[heckler]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

[close]

Bad opinion right here

[close]

Marks style is too constipated and the tricks/video part are too contrived.

This phrase means absolutely nothing.

[slop]

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

I disagree.

Though I thought Tim O'Connor was hilarious when he did a voiceover for mosiac, here not so much.

[BrockSamson]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

[close]

Bad opinion right here

[close]

Marks style is too constipated and the tricks/video part are too contrived.

[close]

This phrase means absolutely nothing.

frankly i found it rather shallow and pedantic.

[Gabagoolslide]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

[close]

Bad opinion right here

[close]

Marks style is too constipated and the tricks/video part are too contrived.

[close]

This phrase means absolutely nothing.

Here ya go:
Verso lacks spontaneity. Mark is constipated.

[MyUserName]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

[close]

Bad opinion right here

[close]

Marks style is too constipated and the tricks/video part are too contrived.

[close]

This phrase means absolutely nothing.

[close]

Here ya go:
Verso lacks spontaneity. Mark is constipated.

Suciu no su-poo.

[Paperclip20]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Just rewatched, Verso didn’t age well

[close]

Bad opinion right here

[close]

Marks style is too constipated and the tricks/video part are too contrived.

[close]

This phrase means absolutely nothing.

[close]

Here ya go:
Verso lacks spontaneity. Mark is constipated.

It's a good thing you could watch any tour video of the homies being wacky for a fix

[mattchew]

Just rewatched and this part is still so insane and will be for many years to come. Even with some tricks/lines that I don’t particularly care for, he's still so solid, has unique spot selection, and the theme and execution are unparalleled. So rad.

[RichardBarkley]

Just rewatched and this part is still so insane and will be for many years to come. Even with some tricks/lines that I don’t particularly care for, he's still so solid, has unique spot selection, and the theme and execution are unparalleled. So rad.

Agreed

Not to bring up old wounds.... But he was robbed

[Lame_Nigga]

Expand Quote

Just rewatched and this part is still so insane and will be for many years to come. Even with some tricks/lines that I don’t particularly care for, he's still so solid, has unique spot selection, and the theme and execution are unparalleled. So rad.

[close]

Agreed

Not to bring up old wounds.... But he was robbed

Robbed? Maybe, but we all knew that Thrasher was gonna give it to the guy who could end up dying over the guy with a concept video full of the most insane footwork of all time

[Paperclip20]

Just bumping to remind everyone. Also I feel like we're hopefully due for a Suciu part soon as he was supposed to have a full spitfire part last year before getting injured.

[Lucky_Basek]

I just watched Verso again for the hundredth time the other day. I think I accept that Suicu is otherworldly good and take this part for granted.

Like, 'oh sure he's amazing. Now let me watch someone half as good do much less imaginative tricks and talk about their clothes.'

Verso is great to watch as of it was VHS. Pause, slo-mo, rewind.

I try and watch it in random 3 minute segments so that my focus is different each time. Last time I tried 3:14-6:14

[Jean-Ralphio Zaperstein]

link for people who don't wan't to find out the hard way the part first appears page 38 of this thread

[Patrick2G]

I know awards don't matter, but its pretty fucked up he didn't SOTY. I am a bit disgusted.

[NeimanMarxist]

If they cut the first 5 minutes from this it would be perfect.

[botefdunn]

If they cut the first 5 minutes from this it would be perfect.

maybe, but you are posting on page 60 of a 2-year-old thread about a stand-alone part, so there's that to consider when comparing relative genius.