If bad jokes can...

[marjoramblues]

...make people laugh, what makes 'em so bad?

What makes us groan or giggle?
Why are some people fantastic at telling jokes, some can't remember even a one-liner, and others worry that they won't 'get it' ?

I can't tell 'em, don't remember 'em, sometimes enjoy them.
What about anyone else?
What would you watch, listen to or read to cheer yourself up?
What lifts your mood?

For what it's worth, this is the only joke I remember:

Did you hear about the magic tractor?...

...It drove down the hill and turned into a field.

Is there a philosophy of humour?
Dear God, yes there is

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/

What a lark!

[Skip]

Arthur Koestler did a pretty good job of analyzing humour in The Act of Creation. It's worth reading, anyway.

Partly it's a cast of mind: some of us are always noticing the absurd, the strange juxtaposition of ideas or images, the internal contradiction and ambiguity. In high-school, one of my friends was always telling me that the pun is the lowest form of humour, but she was wrong: slapstick is.

There is a wonderful scene at the end of the movie Quest for Fire , where the practical joke is born.

One of my favourite jokes is a cartoon of two ducks walking along the highway; one of them points up at a V-formation of migrating birds, and says "Hey, look what they're doing!"

I have little use for vulgar language, (Bill Cosby used to tell young comics: "Save that for when you're bombing.") or sit-coms that rely on predictable stereotypes, or pain or humiliation. MASH was funny; Modern Family isn't.

I don't tell set jokes very often, but might do pretty good stand-up: I can imagine how a dog or cloud or God or another person thinks and responds and do amusing impersonations. At least, my friends laugh.

[jackles]

Yes farting or passing wind loudly generaly gets a laugh.i reckon even neanderthials laught at a noisy one.it is not funny how ever if some dos it in your car.i would say farting is statisticaly the funniest thing in history.

[Skip]

We might also - if we wanted to be serious about the topic - consider the evolution and devolution of humour in American mass media. Not having made a study, I can only attest to what I have personally witnessed: The physical comedy of Three Stooges; Laurel and Hardy, et al gave way, by stages, to the sophistication of MASH and Carol Burnett, then declined through Married with Children to the mass-produced drunken weekend flicks that seem to be everywhere now.

I correlate it to the mental age of the audience: from 7 (pie in the face) to 35 (verbal observation) and back down to 12(tittering at titties). Potty humour (as in the fart), which is the next logical stop, belongs to 4-year-olds.* It`s a function of the quality of public education and the level on which politics are conducted. (It`s also a direct and deliberate result of commercial dumbing-down. The last thing business wants is discerning consumers!) It`s interesting as a side-note, that Shakespeare`s audience was an average age of 19 or so, overwhelmingly illiterate, and his humour is appropriately bawdy (bodily functions, sexual innuendo and fancy insult.) Now, that`s beyond most American audiences, because of the language barrier and the perception of classics as high-brow.

* Just remembered a joke.
Group of kindergarteners sitting in a circle, no teacher present. One says, `Let`s talk dirty!` So the next one says `pee-pee` and they all giggle. One says `ka-ka` and they giggle some more. The next one ponders for a bit and comes up with `bum!` and they all go whooo. The last little kid scrunches up her face in concentration, then finally gives up `Aw, fuckit, I can`t think of a thing!`

[marjoramblues]

Hey, thanks for all of the above

Interesting aspects to humour; I haven't had much time to look at the serious side.
That is to say, I'd actually forgotten about the topic...

However, a quick early morning peek came up with this:

What Makes Humor Aesthetic? : Mordechai Gordon Professor of Education
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_ ... 2012/6.pdf

Abstract:
The connection between humor and aesthetic experience has already been recognized by several thinkers and aesthetic educators. This essay extends the research of John Morreall and others who have examined the various connections between humor and aesthetics by focusing on the distinction between aesthetic and non-aesthetic humor. The author begins his analysis by describing the nature and purpose of aesthetic experience while briefly distinguishing it from other human endeavors. In the next part, he critically examines Morreall’s distinction between aesthetic and non-aesthetic humor and argues that it does not adequately account for the differences between the two. The final part of this essay proposes an alternative understanding of the distinction between aesthetic and non-aesthetic humor. Drawing on the example of four comedic performances, the author asserts that the difference between aesthetic and non-aesthetic humor needs to be assessed on the basis of the impact of the humor on the people who are viewing it rather than on the motivations and intentions of the performer.

...The three criteria—imagination, insight and reflection—proposed to assess humor are ones that most people have experienced and can relate to; they tend to be a little more tangible than other qualities of aesthetic experience mentioned above such as an activity done for its own sake...

...I would like to compare some humorous clips of George Carlin and Richard Pryor to those of Sarah Silverman and Sacha Baron Cohen. I will argue that the former constitute examples of aesthetic whereas the latter are cases of non-aesthetic humor. Consider, for instance, the opening of Carlin‘s monologue ―Religion is Bullshit,‖ which deals with some of the major false promises and preposterous claims of organized religion:...

This seems like a very readable and relatively short paper (9 pages) - will delve more...later...

[marjoramblues]

Yes farting or passing wind loudly generaly gets a laugh.i reckon even neanderthials laught at a noisy one.it is not funny how ever if some dos it in your car.i would say farting is statisticaly the funniest thing in history.

So, whether humour is aesthetic relates to place, smell and hearing, not 'taste' - or...
can you taste a smell

[Skip]

Sulphur, you can, and chlorine - any of the pervasive water-soluble chemicals, because both the taste buds and the scent receptors operate in a damp environment and respond to chemicals.

But the extent to which a simple human finds bodily functions amusing is directly proportional to how socially taboo that function is. Laughter, in these childish kinds of humour, is rebellion against adult-enforced strictures on natural (animal) behaviour. That's also why adolescent human males find endless entertainment in the spectacle of a dog licking his balls, or monkeys in a zoo masturbating: genital self-pleasuring is the social taboo they feel most rebellious against at this stage in life.

In middle age, we rail against the status structure or income disparity; in old age, we laugh at illness and debility.

[marjoramblues]

Earlier, Skip:

Arthur Koestler did a pretty good job of analyzing humour in The Act of Creation. It's worth reading, anyway.
Partly it's a cast of mind: some of us are always noticing the absurd, the strange juxtaposition of ideas or images, the internal contradiction and ambiguity

Thanks, it does seem like a worthwhile read. From what I gather, Koestler saw 'humour' as part of a three-some, the others being 'science' and 'art', all of which have a common pattern in the process of creativity, namely 'bisociation'.

The term is contrasted with mere 'association'; as you say, a 'strange juxtaposition of ideas or images', where there is a blending or combining of elements to generate new meaning.

And like your idea of maturity or sophistication in appreciating different types of humour, the importance of 'ripeness' appears key.
The capacity to be 'double-minded' instead of 'single-minded'; perhaps even multi-headed?
To rock dogma and rigid-thinking.

Perhaps humour, here, is seen more as creatively functional rather than 'aesthetic' ?

And I think that is where my interest started; observing use of humour as a 'virtuous' defence against viciousness. A response to insults.

This would seem to conflict with the paper I linked to: where humour is assessed on impact on the viewer rather than from the viewpoint of the performer.
A much narrower view of humour.

OK, if anyone is interested in Koestler and doesn't have time to read yet another book, I found some highlights here:

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/ ... sociation/

complete with illustration of 'bisociation' as contrasted with 'association' in diagram matrix.

[marjoramblues]

GSOH

I started to think about duszek's thread 'Good criteria for finding a mate'; how often do people mention the need for a 'good sense of humour'. Even as a quality for some stressful jobs, like in medicine - black humour...

I expect most of us like to think we have a GSOH, and recognise its importance but hardly ever discuss it. Do we even know what our own sense of humour is...or how it is used to manipulate minds...and behaviour.

What have ye ancient philosophers said about it...are their words still relevant?

What makes a sense of humour 'good' - aesthetic or functional ?

[artisticsolution]

What makes a sense of humour 'good' - aesthetic or functional ?

I think the aesthetics are most important. You have 2 people...both tell the same joke. One tells it with flair and body languae all his own and the other does not. It is also the aesthetic chemistry that makes someone one funny. Not only physical actions but also the timing. The beauty part is....one can be loud and obnoxious (Jim Carey) or quiet and subdued (Woody Allen) And still have the qualities of great humor.

I think it is the unexpected too that is funny as well as being unique and constantly changing...meaning never seeing the same comedian twice in a generation. Each personality brings something unexpected...even if they tell the same joke sometimes.

Not that this has anything to do with comedy...but recently I saw the film "Funny Face" with Audrey Hepburn. There is a scene where she dances in a Parisian beanick type club. She is ultra cool...the way only audrey hepburn could be...but as I watched the scene...I saw where Michael Jackson got a few of his "Fresh" moves. Even though he probably was inspired by Audrey....Michael's moves were still unique and mesmerizing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4G5hUvL-wI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhy7ZsiR50

Do you see the similarities too?

[Skip]

Humour is also a social tool. What makes Zambians roll in the aisles might leave a Japanese audience bewildered. And, of course, there is the great variety in what expressions and responses to humour are deemed appropriate in each culture, age group, gender and class.

So, what we each consider a good sense of humour in another person is: They laugh at our jokes... or at least to the same things that make us laugh. Because levity is an important stress- and aggression-reliever, you want to be in a social environment where your humour works. You want to share leisure time amusements with friends and a mate. Of course, this also brings in the cultural references you have in common - perhaps even more importantly what subjects you each consider laughing matter - and thus, how closely aligned your world-view can be.

Someone's use of humour gives you a pretty good measure of their intelligence, their creativity, linguistic facility, mental agility and intellectual scope - all of which will determine how well you communicate.

[Skip]

Do you see the similarities too?

Wow! She was really something! And so was poor little Michael. I bet he watched a lot of old musicals alone, late at night, but he must have seen that one over and over.
(Gotta love youtube.)

[marjoramblues]

Thanks, Skip and AS - brillig both
I'll get back to you - but, first, I want to get to grips with this paper 'What makes humour aesthetic?'

Here, Moredechai Gordon offers a broad definition of humour:
the quality of actions, speech or writing which excites amusement (OED) and often results in laughter.

He excludes amusements such as singing and dancing; also tickling.

Definition of 'a sense of humour':
Capacity to identify ironical, cynical, sarcastic, witty, and generally funny expressions, comments or actions.
Manifests in jokes, puns, facial expressions, imitating others, spontaneous comments that amuse people.
Enables us to laugh at others/ situations that we read or watch; also at ourselves.

Theories of humour and laughter:
Gordon talks about philosophers from Plato to Hobbes focusing on the 'Superiority Theory' where humour is delight in shortcomings of others.
2 other theories:
1. The Relief: functions to release nervous energy (Spencer; Freud)
2. The Incongruity: [self-explanatory, innit?] (Kant; Schopenhauer)

Contemporary and more comprehensive views of 2. by M.Clark, J.Martin, J.Morreall.

So much for definitions and theories.
Then, we get to the nitty-gritty bitty:

II - The Nature and Purpose of Aesthetic Experience

Before continuing...

Perhaps, we might first consider the questions ourselves?

So:

'What is an 'aesthetic experience' - and its important characteristics ?
'How does it compare to a 'non-aesthetic' one?

What do you think?
Anyfink?

[marjoramblues]

If only I would have read my own link to this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/

all and more about the theories of humour mentioned above

[marjoramblues]

What makes a sense of humour 'good' - aesthetic or functional ?

I think the aesthetics are most important. You have 2 people...both tell the same joke. One tells it with flair and body languae all his own and the other does not. It is also the aesthetic chemistry that makes someone one funny. Not only physical actions but also the timing. The beauty part is....one can be loud and obnoxious (Jim Carey) or quiet and subdued (Woody Allen) And still have the qualities of great humor.

I think it is the unexpected too that is funny as well as being unique and constantly changing...meaning never seeing the same comedian twice in a generation. Each personality brings something unexpected...even if they tell the same joke sometimes.

Not that this has anything to do with comedy...but recently I saw the film "Funny Face" with Audrey Hepburn. There is a scene where she dances in a Parisian beanick type club. She is ultra cool...the way only audrey hepburn could be...but as I watched the scene...I saw where Michael Jackson got a few of his "Fresh" moves. Even though he probably was inspired by Audrey....Michael's moves were still unique and mesmerizing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4G5hUvL-wI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhy7ZsiR50

Do you see the similarities too?

Oh, AS - love the mix of the unsurprising with the surprising

Unsurprising: your view that aesthetics are most important. I remember well our previous discussions...

...and I agree. But not all the way
More later, when my head ain't a-hurtin'...

Surprising: the introduction of the youtubes dance routines. Brilliant.
Again, more later...related to creative and unique aspects.