What is the difference between art and advertising?

Apropos of nothing at all, I was working on my book last night, and while I was considering the implications of a robot that could pass a Turing test, I was startled to realise that there are human beings that probably couldn't.
 
Piscivore said:
Apropos of nothing at all, I was working on my book last night, and while I was considering the implications of a robot that could pass a Turing test, I was startled to realise that there are human beings that probably couldn't.
Click to expand...


That is so odd. I had that same thought reading some 50 page thread a while ago.
 
See. This is a good example of trying to divert the topic when people think they are cornering you.

Whether he knows that his accusation is wrong, or not, the actual accusation is the important point: making a new allegation (like "you just contradicted yourself," for example) that might get people arguing about that point is a nice distraction from all of those "How is that selling anything?" questions that somehow get missed.

After 4-5 posts on the new topic -- if things get to be problematic again -- there will be a new wildly wrong accusation in the hopes that even more smoke can be blown.


The classical answer to this post would be to try the same argument : "He DID contradict himself." or "Explain how he didn't contradict himself." or even "You contend that he did't contradict himself? Then prove it."

Or, since I have just outlined the attack, ignore this post, too -- and try it on someone else.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Nope. I made the prediction after reading Tricky's post. Then I read the rest of the thread.

I read threads from top to bottom. I assumed that is what everyone does.
Click to expand...
Hey, I've got you beat. Post #49 made two days ago:
Tricky said:
I predict we will reach the general agreement that not all art is advertising but that Claus will never concede this point.
Click to expand...
 
CFLarsen said:
No, it's not a lie, and here's why:

If you answer "yes", you will have to admit that even an exercise - such as your own - is selling: Not only did you leave a work behind, you also improved your skills. Just like Gericault.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was a lie, because you said you had answered my question, but the post you indicated as your "answer" had very obviously and demonstrably not answered the question. In fact, it said that it was not answering the question. Or maybe in the "Claus definition" world, saying you are not answering is the same as answering. So either it is a lie, or you are not speaking English, but some language you invented.

But let's try another tack. Is "improving your skills" the same thing as selling? Is it the same thing as advertising?

CFLarsen said:
If, on the other hand, you answer "no", then you will have to explain why Gericault's study is not art. And I don't think you want to go there.
Click to expand...
Yes, I knew you believed you were setting a trap. But I have avoided that trap by pointedly making my delivery of an answer conditional on yours. Unlike you, I do not claim I have answered. That would be a lie.

CFLarsen said:
But, rather than admit that I wasn't "wrong", you prefer to avoid my point and call me a liar instead.
Click to expand...
LOL. You completly avoided my point and my question, but now you say I am the one avoiding the point?

And I didn't call you a liar because I believe that word is misused. Everybody lies about certain things. What I said was that you had told a lie. I then showed the lie you had told. I then gave the opinion that your dishonesty makes you unrespected here on this forum. I believe I could support it with evidence if you asked me to and agreed to let it be the subject of a poll, but I am relatively certain that you won't agree to such a thing. So for now I will admit that it is only an opinion.

At least I didn't call you a murderer as you did me. But it's okay. I got a great sig out of it.

CFLarsen said:
Why not simply admit that I wasn't "wrong"? You may disagree with the way I see art, but in your desire to see me "wrong", you certainly have placed yourself between a rock and a hard place.
Click to expand...
I am inclined to agree with you. Or at least I would be if you were in any way right.

(See, Loss Leader? I told you I was stealing that line.)

CFLarsen said:
Have a nice day. And learn that your perception of art is not the only one.
Click to expand...
Thank you I shall. You too, and learn from your missteps that by avoiding making sweeping statements about "all art" as you did, you can avoid shooting yourself in the foot in the future.
 
CFLarsen said:
What's to "concede"? It's a matter of opinion - not fact.
Click to expand...
And it's an "opinion" that has been shown to be incorrect by numerous examples. Yes, Claus, opinions can be wrong. If a person says it is their opinion that the Bible is inerrant, is that opinion wrong? Or is it "just an opinion, therefore, neither right or wrong"?

Here are two situations:

Biblical literalist: God is good.
Skeptic: Here are some examples from the bible where God is not good.
Biblical literalist: That's because you dont' understand what "good" means for God.
Skeptic: What does "good" mean for God?
Biblical literalist: Read the bible. It's all there.

vs.

CFLarsen: All art is selling something.
Skeptic: Here are some examples of art that aren't selling anything.
CFLarsen: That is because you don't understand what is meant by "selling".
Skeptic: Would you explain what you mean by "selling"?
CFLarsen: I already answered that in post #102. I suggest you read that.

So what is to concede is that your opinion is wrong, based on evidence. Also based on experience with you, I do not expect you to do so. Surprise me.
 
Last edited:
Morrigan said:
That answered nothing.

How is improving one's art equal to selling it?
Click to expand...

Tricky said:
And it's an "opinion" that has been shown to be incorrect by numerous examples. Yes, Claus, opinions can be wrong. If a person says it is their opinion that the Bible is inerrant, is that opinion wrong? Or is it "just an opinion, therefore, neither right or wrong"?

Here are two situations:

Biblical literalist: God is good.
Skeptic: Here are some examples from the bible where God is not good.
Biblical literalist: That's because you dont' understand what "good" means for God.
Skeptic: What does "good" mean for God?
Biblical literalist: Read the bible. It's all there.

vs.

CFLarsen: All art is selling something.
Skeptic: Here are some examples of art that aren't selling anything.
CFLarsen: That is because you don't understand what is meant by "selling".
Skeptic: Would you explain what you mean by "selling"?
CFLarsen: I already answered that in post #102. I suggest you read that.

So what is to concede is that your opinion is wrong, based on evidence. Also based on experience with you, I do not expect you to do so. Surprise me.
Click to expand...

Again, take a look at the study Gericault made for The Raft. How much do each of you think that will sell for it today's market? It's a study, for crying out loud: It's not a finished work of art, it's not what the artist intended. You want to use it for starting a camp fire? No, you know you got a valuable piece on your hands.

Then, imagine you find a sketchbook of Picasso's. Or Leonardo's. Goodbye to your day job, hello sunny side life.

Now, we are talking about facts: It's a fact that even scribbles, doodles and studies will sell.

Will a doodle from an unknown artist sell? Maybe not now, but maybe in the future. For now, the sell is due to the practice itself. When you, Tricky, did your drawing, you not only did a work of art (at least in your own opinion), you also practiced: You added value to something, because you not only created it, you also got better. You acknowledged this, because you described it as a work that took a while: You improved on the work as you got more experienced. And when you add value to something - whatever that value is - it becomes more sellable.

If you say I am "wrong", then you are arguing three things:

1) Practice doesn't make you better.

2) People don't add value to their work.

3) Gericault's study of The Raft is not art.

The former two are demonstrably wrong. The latter is a matter of opinion.
 
CFLarsen said:
Again, take a look at the study Gericault made for The Raft. How much do each of you think that will sell for it today's market? It's a study, for crying out loud: It's not a finished work of art, it's not what the artist intended. You want to use it for starting a camp fire? No, you know you got a valuable piece on your hands.

Then, imagine you find a sketchbook of Picasso's. Or Leonardo's. Goodbye to your day job, hello sunny side life.

Now, we are talking about facts: It's a fact that even scribbles, doodles and studies will sell.

Will a doodle from an unknown artist sell? Maybe not now, but maybe in the future. For now, the sell is due to the practice itself. When you, Tricky, did your drawing, you not only did a work of art (at least in your own opinion), you also practiced: You added value to something, because you not only created it, you also got better. You acknowledged this, because you described it as a work that took a while: You improved on the work as you got more experienced. And when you add value to something - whatever that value is - it becomes more sellable.

If you say I am "wrong", then you are arguing three things:

1) Practice doesn't make you better.

2) People don't add value to their work.

3) Gericault's study of The Raft is not art.

The former two are demonstrably wrong. The latter is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

This argument commits the logical fallacy of low redefinition by widening the definition of "sell" far beyond the meaning that the word has in ordinary usage. If "sell" is equivalent to "add value" then you've sold the JREF forum nearly 40,000 times over. I sold my car this morning by changing a burned out brake light. And I'm sure the local health board will want to know that I sell food without a license every morning when I fix myself breakfast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom