• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Porn vs. Art

Southwind17 said:
I don't see how a "post" can be a "troll" under any circumstances. You, too, have fallen way short of the green here, but I'll forgive you.
Click to expand...


You don't?

Then both your knowledge of the fundamentals of the English language, and your understanding of the word as used in this context is sadly deficient.

Perhaps I can enlighten you.

troll

–verb (used with object)

3. to fish for or in with a moving line, working the line up or down with a rod, as in fishing for pike, or trailing the line behind a slow-moving boat.

–verb (used without object)

9. to fish by trolling.


–noun

13. the act of trolling.
Click to expand...


The genesis of the term in our context began in the early USENET communities when someone (usually a more seasoned participant) would post with the express intent of "baiting" another user (usually one of the September crop of new students) into a predictable response, hopefully uninformed or ill-considered. Hence the expression "clueless newbie". Arguments and even flame-wars were not an uncommon result, to the amusement of on-lookers. The practice came to be known as "trolling for newbies", and the sort of post employed to elicit a reaction was known as a "troll".

The alternate definition of the word, a mythical unpleasant creature, was subsequently applied as a descriptive noun to whoever engaged in this practice.

Over time the earliest applications of the term gradually morphed into a descriptor for the poster, the post, and the act of posting anything with the "intent to arouse" (How did that slip in there? :D) some sort of a reaction, usually negative, in other participants. It has ultimately become a derogatory reference (it wasn't in the beginning), and those who indulge in the practice are often ridiculed, and "baited" in return as a source of amusement known fondly as "feeding the troll", often without the "troll" in question even grasping the fact that they are the subject of ridicule.

Thus a sentence such as "The troll trolled with a troll.", while not particularly euphonious or elegant, is both grammatically and historically correct within the context of this discussion. As is "Trolling the troll with a troll.", which would be a an equally dissonant way of describing the feeding process.

Hope this helps.
 
quadraginta said:
Perhaps I can enlighten you.
Click to expand...
Sadly, no. Perhaps I you. Whilst "the act" of trolling might well be a noun, as might the physical medium by which such act is perpetrated, namely a post in this case, the post itself (per se, if you will!), is certainly not "a troll", just like a book, i.e. pieces of bound paper, cannot be "a story", but is only a medium by which a story is conveyed. If a book were a story, how could a movie also be the very same story? Bound paper and reeled celluloid are completely different things. Which explains why we use the term "story book" and not just "story". See?

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
Only spectators, surely. But if there are none?!
Click to expand...

then the people playing are entertained....

Southwind17 said:
Spot on. Like I wrote above, watching a soccer match can be entertaining. But soccer, per se, isn't entertainment, is it? It can't be, surely. Some people play it without spectators!
Click to expand...

However, it's still a sport.
–noun
1.
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
2.
a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.
3.
diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
4.
jest; fun; mirth; pleasantry: What he said in sport was taken seriously.
Click to expand...

It's still a game.
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
Click to expand...

It's still entertainment.
–noun
1.
the act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement: Solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many.
2.
something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, esp. a performance of some kind: The highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment.
Click to expand...

One may play soccer alone, but it's still entertainment per se.

Ron_Tomkins said:
And I thought this discussion couldn't get more ridiculous.
Southwind17 said:
You really should have more faith!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Don't need faith. Just wait. Southwind will type something......
 
Belz... said:
No, wait. You appear to be still conflating the two definitions. Of course, the work of art was created in a certain way, but the "meaning" is different for everybody who looks at it.
Click to expand...
So you elect to completely ignore the argument because you either disagree with or cannot assimilate it and consider that simply re-stating your position makes your case. Interesting tactic.

Belz... said:
mean·ing   /ˈminɪŋ/ Show Spelled[mee-ning] Show IPA
–noun
1.what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
2.the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?

From Dictionary.com. None of those relate to function or workings. Just interpretation. "Meaning" is significance. It's a human invention.
Click to expand...
You need to realise that "definitions" or "meanings", if you prefer, (which, remember, every single word has) rely on the application of other words. Hopefully you'll see the flaw in this practice, but I'm afraid it's the best we can do right now until we have the technology to imbue people's brains with neurally programmed conventional meaning(!) (or maybe unconventional, depending on motive/purpose, but that's George Orwell territory!). Accordingly, wording such as "what is intended to be" cannot be taken literally (if "literally" really exists, that is, given what I just explained!). As such, "what is intended" can easily, and justifiably, be interpreted as "what is caused". Take the Mary Celeste mystery, for example. Upon boarding the deserted boat with cooking pots simmering one legitimately could, and probably did, ask: what does this mean? (you're familiar with the utterance: "What is the meaning of this?" by way of demanding an explanation of another's prior actions, usually objectionable, yes?) So far as I know there was no "intention" to create a mystery with the Mary Celeste, so, clearly, the "meaning" of the circumstances leading to it can only be revealed by understanding whatever was the cause, which I posit was directed (i.e. it wasn't a "random" occurrence). Fortunately(!), as I suspect you know, nobody has yet discovered the cause!

Belz... said:
The picture you showed me is too small for me to see any details. I can't tell if it's a painting or whatnot.
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you now that it's both a painting (as in paint on canvas) and whatnot, meaning it's not art!

Belz... said:
The process of how the painting was created. That's not meaning, as I explained above.
Click to expand...
Good, at least we're agreed on this.

Belz... said:
Not really. I just meant that a random distribution of numbers (or quantum fluctuations) will yield patterns if you take a large enough sample, but that the pattenrs don't have a meaning, that is, there is no intent or significance to them as they are random. But it doesn't mean one can't intepret the pattern.
Click to expand...
Now we're getting somewhere. You're admitting that to be a pattern there has to be some degree or "order" or "regularity", even if occurring by chance from randomness, right? Ergo you're admitting that paint on canvas without some degree of "order" or "regularity", i.e. direction, is not art, right?

Belz... said:
About art being defined as something done by an artist.
Click to expand...
Where did I admit I was wrong about that? As I wrote, I don't think I've ever defined art as such, I've simply stated that art is only created by artists just as golf is only played by golfers. I might have even written "by definition", but if so I was applying such term to import a necessarily restrictive context, i.e. it's usual application, as opposed to ascribing an exclusive meaning to the word.
 
Belz... said:
So the word doesn't mean what you meant at all, but instead of being wrong you just made a "poor choice", which is somehow better ?
Click to expand...
Is a 7-iron in lieu of a 6-iron on a par 3 with an elevated green and a 5km/h head wind just a poor choice or simply wrong?! Depends on the swing!
 
southwind17 said:
Well I can tell you now that it's both a painting (as in paint on canvas) and whatnot, meaning it's not art!
Click to expand...

Sorry, let me just get this straight. You're actually saying that abstract paintings are not art?
 
Southwind17 said:
Come come. Have you ever heard a sportsman heading off to the game for "entertainment" (unless he's off to watch a game he's not playing in, of course!)?!
Click to expand...

Yes.

You can clutch and grasp all you like ...
Click to expand...

You can dodge and ignore points you can't dispute all you like.....


See Ron? Don't need faith. As I said, just wait for Southwind to type something and the thread will get more ridiculous
 
Last edited:
I do not submit this to argue anyone's point on anything, but rather to offer an interesting contribution that Neuroscience has done to the study and definition of art (Or to put it in another way, the way humans define their own made up things, such as art).

Ramachandran on Art
 
Southwind17 said:
I am? Where?
Click to expand...
Right here:
Southwind17 said:
YAY - YOU'VE GOT IT! :) And please don't go claiming I'm just being pedantic. The whole purpose of the OP was to challenge the idea held by some that one can produce porn and seek to circumvent any allegation of such by claiming that it's simply, and purely (hence "per se") "art". The "per se" part of the OP is of critical importance.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine

I don't? How so?


Let's try "simply", instead of "exactly", although it should suffice for both:

per se in and of itself

Example: I find it entertaining to watch "Most Shocking". What is shown on "Most Shocking", however, is not entertainment per se. It's shootings, car crashes, train wrecks and other accidents, generally, per se.
Click to expand...
Per se does not mean "simply" nor does it mean "exactly". See, you've just shown that you don't know what it means. Your use of it contradicts every definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom