Porn vs. Art

Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Figures you find that tactic interesting. You've been using it all thread.....
 
Mirrorglass said:
Sorry, let me just get this straight. You're actually saying that abstract paintings are not art?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, no. It depends how "abstract". To my mind the more abstract a painting is the less artistic it is, such that a point is reached at which it can no longer be classed as art. Of course, it's difficult to apply an objective "abstract scale", so there's no definitive threshold.
 
SkeptiChick said:
Right here:
Bolding mine
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, this demonstrates nothing, other than your ability to demonstrate nothing.

SkeptiChick said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the fact that I stated that it means "in and of itself" ...:confused:

Have you been on the silly pop?!
 
Southwind17 said:
Mirrorglass said:
Sorry, let me just get this straight. You're actually saying that abstract paintings are not art?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, no. It depends how "abstract". To my mind the more abstract a painting is the less artistic it is, such that a point is reached at which it can no longer be classed as art. Of course, it's difficult to apply an objective "abstract scale", so there's no definitive threshold.
Click to expand...

I thought you said it was the artist's intent that mattered.

If the artist's intent is for the art to be abstract what good is this new scale you want to invoke?

Sounds like another way of saying art is what SW says art is. No other standard need apply.
 
quadraginta said:
I thought you said it was the artist's intent that mattered.
Click to expand...
You might be right, as in what the artwork is intended to convey (as opposed to what the artist's intent is per se, which could, for example, be to delude, in some cases).

quadraginta said:
If the artist's intent is for the art to be abstract what good is this new scale you want to invoke?
Click to expand...
I would say that the intent is indirectly proportional to the degree of "abstractness", and, hence, as I wrote, it's artistic merit diminishes accordingly. BTW, I never stated that I want to invoke anything. You do like to claim as fact what you care to imagine, don't you!
 
Southwind17 said:
You might be right, as in what the artwork is intended to convey (as opposed to what the artist's intent is per se, which could, for example, be to delude, in some cases).


I would say that the intent is indirectly proportional to the degree of "abstractness", and, hence, as I wrote, it's artistic merit diminishes accordingly. BTW, I never stated that I want to invoke anything. You do like to claim as fact what you care to imagine, don't you!
Click to expand...


What is this "merit" you speak of? Who assigns it? How is it measured?
 
Southwind17 said:
Now now. That's a little mean to Belz. I feel he's been trying quite hard.
Click to expand...

...why are you calling yourself "Belz"? Do you like Belz... so much that you are naming yourself after him? Your continued veiled insults shows me that you intend to dodge points that you cannot defend.
 
Southwind17 said:
OMG - based on acting "merit", De Niro vs. Schwarzenegger? But who assigns it? How is it measured? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I would think that even though DeNiro wouldn't do as good an acting job as Conan than Schwarzenegger did, I'm sure that DeNiro has some acting merit.
 
JFrankA said:
Interesting.

I would think that even though DeNiro wouldn't do as good an acting job as Conan than Schwarzenegger did, I'm sure that DeNiro has some acting merit.
Click to expand...
So on a scale of general acting merit (say 1-10) you'd rank each where?
 
 
JFrankA said:
Well, before I answer your questions, I feel it would only be fair if you answered some of mine
Click to expand...
That's OK, I think we know your answer, in principle. It was, essentially, a rhetorical question after all. Brinksmanship 101 - make sure you have something to bargain with, otherwise consider poker! ;)
 
quadraginta said:
If his ranking is different than yours, which one of you is right?
Click to expand...
Mmm ... I think you'll find that it's "from", "different from". Interesting departure, given this, don't you think:
quadraginta said:
Then ... your knowledge of the fundamentals of the English language ... is sadly deficient.
Perhaps I can enlighten you.
Click to expand...
Trusting you're duly enlightened, but feel free to conduct your own research.

But to answer your question, it depends on exactly what our respective rankings are. I have no doubt that if he's honest our respective rankings, even if different (highly likely), will nonetheless lead to the same conclusion as to which actor has the most acting merit, generally.
 
Southwind17 said:
That's OK, I think we know your answer, in principle.
Click to expand...

You do??? Would you care to tell us all what my answer is? I, for one, would love to see if your skills are good enough to sign up for the JREF challenge!


It was, essentially, a rhetorical question after all.
Click to expand...

So, if this was a "rhetorical question" that was following a point you were trying to make, then there really wasn't any point at all. I see.

Brinksmanship 101 - make sure you have something to bargain with, otherwise consider poker! ;)
Click to expand...

Another rhetorical point?

Here is an example of a non-rhetorical point: answering the questions and challenges put to you point rather than dodging by using insults and "effects".
 
JFrankA said:
You do??? Would you care to tell us all what my answer is? I, for one, would love to see if your skills are good enough to sign up for the JREF challenge!
Click to expand...
Sadly, my ability to know your answer does not rely on paranormality, so the JREF Challenge is somewhat irrelevant. Now, if you're prepared to wager $1 million of your own booty and organise the test ...

JFrankA said:
So, if this was a "rhetorical question" that was following a point you were trying to make, then there really wasn't any point at all. I see.
Another rhetorical point?
Here is an example of a non-rhetorical point: answering the questions and challenges put to you point rather than dodging by using insults and "effects".
Click to expand...
Oh but this made sense. I'd think about responding, if only to keep you in the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom