Turing test?
Turing test?
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.
Figures you find that tactic interesting. You've been using it all thread.....
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.Sorry, let me just get this straight. You're actually saying that abstract paintings are not art?
I'm sorry, this demonstrates nothing, other than your ability to demonstrate nothing.Right here:
Bolding mine
So the fact that I stated that it means "in and of itself" ...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.
Figures you find that tactic interesting. You've been using it all thread.....
Now now. That's a little mean to Belz. I feel he's been trying quite hard.One trick pony. He goes with what he knows ... which dramatically limits his alternatives.
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.Sorry, let me just get this straight. You're actually saying that abstract paintings are not art?
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 thought you said it was the artist's intent that mattered.
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!If the artist's intent is for the art to be abstract what good is this new scale you want to invoke?
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!
Now now. That's a little mean to Belz. I feel he's been trying quite hard.
OMG - based on acting "merit", De Niro vs. Schwarzenegger? But who assigns it? How is it measured?What is this "merit" you speak of? Who assigns it? How is it measured?
OMG - based on acting "merit", De Niro vs. Schwarzenegger? But who assigns it? How is it measured?![]()
So on a scale of general acting merit (say 1-10) you'd rank each where?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.
So on a scale of general acting merit (say 1-10) you'd rank each where?
So on a scale of general acting merit (say 1-10) you'd rank each where?
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!Well, before I answer your questions, I feel it would only be fair if you answered some of mine
Mmm ... I think you'll find that it's "from", "different from". Interesting departure, given this, don't you think:If his ranking is different than yours, which one of you is right?
Trusting you're duly enlightened, but feel free to conduct your own research.Then ... your knowledge of the fundamentals of the English language ... is sadly deficient.
Perhaps I can enlighten you.
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!![]()
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 ...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!
Oh but this made sense. I'd think about responding, if only to keep you in the game.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".