Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

Fair enough. Then do you agree that Duchamp's urinal, pretty much all of Warhol's works, 4'33'' and Mulholland Drive all apply? (well, the 4'33'' isn't visual, but I assume this can be extended to music as well?)

What do you think? Do they fit the definition or not? You seem satisfied that the definition is reasonably clear.

Nothing can be assumed with SW. As it stands music is not art to him. Perhaps he will revise his current definition to include it.

I can't speak for the US, but in both the UK and Australia primary and secondary (higher) education systems, at least, music and art are distinctly separate subjects with distinctly separate qualifications. What do you suppose that indicates?

So far we've got ...

"A work created by a person skilled in making those kinds of works, that is generally accepted as art by virtue of its primary inherent ability to evoke visual gratification in the viewer."

​

So we are currently limited to ...

"skilled" - we'll need a definition for what constitutes "skilled". No amateurs need apply. That means everyone was wrong about Anna Moses, I guess.

Since when did "skill" and "amateurism" become mutually exclusive!? What do you understand by the term "amateur dramatics", for example? People performing drama who possess no acting skills? Or an amateur golfer? Somebody who, despite seriously partaking, cannot actually play golf?

"generally accepted" - there's a real escape clause here. We know that by SW standards millions of people considering something to be art doesn't count, nor does the ability to command millions of dollars in price, so neither public approbation nor financial merit are valid indicators of "generally accepted". We'll have to fine tune that.

"visual" - seems somewhat limiting. Not only does that blow off music, but cooking is right out, too. (I can't stomach that. )

Well, I've not noticed many school kids bringing cookies and guitars home from their art classes, have you?! Now, "home economics", "domestic science", etc. ... mmm ... cups cakes and scones ... yes please!

I can foresee trouble with "primary", "inherent", "evoke", and "gratification" up the road, but we need to start off with the obvious problems.

The "obvious problem" seems to be that you can't seem to make up your mind what just about any word in the English language means. Accordingly, I honestly can't understand your purpose here!

Yeah, but what I'm really worried about is the "primary inherent ability to evoke visual gratification in the viewer". I can't think of any object in the universe with the primary quality of being able to evoke visual gratification. I'd say the primary quality of any object, art or not, is a bunch of atoms in a clump. It's starting to seem to me that the group of "true art pieces" excludes all real, existing objects in the universe, and only platonic ideals apply. What this means for the art industry I shudder to think of.

And again ...

So you don't actually want this argument to go anywhere? Fine ... but if you insist on derailing this again, I'll be forced to abandon this debate as a lost cause.

If you really can't contextualize what I've written then I'm afraid a can't help you. I suppose that leaves you no option but to abandon the lost cause then, yes?!

 

[Southwind17]

No, not enough said. You are making conclusive judgements about things that you know nothing about. In fact, you know so little about them, you don't even realize that the urinal referenced is not an actual Warhol work.

I do now. Doesn't alter my view though, interestingly!

Why do you think it is appropriate for you to make conclusive judgements about things that you have NO knowledge about?

I know what a urinal is.

Please look up the Industrial music genre.

OK - looked it up. Now what?

Hmm... More commenting on something that you admittedly know nothing about.

Like a urinal, you mean?!

Do you really think that's wise?

Forget hammers or any other "distressing" sound. Even complete absence of any sound at all, has qualified as music and thus, as art

I'm sorry - "qualified"?

I didn't say it did. In fact, I think he more than met Southwind's challenge, since Southwind's challenge was structured in such a way that the "road crew" bit was entirely unnecessary.

Entirely unnecessary! So what, exactly, would "or such like" mean without a precursor?

Besides, the fact that there IS a genre of music called "noise" just blows his whole claim out of the water.

Well, there might be a genre of something that "noise" falls into, but it certainly isn't music. Some of it might even have some musical merit, like some porn has artistic merit, but that doesn't qualify it as music per se.

 

[Morrigan]

Oh dear.

 

[Southwind17]

Oh dear.

Tum ... te .. tum .. tum .. tum ...

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm sorry - <snip>

Don't apologize. It's ok. I accept that you can't understand this. Not everyone wants to can.

 

[Complexity]

I like porn (legal gay porn, that is).

I like art (need not be legal or gay).

No vs. about it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

What do you think? Do they fit the definition or not? You seem satisfied that the definition is reasonably clear.

Yes, they do. The definition of art^WP I proposed pages ago was to the effect of

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions

And as this is also how the wikipedia article starts, it's clear this view is shared by at least the majority of people who use wikipedia.

Note that this explanation does not hinge on whether each of the works affects your emotions in particular. (though I suspect they do; sneering sense of superiority is an emotion too)

I can't speak for the US, but in both the UK and Australia primary and secondary (higher) education systems, at least, music and art are distinctly separate subjects with distinctly separate qualifications. What do you suppose that indicates?

What it indicates is that in this case, the word "art" is actually the short form of the term visual arts^WP. Perhaps you've been confusing the terms with each other this whole time? Should the title of the thread be "Porn vs. Visual arts"?

Well, I've not noticed many school kids bringing cookies and guitars home from their art classes, have you?! Now, "home economics", "domestic science", etc. ... mmm ... cups cakes and scones ... yes please!

They do bring these home from classes that fall within the range of the arts. This is yet another case of confusing different terms with each other. We have not been discussing visual arts exclusively; if you have, then that may be the source of our discrepancy. I suggest from now on, to avoid confusion you use the term "visual art" instead of plain "art".

The "obvious problem" seems to be that you can't seem to make up your mind what just about any word in the English language means. Accordingly, I honestly can't understand your purpose here!

As art^WP, the arts^WP, visual arts^WP, performing arts^WP and fine art^WP, to name a few, are all sometimes referred to simply as "art", depending on context, I can understand your confusion. Nevertheless, if you wish to have a fruitful conversation in English, it is vital to understand that a word's meaning ofter changes depending on context. When in doubt, it helps to use a synonym.

If you really can't contextualize what I've written then I'm afraid a can't help you. I suppose that leaves you no option but to abandon the lost cause then, yes?!

I really don't get statements like this. Sure, I said it in a light-hearted manner, but my point was essentially "I don't understand what is meant by 'primary quality' here, as the term seems irrelevant and contradictory". It's very poor argumentation to say "Well, if you can't understand me, then I can't explain it better". The fact is, if you have a point, you can reword it. Failure to do so can only mean two things: either there isn't a point to what you're saying, or you're being deliberately vague about it. Either way, your debating skills fail to impress.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I do now. Doesn't alter my view though, interestingly!

No, you still don't.

I know what a urinal is.

Do you know that Duchamp's urinal was not an urinal, per se? At least not any more so than the Mona Lisa is a canvas, per se.

Well, there might be a genre of something that "noise" falls into, but it certainly isn't music. Some of it might even have some musical merit, like some porn has artistic merit, but that doesn't qualify it as music per se.

Noise music isn't the same as plain old noise. Again you're confusing homonyms with each other. The popular definition of music^WP is:

Music is an art form whose medium is sound.

Remember that the "art^WP" meant here is:

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.

So there should be no question that Noise music^WP does indeed fall under this category.

Noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and sound art that may use elements such as cacophony, dissonance, atonality, noise, indeterminacy, and repetition in their realization.

 

[Southwind17]

Don't apologize.

I'm sorry?

 

[tesscaline]

I do now. Doesn't alter my view though, interestingly!


I know what a urinal is.

Argument from incredulity. You don't see how something described as a urinal could possibly be art, therefore anyone who says it's art is wrong.

OK - looked it up. Now what?

It meets the criteria that you asked for.

Entirely unnecessary! So what, exactly, would "or such like" mean without a precursor?

There was a precursor. I've quoted it already in this thread.

Well, there might be a genre of something that "noise" falls into, but it certainly isn't music. Some of it might even have some musical merit, like some porn has artistic merit, but that doesn't qualify it as music per se.

More argument from incredulity.

 

[Marcus]

Well, there might be a genre of something that "noise" falls into, but it certainly isn't music. Some of it might even have some musical merit, like some porn has artistic merit, but that doesn't qualify it as music per se.

So some porn has artistic merit, but that same porn can't be art. Perhaps a semantic argument like this is not worth so much bandwidth, but it still seems like a very strange position.

 

[Southwind17]

You don't see how something described as a urinal could possibly be art, therefore anyone who says it's art is wrong.

"Described as a urinal"! It IS a urinal. Nothing more, nothing less, i.e. something that men pee into without a second thought. Hence, you're right, I don't see how it can possibly be art. Moreover, anyone who says it's art is not only wrong, but woefully deluded. But that's their problem, not mine. Good luck to them.

As for Wikipedia's entry "Fountain (Duchamp)", I have to say, I don't think I've ever read such drivel and absolute nonsense. It's laughable, as is anybody who takes such work seriously.

It meets the criteria that you asked for.

Excuse me? I asked for a commonly accepted meaning of "music" that the "noise of a road gang in full flow" fitted into. If said road gang in full flow is the criteria (sic) that you're alluding to I really don't think a general reference to the industrial music genre satisfies that by a long shot.

There was a precursor. I've quoted it already in this thread.

That's helpful.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, they do. The definition of art^WP I proposed pages ago was to the effect of

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.

And as this is also how the wikipedia article starts, it's clear this view is shared by at least the majority of people who use wikipedia.

Mmm ... "deliberately arranging elements". So that would preclude this then, no?:

Forget hammers or any other "distressing" sound. Even complete absence of any sound at all, has qualified as music and thus, as art ...

It also, improperly, includes braille, odoration of natural gas, roller coasters, funeral services, carpet bombing and stress balls, to name but a few innumerable examples. Doesn't really seem like a very useful definition, does it!

What it indicates is that in this case, the word "art" is actually the short form of the term visual arts^WP. Perhaps you've been confusing the terms with each other this whole time? Should the title of the thread be "Porn vs. Visual arts"?

Mmm ... interesting point. But perhaps it's not I but others who might have been confused. After all, the title of the thread is "Porn vs. Art", not "Porn vs. the Arts"!

They do bring these home from classes that fall within the range of the arts. This is yet another case of confusing different terms with each other. We have not been discussing visual arts exclusively; if you have, then that may be the source of our discrepancy. I suggest from now on, to avoid confusion you use the term "visual art" instead of plain "art".

Or maybe simply "art" in lieu of "the arts"?

As art^WP, the arts^WP, visual arts^WP, performing arts^WP and fine art^WP, to name a few, are all sometimes referred to simply as "art", depending on context, I can understand your confusion. Nevertheless, if you wish to have a fruitful conversation in English, it is vital to understand that a word's meaning ofter changes depending on context. When in doubt, it helps to use a synonym.

Thanks for those words of wisdom. So, in the context of the thread title your proposed synonym for "art" would be what, "visual art"?

I really don't get statements like this. Sure, I said it in a light-hearted manner, but my point was essentially "I don't understand what is meant by 'primary quality' here, as the term seems irrelevant and contradictory".

"Irrelevant and contradictory"? How so?

It's very poor argumentation to say "Well, if you can't understand me, then I can't explain it better".

It's not "argumentation"; more observation, if not matter of fact. I suppose it stems from your "light-hearted manner". When in doubt, it helps to be earnest!

The fact is, if you have a point, you can reword it. Failure to do so can only mean two things: either there isn't a point to what you're saying, or you're being deliberately vague about it. Either way, your debating skills fail to impress.

Actually, there's a third, if not more, but I'd prefer not to go there, and which does, however, and ironically, invalidate your conclusion, as personal a view, in any event, as that might be!

 

[Southwind17]

So some porn has artistic merit, but that same porn can't be art. Perhaps a semantic argument like this is not worth so much bandwidth, but it still seems like a very strange position.

As strange as "Inglorious Basterds", for example, not being of the comedy genre but having comical elements to it?!

 

[tesscaline]

"Described as a urinal"! It IS a urinal. Nothing more, nothing less, i.e. something that men pee into without a second thought. Hence, you're right, I don't see how it can possibly be art. Moreover, anyone who says it's art is not only wrong, but woefully deluded. But that's their problem, not mine. Good luck to them.

As for Wikipedia's entry "Fountain (Duchamp)", I have to say, I don't think I've ever read such drivel and absolute nonsense. It's laughable, as is anybody who takes such work seriously.

More argument from incredulity.

Excuse me? I asked for a commonly accepted meaning of "music" that the "noise of a road gang in full flow" fitted into. If said road gang in full flow is the criteria (sic) that you're alluding to I really don't think a general reference to the industrial music genre satisfies that by a long shot.


That's helpful.

No, that's not what you asked for.

Please show me a commonly accepted meaning of "music" that includes the noise made by a jack-hammer. Maybe you can go further and link to a CD on Amazon, for example, being a recording of a road gang in full flow, or such like!

Bolding mine.

You have been provided with several examples of such and instead of accepting them and admitting defeat you are now moving goalposts to claim that you asked for something much more specific.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

As for Wikipedia's entry "Fountain (Duchamp)", I have to say, I don't think I've ever read such drivel and absolute nonsense. It's laughable, as is anybody who takes such work seriously.

So basically you disagree that some forms of artistic expression are art at all. I believe you've made a mistake then, when chosing the title for your thread. The correct title for this discussion is "Southwind vs Art"


(By the way, the score is and will remain to be: Southwind 0 - Art 1)

 

[not daSkeptic]

"Described as a urinal"! It IS a urinal. Nothing more, nothing less, i.e. something that men pee into without a second thought. Hence, you're right, I don't see how it can possibly be art. Moreover, anyone who says it's art is not only wrong, but woefully deluded.

...

As for Wikipedia's entry "Fountain (Duchamp)", I have to say, I don't think I've ever read such drivel and absolute nonsense. It's laughable, as is anybody who takes such work seriously.

You're entitled to your opinion, but an opinion is all it is. Not everybody necessarily views things as having a singular purpose.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Mmm ... "deliberately arranging elements". So that would preclude this then, no?:

Did you listen to the youtube video of 4'33'' posted? In the beginning, the performer says: "The elements that make up music are sound and silence". (May not be word for word).

There's no reason why you can't make an art piece by arranging just one element repeatedly. The important thing is the attempt to evoke emotion.

It also, improperly, includes braille, odoration of natural gas, roller coasters, funeral services, carpet bombing and stress balls, to name but a few innumerable examples. Doesn't really seem like a very useful definition, does it!

No, it's not improper. Any elements can be used to produce art. All it takes is for them to be arranged with the intention of evoking emotion.

Mmm ... interesting point. But perhaps it's not I but others who might have been confused. After all, the title of the thread is "Porn vs. Art", not "Porn vs. the Arts"!

All my points so far have been that the word "art" means something completely different from what you claim. This is a fact. The definitions of words are decided by common opinion, and so far, you've been unable to provide even a single person who agrees with your view. As such, you are either speaking a different language, or just wrong.

Or maybe simply "art" in lieu of "the arts"?

You haven't referred to the arts at all. You've been referring to something you call "art", but that is something else. I don't know of a word for what you claim is art.

Thanks for those words of wisdom. So, in the context of the thread title your proposed synonym for "art" would be what, "visual art"?

I've been talking about art. You have been talking about something I don't know a name for. If you are referring to things that agree with your definition of "art" a few posts ago, I think you'll have to make up a new word. I suggest "swart".

"Irrelevant and contradictory"? How so?

I don't think anything has the primary quality of being visually anything. I don't understand how anything could. Could you explain what such an object would be like?

It's not "argumentation"; more observation, if not matter of fact. I suppose it stems from your "light-hearted manner". When in doubt, it helps to be earnest!

And that's your problem. If you used half the time you used for making snide observations to actual argumentation, this thread might go somewhere.

Actually, there's a third, if not more, but I'd prefer not to go there, and which does, however, and ironically, invalidate your conclusion, as personal a view, in any event, as that might be!

So let me get this straight. You have a point, which I don't understand. You refuse to clarify it, though, for reasons you won't discuss.

Well gee, I guess all I can do now is bow before your superior intellgence.



The main point:

The definition of "art" wikipedia provides is the commonly accepted one. You cannot overturn this fact without providing an equally authoritative source that disagrees. Though if you can provide even one person who agrees with your view, I promise to discuss it further. If you cannot do either, your options are:

1) Accept that you have not been talking about art in the common meaning of the word

2) Make the statement you believe your opinion overrules those of all other people

3) Ignore this information and make more snide remarks


I'm going to make a guess here to what your answer will be. Now don't peek before posting, as that would spoil the fun!

The amount of holes in a bowling ball.

 

[Toke]

"Described as a urinal"! It IS a urinal. Nothing more, nothing less, i.e. something that men pee into without a second thought. Hence, you're right, I don't see how it can possibly be art. Moreover, anyone who says it's art is not only wrong, but woefully deluded. But that's their problem, not mine. Good luck to them.

I see no problem with admiring an urinal as a piece of art while relieving myself in it.
And some say men cannot multi-task?

 

[Southwind17]

More argument from incredulity.

I'd prefer to call it argument from absurdity, which seems perfectly valid to me.

No, that's not what you asked for.

You're saying the "Industrial Music" genre = the sound of jack hammers. It's that simple?