Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

I don't intend to debate the circularity of your logic. It's plain for anyone to see on their own. I will, however, point out that circularity, and other flaws, so that those reading this thread who do not already know better are not pulled in by your sophistry.

Alleged circularity and flaws ... alleged.

You have still not answered the question from my previous posts. Please do so.

I'm sorry. I believe I have skipped over a few recent posts that I meant to go back to. Are you able to just clarify how far back the questions that you're alluding to go, i.e. which post - seriously. Thanks

 

[Southwind17]

The problem with this is you are assigning qualifiers to words that have no such qualifiers. A golfer is simply one who plays golf. A pianist is simply one who plays the piano. These words do not carry the requirement of qualification. Thus, while you may think these words only apply when one has reached a certain threshold, the definitions of these words do not support that view.

Simply wrong. What do you mean by "play"? I play the piano, by which I mean I have the requisite skill to make music on one. One of my sons does not play piano - he has no such skills. He can sit at the piano and bang away on the keys, as can I, except that he doesn't create music and I do. You're not seriously suggesting that in doing so my son is a pianist, are you?!

The fact that you think such thresholds even exist is the entire problem. You seem to want there to be some sort of universal, objective measure of quality. That cannot happen so long as everybody has a different idea of what constitutes good and bad. The reason you cannot define a threshold is because everyone disagrees as to where it should be.

But we typically do have objective measures of "quality". Have you really not heard of exams, trials, tests, interviews, qualifiers, auditions, reviews, etc.?!

 

[Southwind17]

Again, you fail to understand where you've gone wrong with your statements, despite it being explained to you. Yes, the generally applied to the first part of the sentence. However, you're failing, still, to understand the nuance of "per se". Per se is something to be used without qualification. Period. If a statement requires qualification, useof "per se" in regards to it is incorrect.

The use of "generally" says that the show you refer to is not always the things you have described. Therefore, it cannot be the things you have described "per se".

But I didn't qualify a statement. Use of "generally" certainly doesn't qualify it. It just serves to indicate generality of the subject matter, none of which, generally or specifically, constitutes entertainment per se. You are woefully confused.

Then why do you keep insisting you're using the term appropriately when you're most definitely not? I'm not the only person to point out the problem with your usage of "per se".

"Point out" being the operative words. You've demonstrated nothing, other than your inability to demonstrate anything.

I have repeatedly pointed out at least one instance. That you fail, continually, to not understand why your vocabulary usage is poor is not my problem.

Again, "point out". Irrelevant.

I will ask again: What intrinsic quality is necessary for something to be art, and remain art, no matter who is looking at it, without regard for anything other than the actual art, and without qualification?

Mainly, but not exclusively, that it demonstrates the application of skill by the artist.

 

[JFrankA]

There's nothing circular about that, because what it shows, now by introduction of the criterion for "skill", is that there's an implied definition of art. If art requires "skill" then that will be reflected somehow in the created work, as opposed to, say, a random "pattern" of paint on canvas. I believe the definition of "art" that I quoted from the Chambers Dictionary previously supports this reasoning.

Here is where you prove you haven't read the article nor the thread, especially my questions.

I'm sorry, SW. This isn't what the article says. Once again, I tell you that your article does not support your opinion.

 

[Belz...]

Contradict? It's wholly consistent, surely.

You're asking me if everything can be art, and then saying that things that have no apparent pattern aren't really art. Well, if you mean "no apparent pattern to anyone ever", sure. Unfortunately "things" are things created by people in your question, and therefore DO have a pattern, so it's hard to say they don't have an apparent pattern. In addition, what about abstract art ?

 

[Belz...]

You can seek to debate the circularity or otherwise of arguments as much as you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that artistry requires skill, and hence artwork, to be classed as such, must reflect the application of such skill (amongst other attributes, of course).

Nice try. That isn't the point of contention.

 

[Belz...]

Simply wrong. What do you mean by "play"? I play the piano, by which I mean I have the requisite skill to make music on one. One of my sons does not play piano - he has no such skills. He can sit at the piano and bang away on the keys, as can I, except that he doesn't create music and I do.

You're continuing to make up definitions as you go. Your son has no piano skills but can still PLAY on the piano, no matter how awful the results are.

Your adding of "skill" to the definition of artist is unnecessary.

An artist is someone who makes art as interpreted by himself or others. He doesn't have to do it well.

 

[Southwind17]

You're asking me if everything can be art, and then saying that things that have no apparent pattern aren't really art. Well, if you mean "no apparent pattern to anyone ever", sure. Unfortunately "things" are things created by people in your question, and therefore DO have a pattern, so it's hard to say they don't have an apparent pattern. In addition, what about abstract art ?

You do realise that "apparent" means something very different from "perceived" and "imagined", don't you?

Nice try. That isn't the point of contention.

It is for some.

You're continuing to make up definitions as you go. Your son has no piano skills but can still PLAY on the piano, no matter how awful the results are.

You do realise that "playing on the piano" can be very different from "playing piano", don't you? And before you assert, no, that's not semantics.

Your adding of "skill" to the definition of artist is unnecessary.

An artist is someone who makes art as interpreted by himself or others. He doesn't have to do it well.

In which case we're all artists, golfers, gymnasts, mathematicians, physicists, astronauts, deep sea divers ... Simply not true and blatently nonsensical.

 

[JFrankA]

The current line of debate is so far removed from "the article" it's not funny. Please remove the blinkers.

Ah. I see.

Translation: "You're right Frank. The article I posted to prove my point doesn't prove it at all, and, in fact, proves my point wrong. So I'm going to ignore it and see if I can come up with other bullpucky to see if I can slide it through and if someone uses the OP as a reference, I'll just insult them."

 

[BenBurch]

You're continuing to make up definitions as you go. Your son has no piano skills but can still PLAY on the piano, no matter how awful the results are.

Your adding of "skill" to the definition of artist is unnecessary.

An artist is someone who makes art as interpreted by himself or others. He doesn't have to do it well.

But even if you stipulate that some amount of exceptional skill is involved, porn, erotica, or even in-person performance of a sexual act by experts would qualify instantly as art when done with artistic intent or when seen through a filter of artistic discrimination.

 

[Southwind17]

But even if you stipulate that some amount of exceptional skill is involved, porn, erotica, or even in-person performance of a sexual act by experts would qualify instantly as art when done with artistic intent or when seen through a filter of artistic discrimination.

"Artistic intent" doesn't necessarily translate to "skill", let alone "exeptional skill" (wherever "exceptional" appeared from). I'm sure most children during an art class at school apply "artistic intent". That doesn't of itself (per se?!) qualify them as "artists". As for "a filter of artistic discrimination", well, although not an artistic application of vocabulary it's certainly imaginative, leaving much to interpretation. Not quite sure what one calls that!

ETA: I see you used the term "experts" and wonder what you mean by that. "Skilled" persons, maybe?!

 

[JFrankA]

Good - blinkers off. Now take a good look around.

Your lack of response and ignoring all my points and your insults are only making you screams of "I can't defend my points against your points, Frank. So I am wrong and you are right" only louder.

 

[Belz...]

You do realise that "apparent" means something very different from "perceived" and "imagined", don't you?

How can something be apparent without being perceived ?

You do realise that "playing on the piano" can be very different from "playing piano", don't you? And before you assert, no, that's not semantics.

Yes, it is, because I never said "playing ON". I said "play". Otherwise you'd argue that somebody with MORE skill than you is playing the piano MORE than you, which wouldn't make sense.

In which case we're all artists, golfers, gymnasts, mathematicians, physicists, astronauts, deep sea divers ... Simply not true and blatently nonsensical.

If you golf, you're a golfer, no matter how bad you are. Same goes for art. I'm surprised you deny this.

 

[Belz...]

Now you're proving you don't know the difference.

And you're wasting time. Why don't you explain the difference instead of prancing around ?

OMG - you can't even be bothered to look back at your last post to check your facts. No wonder you flounder here:

That was a typo. Your son can play the piano even with no playing skills. And your game of "gotcha" is getting boring.

As I said, otherwise someone with MORE skill than you plays the piano MORE, for some reason.

So at what point does somebody training to be a pilot actually become a pilot? As soon as they set foot in the cockpit on their first lesson?!

As soon as they can actually fly the plane. Unless you mean "at what point does he get his license."

 

[tesscaline]

But I didn't qualify a statement. Use of "generally" certainly doesn't qualify it. It just serves to indicate generality of the subject matter, none of which, generally or specifically, constitutes entertainment per se. You are woefully confused.

You said yourself that "generally" was a qualifier.

"Point out" being the operative words. You've demonstrated nothing, other than your inability to demonstrate anything.


Again, "point out". Irrelevant.

Right...

Mainly, but not exclusively, that it demonstrates the application of skill by the artist.

And now you don't know the meaning of the word "intrinsic". Okay.

 

[tesscaline]

But we typically do have objective measures of "quality". Have you really not heard of exams, trials, tests, interviews, qualifiers, auditions, reviews, etc.?!

Oh, so you don't know the meaning of "objective" either now.

See... Fantasy land where words mean something to you that they don't mean to the rest of the world.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I don't find that particular definition objectionable.

This is not what I asked. Lack of disagreement is not agreement. Please answer the question.

 

[Southwind17]

This is not what I asked. Lack of disagreement is not agreement. Please answer the question.

Oh I get it. You asked a seemingly leading question that you desperately want a particular answer to, and you can't handle it when you don't get what you want. I answered your question, honestly. If you want a more definitive answer you'll have to contextualize the question, definitively, but you'll probably get an answer to a different question then, won't you!

Tell you what. Why don't you pretend I answered in the affirmative and continue your game of tag accordingly. After all, your tactic does depend on an affirmative answer, doesn't it, so there's surely only one way for you to proceed. It will, at least, be interesting watching you chase your tail!

 

[tesscaline]

Well now we'd better discuss what we respectively mean by "qualifer" in context, eh? You do know what "context" means, don't you, or would you like me to cite a dictionary entry to assist?!

Please do continue to demonstrate your own lack of understanding of the words you're using.

The fact of the matter is that if something is only generally made up of a certain set of characteristics, it cannot have those certain characteristics "per se". Claiming that it can demonstrates ignorance of the meaning of the term "per se".

There, see, I do. Hey, and "demonstration of application of skill" fits nicely! Okay?

There, see, I do. Hey, and what I wrote in relation thereto fits nicely! Okay?

Quoting a dictionary does not demonstrate your knowing the meaning of a word, or how to use it properly in conversation. It only demonstrates that you have the ability to use a quote function. If you did know the meaning of the word intrinsic, or the word objective, you would not have used them in the ways that you did.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Why don't you pretend I answered in the affirmative and continue your game of tag accordingly.

Can you answer the question or not?