Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

I don't have to deal with it. It's not a matter of me liking or disliking the answer. Your response was to a question not asked.

As a reminder, here's where things currently stand. You have claimed that art is something created by artists, and that an artist is one who possesses a certain level of skill in something. But when questioned as to what constitutes skill, you have been repeatedly evasive. One can only conclude from this that you lack the ability or the will to commit to a definition. Why is that?

No, here's where things currently stand (I've now highlighted part):

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!

Hence it is you who is being seemingly evasive. At best forgetful. Why is that?

 

[Southwind17]

All art serves the same purpose??

Generic purpose, yes.

 

[Southwind17]

Has no meaning to whom?

I'm sorry, that's a valid question, my fault. I mean common meaning.

 

[Southwind17]

It's a false dichotomy, plain and simple.

No it's not, simple and plain.

Really... so... What defines an artist again?

Somebody who applies skill in creating art.

Wrong.

Wrong

Wrong.

Wrong

So... Anything that is subjective is meaningless?

Can't you read?:

Second, and as I've pointed out before, anything (forget "art" for a moment) that relies for its definition and meaning on each individual beholder without at least some frame of reference has absolutely no meaning. [emphasis added]

Even subjectivity requires some frame of reference to have meaning. If the "quality" of something is totally subjective without some frame of reference the concept of "quality" itself in respect of that something becomes redundant.

 

[Southwind17]

There is, however, something quite wrong with "x tv show is a, b, c, and d, generally, per se".

There isn't when the generality of a, b, c, and d can be collectively classified, which they can in this case, namely "catastrophes". Catastrophes are not entertainment per se.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Seems we need to debate the word "agreed" now, too!

Oh quite. You wouldn't be you if you didn't say "I have no objections to that" and then later deny you agreed to it.

You haven't been paying attention, have you!

Oh of course not. I disagree with you, don't I?

 

[Belz...]

I never claimed that news isn't entertaining, did I? News is ("can sometimes be", to be accurate) entertaining. Point is, though, news isn't entertainment per se.

There you go again.

If it's entertaining, then it's entertainment. And, yes, news can be entertainement, per se.

 

[Belz...]

Art per se, no, never. Artistic, yes, sometimes.

Rational person: Can fish be salty ?
Southwind: Why, yes. It can be salty. But not salted... per se!

In short, art, per se, has no intention to sexually arouse. Porn has. Porn, therefore, cannot be art per se.

Since when does the definition of art preclude sexual arousal ? Or giggles ? Or anything else ?

See, ignorance is no lisence to make up definitions.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Certainly apropos of no specific poster or topic, I've been inspired to pick up the mantle of the dear departed Dr. A and only hope that I can honor the memory:

I am the very model of a poster aporetical
My arguments are textual, semantic, and rhetorical
I know the book Thesaurus, and I wax quite oratorical
On pornography to artistry, in order categorical
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters metaphorical
I understand allusions, both implicit and directional
About contextualization I am teeming with a lot o' news
With many cheerful facts about why art may not encompass screws
I'm very good at redirects and paraphrasing fabulous
I know three dozen meanings for the linking verbs I must discuss
In short, in matters textual, semantic, and rhetorical
I am the very model of a poster aporetical

I know the etymologies, both Latin and in Arabic
Though my artistry of language never strays to sexisyllabic
I quote in separate postings all the crimes of Frank and Ben and Belz
If you wish to find my meaning then my friend I simply wish you well
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Maplethorpes and Jeremys
I know the Mona Lisa from the moans of Jenaveve Jolie
So I can judge the worth of films that I have never seen before
By basing my opinion on the fact that there are breasts galore
Then I can write a dashing post through breathless microcommenting
Explaining why to not object is different than me agreeing
In short, in matters textual, semantic, and rhetorical
I am the very model of a poster aporetical

In fact, when I know without a doubt "per se" and "definition",
When I know it can't be art if there's a doggy-style position,
When at such things as arousal and nudity my nose is bent,
And when I know precisely what falls under entertainment,
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern trollery,
When I know more cheap tactics than a refugee from old slash B
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental hackery
You'll say a better poster there has never ever been than me
For my argumentative powers, though I'm plucky and loquaciousy
Have not convinced a single man since the start of this thread's history
But still, in matters textual, semantic, and rhetorical
I am the very model of a poster aporetical

 

[not daSkeptic]

No, here's where things currently stand (I've now highlighted part):

Hence it is you who is being seemingly evasive. At best forgetful. Why is that?

The pathetic thing is someone else already got you to say what I was trying to get you to say. The only reason I keep prodding you is because I find it interesting to see how creative people can be when they don't actually want to engage in honest discourse.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I'm sorry, that's a valid question, my fault. I mean common meaning.

Ok, so let me fix your quote then ...

... anything (forget "art" for a moment) that relies for its definition and meaning on each individual beholder without at least some frame of reference has absolutely no [common] meaning.

This I would agree with. But so what? Must everything have common meaning?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Presumably you're alluding to "golfers" who have already proven themselves so ...

Proven by whose standards? Yours? The PGA's?

 

[Belz...]

No, this is critical to the discussion, please answer the question: what, exactly, do you consider "flying a plane" means? Please describe what is required for somebody to fly a plane. Does everybody have the ability to fly a plane? If not, what is the difference between somebody who has the ability to fly a plane and somebody who does not?

Ugh. You are SOoooo going to dodge this one again. So be it. Flying a plane is managing to take it off the ground, move it around, and crash land it again.

See above - same principle. Please answer.

Sorry, that was MY question. A golfer is someone who plays golf. You say it isn't so. It's YOU who needs to explain yourself.

 

[Belz...]

Just another unsolicited example that demostrates you have little idea of what's being contested in this thread. But we've been there before, haven't we!

It's amazing the percentage of your posts that are devoted to telling people that they have no idea what you're talking about. Two possibilities spring to mind:

1) Everybody's a moron except you.

2) You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Southwind17]

Ugh. You are SOoooo going to dodge this one again. So be it. Flying a plane is managing to take it off the ground, move it around, and crash land it again.

Excellent - progress at last. So you agree that "managing to take it off the ground, move it around, and crash land it again" requires a degree of skill, right?

Sorry, that was MY question. A golfer is someone who plays golf. You say it isn't so. It's YOU who needs to explain yourself.

So, similar to the description you've provided for "flying a plane" please, now, offer a similar one-liner for "playing golf".

 

[Belz...]

Excellent - progress at last. So you agree that "managing to take it off the ground, move it around, and crash land it again" requires a degree of skill, right?

I suppose you could fly it through sheer luck, but it requires certain basic abilities at least, yes. But even mashing on a piano requires those.

So, similar to the description you've provided for "flying a plane" please, now, offer a similar one-liner for "playing golf".

Baby steps, Southwind. One thing at a time.

"Two possibilities spring to mind". Mmm ... just about sums you up, I suppose.

Wow. An insult by Southwind17. I never would've expected that.

May I suggest that you start thinking beyond whatever "springs to mind".

How can I possibly think beyond what I think ? Besides, if you REALLY want me to name MORE possibilities, which might not be to your advantage, I will be happy to oblige.

Might give you a "[better] idea [of] what [I'm] talking about"

That would be difficult, since possibility 2 is the most likely.

 

[Southwind17]

I suppose you could fly it through sheer luck, but it requires certain basic abilities at least, yes. But even mashing on a piano requires those.

Flying a plane requires "certain basic abilities". OK, I'll indulge you. What comparable "certain basic abilities" are required to "mash on a piano"? And by extension, what comparable "certain basic abilities" are required to "play golf"?

How can I possibly think beyond what I think ?

Thinking beyond what "springs to mind" (which I suppose is, basically, thinking per se!) is what we're talking about. I accept that English isn't your first language. However, with respect, I suggest you take time out from this Forum to improve it or quit goofing around with something you're clearly incapable of goofing around with, whichever of those is the cause of your obvious inability to comprehend and/or communicate at the requiste level here.

Besides, if you REALLY want me to name MORE possibilities, which might not be to your advantage, I will be happy to oblige.

Feel free.

 

[Belz...]

Flying a plane requires "certain basic abilities". OK, I'll indulge you. What comparable "certain basic abilities" are required to "mash on a piano"? And by extension, what comparable "certain basic abilities" are required to "play golf"?

The ability to use your hands and hear the sounds that come out of the piano. The ability to use your arms to swing something, presumably with the intent of hitting the ball. You don't need to be good at it in order to do it. Look at all the "drivers" on the roads, for example.

Thinking beyond what "springs to mind" (which I suppose is, basically, thinking per se!)

HA! Good one, I'll admit.

I accept that English isn't your first language. However, with respect, I suggest you take time out from this Forum to improve it or quit goofing around with something you're clearly incapable of goofing around with, whichever of those is the cause of your obvious inability to comprehend and/or communicate at the requiste level here.

Southwind, perhaps you haven't noticed, but you are the ONLY person on this thread who argues on your "side" of the issue. I submit, therefore, that everybody but you has an "obvious inability to comprehend and/or communicate", by that standard. Perhaps you should try to think "beyond what springs to mind" and consider that, perhaps, people who disagree with you aren't as stupid or impaired as you think, just because of the disagreement. Then, instead of trying to find ways to push the conversation forward with insults, you'll try to actually debate, something that has been thoroughly absent from your posts since several pages.

Oh, and I know what "per se" means. At least I didn't "poorly choose" my words, right in the OP, with that very expression. Also, just because I didn't know you could skip the question mark doesn't make me English-impaired. In fact, I bet you had no clue about English not being my first language until I mentioned it.

Feel free.

3) A space-time continuum distortion is preventing us from communicating properly.

4) Evil NWO agents are changing your posts to make them appear stupid.

5) You suffer from LaTourette Syndrome and feel obligated to spice up your posts with insults, but it's unintentional.

6) You really DO live in an alternate universe where 1 can be different from 1.

7) Your intelligence is such that it bends the rules of reality, leading to apparent contradictions that stem from the universe warping with time to accomodate your changes of mind.

8) You're puzzled.

 

[Southwind17]

The ability to use your hands and hear the sounds that come out of the piano. The ability to use your arms to swing something, presumably with the intent of hitting the ball. You don't need to be good at it in order to do it. Look at all the "drivers" on the roads, for example.

That would include all of those drivers who have had to pass a driving test first, right. You do realize the purpose of a driving test, don't you? If not, I can assure you, it's more than simply to test whether one can move one's arms, hands, legs, feet, head and eyes!

Southwind, perhaps you haven't noticed, but you are the ONLY person on this thread who argues on your "side" of the issue. I submit, therefore, that everybody but you has an "obvious inability to comprehend and/or communicate", by that standard.

Ahem ...

You don't need to be good at it in order to do it. Look at all the "drivers" on the roads, for example.

 

[Belz...]

That would include all of those drivers who have had to pass a driving test first, right. You do realize the purpose of a driving test, don't you? If not, I can assure you, it's more than simply to test whether one can move one's arms, hands, legs, feet, head and eyes!

And yet people are awful at it. AWFUL, I tell ya. Most of them can't make turns properly, don't indicate their intentions and are more often than not confused about what's going on about them.

I'd say this qualifies as a lack of skill, though apparently that's enough for those who give away driving lisences.

The point of my (admittedly slightly exaggerated) example is that "skill" is relative. How can you say that someone has "no skill whatsoever, and therefore isn't REALLY playing the piano, per se" ?