There is no possibility that you are correct in that particular belief. Your whole claim is that the definition of "art per se" excludes pornography. There is absolutely no way you can justify that claim without clarifying that definition.
I'm guessing that you've never seen one of these before:
Assuming that you haven't, then you have no definition for it, right? But I'd like to bet that you're confident it's not an elephant!
Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. What you can logically take from my post is that reality is more complicated than your simplistic arguments.
"Logically take". How so?
Can porn be art? It will depend on your definition of porn, and your definition of art. Just asserting your position with examples of the extremes does nothing to further the discussion, specially because even those examples can reasonably be challenged.
So what's
your "reasoning" for challenging
this as not being art, then?
I think you're using some unusual definitions there, but let's suppose that we agree to use your terms.
You've just pointed out that the "per se" is superfluous, so your claim is that porn can't be art.
I'm not sure how you interpret what I wrote as "point[ing] out that the "per se" is superfluous". You should realise by now that I believe the contrary. Just because I've claimed that "per se" and "just" are essentially synonymous doesn't render "per se" superfluous. Just because a water fight, for example, might be described as "just a bit of fun" doesn't preclude it from also necessarily being described as "a bit of fun per se" (as opposed to, say, "annoying somebody by drenching them per se").
On that note I'm still waiting for SkeptiChick to post pictures of a zebra per se and just a zebra. I'm keen to learn the difference by example!
That's wrong, porn can be art. Can't you see the difference between a well made porn film and a cardboard box?
You're asking
me that?! So, a porn film being "well made" qualifies it as art then, does it? I suppose this is art too, then, by the same token, right?:
It certainly looks well made to me!
This, for example, however ...
... is not art per se.
How so?
Please identify five such people. In my life, I have never once encountered such a person. I have, however, encountered people whose personal opinion is that certain mainstream cars are art, but never that they are intrinsically so.
- Why five?
- You, personally, have never encountered such a person, ergo no such person exists. Right
- "Intrinsically". What do you mean, "intrinsically"? That's not a word I've specifically used.
I might be willing to make such a statement concerning some 'super-cars', if not necessarily main-stream ones. It seems to me that in many such cars, transportation is a secondary function to aesthetics, which would certainly make them art 'per se' and a mode of transportation second.
So the
primary function determines the classification, and the secondary function(s) can be discounted, right? "Debbie Does Dallas" - porn or art, then?!
Cord Excalibur was art. Not sure about it being intrinsically art, but it certainly rose to the level of art.
But how do we judge things like the Dymaxion?
Again ... "intrinsically" art. Interesting term. As is "rose to the level of art". What "level" would that be, I wonder.
I might be willing to concede that that one can be disqualified from being art. Or a car.
So you have a definition, right?!
