• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Porn vs. Art

Southwind17 said:
So, in the context of a debate as to whether porn = art per se, what type of "arousal", exactly, are you alluding to that you believe serves to help answer the question?!
Click to expand...


I have no idea, since the context to the response of mine you were quoting is a comment about this thread as art.

That would be, this thread "per se", of course.
 
Southwind17 said:
I'm pleased you found somewhere! What does it really mean? It means there is "directed purpose" or "non-random cause" involved in creating it. And that, my friend, is an essential characteristic of "art", noting, however, and importantly, that not everything resulting from directed purpose or non-random cause necessarily qualifies as "art" (such as "found art", for example). Wow, indeed!
Click to expand...

What in the blue hell are you talking about ? The sequence of 1s and 0s is something that could arise from random processes. Or did you suddenly convert to theism ? There is no need for an intelligent agent in order for patterns to emerge. Meaning, however, by definition, requires intelligence. But the meaning is not inherent to the pattern.

Care to offer an example?
Click to expand...

Snowflakes.

I assure you, It's hardly any effort at all.
Click to expand...

You mean you do this on such a regular basis that it's become second nature for you to take the contrary position ? Well call those trolls, here.

What meaning do you, personally, give to the pattern on this flag?

I'm willing to bet that you give it exactly the same meaning as I, personally, do. Wow, what a coincidence!
Click to expand...

I give it no meaning at all. There is a conventional meaning to that pattern, which is why we can both agree to what it means, but give it to someone who is unaware of the convention, and see what happens.
 
Southwind17 said:
Nope - that's a natural occurrence, or are you alluding to the actual photo of that natural occurrence? The photo is probably art, as skill was probably applied in creating it.
Click to expand...

That raises an interesting point. What if some skill-less guy simply snapped a shot, and poorly at that, but another bloke chooses to hang the picture on a wall because he finds it artistic ? Does it qualify as art, or not ?

I fear you're getting more and more in Southwind mode, where you simply retort with insults to cover the fact that you understand nothing of your own argument.
Click to expand...

"The fact". What "fact"? You can prove such "fact", presumably?
Click to expand...

You know, since I mention "what fact" in the very passage you were quoting, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what fact I'm talking about, unless you didn't read it, which would go a long way towards proving that fact, as you asked.

No. A rational poster would make rational posts.
Click to expand...

Well, at least he'd make posts not entirely devoted to insult other people. Or perhaps you think rationality is all about doing just that.
 
Southwind17 said:
Well, I'd never go so far as to say "never" (who really knows what the future holds?!), but otherwise I was right - you've caught on! Well done.
Click to expand...

So, in other words you are simply always right, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. I see that must be why you can't be bothered to argue your case: since we're all idiots, apparently, all we deserve is derision.

I'm sure that's how a rational person behaves.
 
Southwind17 said:
"No" to the question as to whether it can be classified as "art", presumably. In which case I'm inclined to agree, on the basis that "erotic art", per the link in your link, is defined primarily as "artistic work" of an erotic nature, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

So it's artistic work of an erotic nature, but it can ABSOLUTELY never be erotic work of an artistic nature ?

You, sir, are hilarious.
 
Belz... said:
What in the blue hell are you talking about ? The sequence of 1s and 0s is something that could arise from random processes.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean like monkeys typing Shakespeare?!

Belz... said:
Snowflakes.
Click to expand...
I didn't notice one occurrence of the word "random" in this. Interesting.

Belz... said:
I give it no meaning at all. There is a conventional meaning to that pattern, which is why we can both agree to what it means, but give it to someone who is unaware of the convention, and see what happens.
Click to expand...
The meaning of a pattern derives from how the pattern is formed. The pattern on a chequered flag derives its meaning generally from convention, as you rightly say. If such convention did not exist its meaning would derive from the process by which the pattern is formed. In other words one should identify and understand what directed process has caused the pattern, why and how. That would then give it meaning. The meaning of this particular (non-random) pattern (of paint dispersion), for example:

... derives its meaning from what it patently depicts.

As patterns become more and more "obscure", or "disorderly", however, their meaning, similarly, tends to become so, because the directed effort that produces them becomes ... well ... less directed!

The meaning of this particular (non-random) pattern (of paint dispersion), for example:

... is not apparent and would require an explanation from the artist as to why and how the shape, symmetry, colours, etc. were chosen/formed.

Whereas the "meaning" of this particular (essentially random) pattern (of paint dispersion), for example:

... is likely so obscure or tenuous (if asked of the "artist") that it has no rational explanation. Hence it would qualify as art no more than the image left by an accidentally dropped pot of paint would.
 
Belz... said:
That raises an interesting point. What if some skill-less guy simply snapped a shot, and poorly at that, but another bloke chooses to hang the picture on a wall because he finds it artistic ? Does it qualify as art, or not ?
Click to expand...
No.

Belz... said:
You know, since I mention "what fact" in the very passage you were quoting, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what fact I'm talking about, unless you didn't read it, which would go a long way towards proving that fact, as you asked.
Click to expand...
Oh ... I see now. That you succeed the words "what fact" with some other words in your writing necessarily makes those other words factual. What an enviously omnipotent position you behold!
 
Belz... said:
So it's artistic work of an erotic nature, but it can ABSOLUTELY never be erotic work of an artistic nature ?
Click to expand...
No, it ABSOLUTELY can be, but erotic work (let's call it "porn") of an artistic nature (meaning containing some artistic merit, I'd prefer to say) can ABSOLUTELY never be art per se

Belz... said:
You, sir, are hilarious.
Click to expand...
And you, sir, are puzzled.
 
Southwind17 said:
I didn't notice one occurrence of the word "random" in this. Interesting.
Click to expand...

The point is, KneeJerk17, that pattern emerges without intelligent meaning.

The meaning of a pattern derives from how the pattern is formed.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you were using a completely different definition of "meaning" than everybody else. Okay, NOW I understand your point.

Of course, using the same definitions as everybody else would've helped.
 
Southwind17 said:
Oh ... I see now. That you succeed the words "what fact" with some other words in your writing necessarily makes those other words factual. What an enviously omnipotent position you behold!
Click to expand...

Okay, apparently I'm going to have to be even MORE explicit.

YOU said that BECAUSE Michaelangelo was a artist, we categorized his works as ART. This means that ART is defined as what an artist DOES, and therefore that you CANNOT define an artist as one who creates art, as that would be circular. That's the part you don't understand, since you argue that it isn't the case, and therefore it is a fact that you don't understand the implications of your own words.

No, it ABSOLUTELY can be, but erotic work (let's call it "porn") of an artistic nature (meaning containing some artistic merit, I'd prefer to say) can ABSOLUTELY never be art per se
Click to expand...

So something that is artistic isn't necessarily art ?

And you, sir, are puzzled.
Click to expand...

Har har har. You certainly showed me! :rolleyes:
 
Belz... said:
The point is, KneeJerk17, that pattern emerges without intelligent meaning.
Click to expand...
No. The point is it emerges for a reason. It's not random.

Belz... said:
Oh, so you were using a completely different definition of "meaning" than everybody else. Okay, NOW I understand your point.
Click to expand...
Odd - you can read everybody's mind except mine! So you're not quite omnipotent. I see.
 
Belz... said:
Okay, apparently I'm going to have to be even MORE explicit.

YOU said that BECAUSE Michaelangelo was a artist, we categorized his works as ART. This means that ART is defined as what an artist DOES, and therefore that you CANNOT define an artist as one who creates art, as that would be circular. That's the part you don't understand, since you argue that it isn't the case, and therefore it is a fact that you don't understand the implications of your own words.
Click to expand...
Let's compare. Because Bob the Builder is a builder we categorize his work as "building". OK so far. This means that "building" is defined as what Bob the Builder does. Seems good to me: if x = y then y = x.

Belz... said:
So something that is artistic isn't necessarily art ?
Click to expand...
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom