Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

Yes. Architects "build". For all of their other faults (which are legion) they do indeed build.

Where I've lived (three continents) architects, without exception, design and specify. Civil and building contractors build. Must be different where you live.

I have worked very closely with them, in the field, on projects ranging from many hundreds of millions of dollars to a piddly few million. For decades. I've worked in construction as a hands-on, boots-in-the-mud, concrete spattered professional "builder" of buildings large and small (mostly very large) pretty much full time since the early seventies. I've worked at (and been paid for) nearly every trade in the field from ditch digging laborer to carpenter to iron worker to field engineer to general superintendent.

What are your credentials as an expert in what it means to "build"?

Not sure my answering this is relevant now, but I can assure you, if you think my credentials "as an expert in what it means to "build"" determine the strength of my argument I strongly caution against insisting!

Yours sincerely
Southwind17 BSc MRICS

 

[tesscaline]

I agree. Not the best choice of word, "purely", I suppose. Regardless.

Regardless, what? You yourself say that your argument hinges upon the use of "per se", and yet, you yourself are using the term incorrectly. And then you have the gall to accuse other people of not knowing what it means, when you obviously don't even know what it means yourself. Personally, I'm not about to disregard that.

What, exactly, do you think "per se" means?

 

[Southwind17]

Regardless, what? You yourself say that your argument hinges upon the use of "per se", and yet, you yourself are using the term incorrectly.

I am? Where?

And then you have the gall to accuse other people of not knowing what it means, when you obviously don't even know what it means yourself.

I don't? How so?

What, exactly, do you think "per se" means?

Let's try "simply", instead of "exactly", although it should suffice for both:

per se in and of itself

Example: I find it entertaining to watch "Most Shocking". What is shown on "Most Shocking", however, is not entertainment per se. It's shootings, car crashes, train wrecks and other accidents, generally, per se.

 

[JFrankA]

Although implied ("clearly") I'm not really relying on the article for my argument, but I thought it was a good prompt for my re-assertion. BTW - I'm stll not sure you appreciate what "per se" means.

How pathetic.

This is your original post:

Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think.

You did not imply anything. You made a veiled insult, but there was nothing else implied. You even used the word "clearly". (There, see - first word).

I fairly illustrated to you how your own article that you use as a defense for your opinion doesn't defend your opinion at all; thereby challenging you. And as a rebuttal, instead of debating that, instead of defending your opinion, you instead choose to taunt me by saying I misuse a word because I used it just like you do.

How utterly pathetic.

Do me a favor. If I'm ever in a fight, please don't be on my side....

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely it's very useful, and you've hit the nail right on the head. We can assign meaning to absolutely everything (defined as "how a thing comes about")can we?

You are shifting definitions, again. If you say the meaning is inherent to the pattern, we don't NEED to assign meaning to it because it already has it. You are switching between the usual definition of "meaning" and the Southwind definition. Could we stick to one ?

What meaning, then, do you assign to this?:

None. It's too small and I can't make heads or tails of it.

... other than, of course, a technical description of the rudimentary process of dispersing paint across canvas, which, of course, equally applies to all such "paintings".

Yes, but that's not "meaning" to me.

Yes, like I asked, like monkeys typing Shakespeare? Not very helpful to the discussion, though, is it!

So you now agree that random forces can result in patterns ?

Correct, we don't define art as "something created by an artist", it would make little or no sense, just like defining "golf" as "a game played by a golfer". That's not what I've said, though. I've said that if something is art then it's necessarily created by an artist, just like golf is necessarily played by a golfer. I haven't defined "art" as "something created by an artist", but I have claimed that art is only created by artists, and I stand by that. I sincerey trust you see the difference.

Art is "only created by artists" because "artist" is defined as someone who does art. If that's what you meant with your Michaelangelo example, then it was worded poorly.

It's nice to see you admit to being wrong, however. Perhaps there's some hope yet.

 

[Belz...]

YAY - YOU'VE GOT IT! And please don't go claiming I'm just being pedantic. The whole purpose of the OP was to challenge the idea held by some that one can produce porn and seek to circumvent any allegation of such by claiming that it's simply, and purely (hence "per se") "art". The "per se" part of the OP is of critical importance.

So, let me get this straight. Porn can have artistic merit, therefore porn can be art, per se, but not ONLY art ?

That was your whole point ? Jeez, I wish you had said that from the beginning. The thread would've stopped after 1 post. Of course, instead you just uttered a single sentence, and expected everyone to be mind readers rather than post readers.

 

[Belz...]

I agree. Not the best choice of word, "purely", I suppose. Regardless.

Why am I not surprised that this entire thread exists only because you don't know the meaning of a term.

It's also very telling that you brush it aside, like that. No "Oops, sorry about that. Should've looked it up", but instead "Who cares ? Point stands"

 

[quadraginta]

So, let me get this straight. Porn can have artistic merit, therefore porn can be art, per se, but not ONLY art ?

That was your whole point ? Jeez, I wish you had said that from the beginning. The thread would've stopped after 1 post. Of course, instead you just uttered a single sentence, and expected everyone to be mind readers rather than post readers.

I'm pretty sure this part isn't right, vis. SW canon. Porn can be "artistic", but that doesn't mean it is "art". If it is porn, it is not "art", regardless of any "artistic" merit.

Somehow.

I can probably find where we were cautioned about that somewhere upthread, but I don't think I'll bother.

 

[BenBurch]

Hmmm... So if trolling is what a Troll does, then any trolling post is necessarily done by a Troll?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Hmmm... So if trolling is what a Troll does, then any trolling post is necessarily done by a Troll?

Not necessarily. It could be done by an artist with a troll hat.

 

[quadraginta]

Hmmm... So if trolling is what a Troll does, then any trolling post is necessarily done by a Troll?

Obviously a post may be trollistic without being a troll "per se".

I suppose it depends on whether there is "intent to arouse".

 

[Southwind17]

If you say the meaning is inherent to the pattern, we don't NEED to assign meaning to it because it already has it.

Exactly. That's what "meaning" means in relation to something created with direction, such as art. That's not to say, though, that the meaning will necessarily be apparent.

You are switching between the usual definition of "meaning" and the Southwind definition. Could we stick to one ?

The "usual" definition?

None. It's too small and I can't make heads or tails of it.

You "can't make heads or tails of it". I'm seriously tempted to rest my case at this point re. whether that particular painting constitutes "art"!

Yes, but that's not "meaning" to me.

What is it, then, to you?

So you now agree that random forces can result in patterns ?

That depends on what you mean by "random forces". I agree that, theoretically, an immortal monkey immune to RSI and incapacity from boredom could type the complete works of Shakespeare. I'm not sure that's an example of what you mean by "random force", though.

Art is "only created by artists" because "artist" is defined as someone who does art. If that's what you meant with your Michaelangelo example, then it was worded poorly.

Debatable, but if so I apologize.

It's nice to see you admit to being wrong ...

Wrong? About what?

 

[Southwind17]

So, let me get this straight. Porn can have artistic merit, therefore porn can be art, per se, but not ONLY art ?

This statement is what makes this statement:

That was your whole point ? Jeez, I wish you had said that from the beginning. The thread would've stopped after 1 post. Of course, instead you just uttered a single sentence, and expected everyone to be mind readers rather than post readers.

... so amusing.

What do you, think "per se" means?!

 

[Southwind17]

Why am I not surprised that this entire thread exists only because you don't know the meaning of a term.

It's also very telling that you brush it aside, like that. No "Oops, sorry about that. Should've looked it up", but instead "Who cares ? Point stands"

So Ian Woosnam, for example, falling short of the green on a par 3 and admitting it wasn't a "good choice of club" is no longer a great golfer. I like the way you think (not).

 

[Southwind17]

Porn can be "artistic", but that doesn't mean it is "art". If it is porn, it is not "art", regardless of any "artistic" merit.

Spot on. Like I wrote above, watching a soccer match can be entertaining. But soccer, per se, isn't entertainment, is it? It can't be, surely. Some people play it without spectators!

 

[Southwind17]

Hmmm... So if trolling is what a Troll does, then any trolling post is necessarily done by a Troll?

You're sharp as a tack!

 

[Southwind17]

Not necessarily. It could be done by an artist with a troll hat.

... or a golfer, too! Good to see you're following! But the wearing of a troll hat would then make them both trolls, and not artist/golfer (until they change hats again, of course)!

 

[Southwind17]

Obviously a post may be trollistic without being a troll "per se".

I don't see how a "post" can be a "troll" under any circumstances. You, too, have fallen way short of the green here, but I'll forgive you.

 

[Mirrorglass]

... or a golfer, too! Good to see you're following! But the wearing of a troll hat would then make them both trolls, and not artist/golfer (until they change hats again, of course)!

Well, as it's cold here, I am now a wool most of the day. Maybe that's why I'm having trouble following this thread.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. That's what "meaning" means in relation to something created with direction, such as art. That's not to say, though, that the meaning will necessarily be apparent.

No, wait. You appear to be still conflating the two definitions. Of course, the work of art was created in a certain way, but the "meaning" is different for everybody who looks at it.

The "usual" definition?

mean·ing   /ˈminɪŋ/ Show Spelled[mee-ning] Show IPA
–noun
1.what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
2.the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?

From Dictionary.com. None of those relate to function or workings. Just interpretation. "Meaning" is significance. It's a human invention.

You "can't make heads or tails of it". I'm seriously tempted to rest my case at this point re. whether that particular painting constitutes "art"!

The picture you showed me is too small for me to see any details. I can't tell if it's a painting or whatnot.

What is it, then, to you?

The process of how the painting was created. That's not meaning, as I explained above.

That depends on what you mean by "random forces". I agree that, theoretically, an immortal monkey immune to RSI and incapacity from boredom could type the complete works of Shakespeare. I'm not sure that's an example of what you mean by "random force", though.

Not really. I just meant that a random distribution of numbers (or quantum fluctuations) will yield patterns if you take a large enough sample, but that the pattenrs don't have a meaning, that is, there is no intent or significance to them as they are random. But it doesn't mean one can't intepret the pattern.

Of course, patterns created by intelligent agents are another matter, but it just serves to show that patterns have no meaning... per se.

Wrong? About what?

About art being defined as something done by an artist.