Porn vs. Art

[tesscaline]

Sure, it demonstrates that (which is self-evident and not denied anyhow ). But I asked you to show me where I'm using the term "per se" incorrectly, following your allegation that I am. What you quoted demonstrates nothing in that regard.

So your "I am? Where?" was not referring to "per se" being critical to your claim, but to your incorrect usage of "per se". See, you need to be specific about what portion of a quote you are referring to when you are only going to provide a vague 3 word response disputing it.

You misunderstand, which could be partly my fault, in which case I apologize. When I wrote:

... in response to:

I meant let's substitute "simply" for "exactly" in your question. Which is why I then went on to define "per se" in a very simple way thus:

I should have thought you could have figured this out given that you used the word "exactly" in your question but I didn't, in my "simple" definition!

Uh huh. So your poor writing skills are now other people's problems instead of your own.

For clarity, this is in response to the last paragraph of your quote above. Sure, you apologize at first. But then you turn around and throw an insult, and a poorly worded one at that.

You should have thought? This indicates that you didn't think that, but would have received a better outcome if you had thought that and acted accordingly. When, instead, you DID think that, and would have gotten a better outcome if you had not acted accordingly. What you mean to say is either "I thought" or "I shouldn't have thought".

If by "actual definition" you mean my "simple" definition then I disagree. I consider my example wholly consistent. If, however, you're alluding to a different definition then, please, feel free to share it with us.

Glaring? My errors?

Yes, your errors.

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.

Your "simple" definition is lacking, even your simple definition is not consistent with your example. How can something be "generally, in and of itself"? Either it is in and of itself, or it is not. This example of yours, using "generally, per se" demonstrates that you have no clue as to the actual meaning of the phrase "per se". Something cannot be "generally, intrinsically" anything. Either it is intrinsically something, or it is not. Even a quick wikipedia search would put you on better ground, vocabulary wise, than you are currently with regard to the use of "per se" -- though you really should brush up on your latin, as well as maybe take a language course, to really understand the nuances of the phrase.

Per se: through itself, by itself, in itself, intrinsically, without reference to anything other than itself, without qualification, by it's very nature, by definition, etc.

Are you familiar with "negligence per se"? If not, looking it up might help.

Fact of the matter is, you are using it incorrectly in many places in this thread. And the few places in which you use it correctly, your use of it renders the statements you couple it to meaningless. Your OP, for example. The statement "porn is not art, per se" is only meaningful if anything is art, per se. I asked you to demonstrate how anything is art, per se, but you could only provide some asinine circular logic about art being made by artists, who make art, but only when wearing "an artists hat" or some such nonsense. You still have yet to answer my question on that subject.

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

And if you come back with something about The Hay Wain being intrinsically art again, I'm probably going to laugh you off the face of the planet. It's not intrinsically anything other than paint on canvas (as someone else so aptly pointed out).

 

[Mr.D]

If a piece of performance art is created, then it seems it must have been created by an Artist (while wearing his 'performance artist' hat of course).

What if said artist is a Troll wearing both his troll hat AND his artist hat at the same time? Is it still art? Apparently it depends on the intent of the Troll/Artist. Unfortunately, one of the intrinsic (oh geez, there's that word) properties of Trolls is that they generally deny trolling.

So we have an interesting situation - If the Troll/Artist _says_ it's art, but it was intended to be a troll, then everyone else might think it's art, but it's NOT and only the Troll/Artist knows it.

On the other hand, if the intent was to create a troll as an artform and everyone else thinks it's a troll is it good art? If people respond, is it then a skilled troll creating bad art but a good troll? Or an unskilled artist accidentally trolling with good art?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You might wish to consider why people have taken to not responding to your posts, except you yourself. I know - loneliness - terrible affliction - wouldn't wish it upon anybody (well, not many).

It seems you're projecting as always. I have been having a debate here with Trane which only ended because he stopped responding at a given point.

As always, Southwind, you haven't been paying attention to the thread at all, have you?

 

[Southwind17]

So if something can intrinsically be art simply because it was created by an artist, then what defines one as an artist?

I thought we'd laid this to rest earlier. But to help with the definition of "artist" (maybe), think of the comparison between two people engaged in the game of golf; one with a decent handicap (not necessarily a pro, but think "pro" if you like) the other a complete hacker. The first, because of his inherent skill, could rightly call himself a "golfer" (at least while he's playing golf). The other could not. He might be trying to play golf (trying very hard, in fact), and could indeed be said to be playing golf, but he most certainly is not a golfer. You see the difference? It's that word "skill" (or an applicable synonym, depending on context).

Now, before you jump down my throat, that's not to say only scratch golfers (and eminent artists) can claim right of passage. There are, of course, degrees of skill, but a certain threshold has to be reached according to expected ability. Which is why a child prodigy, for example, could be rightly called a pianist, for example. A child (or adult!) simply banging away on the keys or even knocking out a half-decent rendition of "Chopsticks" cannot legitimately be called a "pianist", even if they practice it all day every day.

Now, please don't ask me to define such skill thresholds. I'll confess now that I can't. Put it this way, though, you tend to know a "golfer" or "pianist" when you see/hear one. Why not "artist"? Is there something uniquely different concerning the requisite skill threshold of an artist?

 

[Toke]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-real-monkeys-can-do-better-than-you

“Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer.” This was, of course, comedy gold because Pierre was a four-year-old chimp named Peter.

 

[tesscaline]

I thought we'd laid this to rest earlier. But to help with the definition of "artist" (maybe), think of the comparison between two people engaged in the game of golf; one with a decent handicap (not necessarily a pro, but think "pro" if you like) the other a complete hacker. The first, because of his inherent skill, could rightly call himself a "golfer" (at least while he's playing golf). The other could not. He might be trying to play golf (trying very hard, in fact), and could indeed be said to be playing golf, but he most certainly is not a golfer. You see the difference? It's that word "skill" (or an applicable synonym, depending on context).

Now, before you jump down my throat, that's not to say only scratch golfers (and eminent artists) can claim right of passage. There are, of course, degrees of skill, but a certain threshold has to be reached according to expected ability. Which is why a child prodigy, for example, could be rightly called a pianist, for example. A child (or adult!) simply banging away on the keys or even knocking out a half-decent rendition of "Chopsticks" cannot legitimately be called a "pianist", even if they practice it all day every day.

Now, please don't ask me to define such skill thresholds. I'll confess now that I can't. Put it this way, though, you tend to know a "golfer" or "pianist" when you see/hear one. Why not "artist"? Is there something uniquely different concerning the requisite skill threshold of an artist?

Skill at what, exactly?

 

[Southwind17]

So your "I am? Where?" was not referring to "per se" being critical to your claim, but to your incorrect usage of "per se".

Alleged incorrect usage, yes.

See, you need to be specific about what portion of a quote you are referring to when you are only going to provide a vague 3 word response disputing it.

It seemed obvious to me. I'm sorry you missed it.

Uh huh. So your poor writing skills are now other people's problems instead of your own.

Your readiness to allege faults in others (but not, by definition, being able to show so) as a cowardly attempt to deflect attention away from your own shortcomings is one such shortcoming. No doubt you'll respond to my highlighting this additional shortcoming with more deflection accordingly.

For clarity, this is in response to the last paragraph of your quote above. Sure, you apologize at first. But then you turn around and throw an insult, and a poorly worded one at that.

My stating that I should have thought you could have figured out my meaning given the clear and simple logic required is an insult?! I feel you're becoming over-sensitive now, or just more deflection from something you'd prefer not to admit, or even face up to.

You should have thought? This indicates that you didn't think that, but would have received a better outcome if you had thought that and acted accordingly. When, instead, you DID think that, and would have gotten a better outcome if you had not acted accordingly. What you mean to say is either "I thought" or "I shouldn't have thought".

You do realize, don't you, that the term "I should have thought" is somewhat colloquial, and should not, therefore, be interpreted literally? If not, it's most literal interpretation would, I suggest, be "I think", i.e. present tense, not past tense. I accept that might seem odd, but that's colloquialism for you!

Yes, your errors.

In which case I'll ask again - where?

Your "simple" definition is lacking, even your simple definition is not consistent with your example. How can something be "generally, in and of itself"? Either it is in and of itself, or it is not. This example of yours, using "generally, per se" demonstrates that you have no clue as to the actual meaning of the phrase "per se". Something cannot be "generally, intrinsically" anything. Either it is intrinsically something, or it is not. Even a quick wikipedia search would put you on better ground, vocabulary wise, than you are currently with regard to the use of "per se" -- though you really should brush up on your latin, as well as maybe take a language course, to really understand the nuances of the phrase.

You really are struggling with grammar and syntax here, aren't you. My use of "generally" was as a qualifier to "shootings, car crashes, train wrecks and other accidents", not "per se". If I'd meant it as you have wrongly interpreted it I would have written, "per se, generally". I should have thought you would have realized that!

Are you familiar with "negligence per se"? If not, looking it up might help.

Don't need to "look it up". That use of "per se" is no different from a million other every day examples that I'm also familiar with.

Fact of the matter is, you are using it incorrectly in many places in this thread.

Fact of the matter is you're unable to show where, largely if not exclusively because of your grammatical shortcomings.

 

[Southwind17]

Skill at what, exactly?

Golf, art, music, etc.

 

[Southwind17]

It seems you're projecting as always. I have been having a debate here with Trane which only ended because he stopped responding at a given point.

Indeed, I wonder why that is?!

Otherwise nobody seems to have seen merit in engaging in conversation with you regarding these last posts of yours:

Nevermind. It was clearly a mistaken hunch of mine. Looks like the sillyness is gonna keep going. But I am glad that at least, the true monster is now coming out and being discussed: Sophistry and poor (and perhaps intentional) use of language to defend irrational claims.

This feels like the beginning of the end of the thread as we know it.

I do not submit this to argue anyone's point on anything, but rather to offer an interesting contribution that Neuroscience has done to the study and definition of art (Or to put it in another way, the way humans define their own made up things, such as art).
Ramachandran on Art

And I thought this discussion couldn't get more ridiculous.

... since this particular enlightener, that is:

This thread is a piece of art.

... a mere 140 or so posts back!

Who said that?!

 

[Belz...]

So you elect to completely ignore the argument because you either disagree with or cannot assimilate it and consider that simply re-stating your position makes your case. Interesting tactic.

No, you're simply being incoherent.

Well I can tell you now that it's both a painting (as in paint on canvas) and whatnot, meaning it's not art!

Huh ? Was it just paint thrown on a canvas ? And how is it art or not ? I thought it was about interpretation, now ? Or are you dancing around with definitions, again ?

Now we're getting somewhere. You're admitting that to be a pattern there has to be some degree or "order" or "regularity", even if occurring by chance from randomness, right? Ergo you're admitting that paint on canvas without some degree of "order" or "regularity", i.e. direction, is not art, right?

Sure. One has to at least see a pattern in order to appreciate something as art, I suppose.

Where did I admit I was wrong about that? As I wrote, I don't think I've ever defined art as such, I've simply stated that art is only created by artists just as golf is only played by golfers. I might have even written "by definition", but if so I was applying such term to import a necessarily restrictive context, i.e. it's usual application, as opposed to ascribing an exclusive meaning to the word.

The whole post was worded extremely poorly, and created several pages of argument. Clearly you did something wrong, there.

 

[Belz...]

Is a 7-iron in lieu of a 6-iron on a par 3 with an elevated green and a 5km/h head wind just a poor choice or simply wrong?! Depends on the swing!

I still think that "poor choice" = wrong. Otherwise it'd be right, or a good choice. I don't see why you're making such a distinction, other than in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Of course, that can't be it.

 

[Belz...]

Now now. That's a little mean to Belz. I feel he's been trying quite hard.

W
O
W

... that has to be the most childish defense you've used so far. "I know what you are but what am I ?" is not clever, Southwind. Kids use that.

Sheesh. You really should stop thinking of yourself as holier-than-everyone. I've been there and it's a useless way of thinking.

 

[Belz...]

You might be right, as in what the artwork is intended to convey

And how are you supposed to determine what that is ? What if the artist is dead ?

No, Southwind. Only the audience determines if it's art or not.

Put up or shut up, I say.

Yes, and there, it was your turn.

 

[quadraginta]

Indeed, I wonder why that is?!

Otherwise nobody seems to have seen merit in engaging in conversation with you regarding these last posts of yours:

<snip>

Could it be that Ron_Tomkins comments were not crafted to elicit a response?

Thanks for the chuckle, though. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people respond to your posts because they contain some merit. That's funny.

Sad, but funny.

 

[Belz...]

You really are struggling with grammar and syntax here, aren't you.

This sentence would require a question mark, Southwind. Punctuation.

 

[Southwind17]

Huh ? Was it just paint thrown on a canvas ? And how is it art or not ? I thought it was about interpretation, now ? Or are you dancing around with definitions, again ?

Sure. One has to at least see a pattern in order to appreciate something as art, I suppose.

And how are you supposed to determine what that is ? What if the artist is dead ?

No, Southwind. Only the audience determines if it's art or not.

So, by your reckoning, absolutely everything has the potential to be art, depending entirely on what the "recipient" thinks, provided there's a degree of "pattern". I suppose this determines two things, at least:

1. You agree with me that many "works of art", i.e. those with no apparent "pattern", are not really art.
2. An artist can only be determined as such after his/her work has been judged by others to be art. In other words there is no such thing as a self-proclaimed artist.

 

[Southwind17]

This sentence would require a question mark, Southwind. Punctuation.

I suggest that you, of all people, steer well away from matters of English grammar, let alone seek to correct others. From Wikipedia:

Rhetorical Question

...

Punctuation

Depending on the context, a rhetorical question may be punctuated by a question mark (?), full stop (.) or exclamation mark(!).[6]

In the 1580s, English printer Henry Denham invented a "rhetorical question mark" for use at the end of a rhetorical question; however, it died out of use in the 1600s. It was the reverse of an ordinary question mark, so that instead of the main opening pointing back into the sentence, it opened away from it.[7]

Some have adapted the question mark into various irony marks, but these are very rarely seen.[citation needed]

 

[Southwind17]

Could it be that Ron_Tomkins comments were not crafted to elicit a response?

Could it be that they weren't "crafted" per se?!

Chuckles abound, eh!

 

[Peter i]

"Skill"

And who are supposed to be the judges of what is skill and what is not? And how should a budding artist receive his licence to evolve from "a filthy pornographer" to a "skilled artist" ?

Try looking up "Leda with the Swan" and see what is considered art, as long as it has a "classical background".

 

[quadraginta]

So, by your reckoning, absolutely everything has the potential to be art, depending entirely on what the "recipient" thinks, provided there's a degree of "pattern". I suppose this determines two things, at least:

1. You agree with me that many "works of art", i.e. those with no apparent "pattern", are not really art.

This presupposes that there is some absolute standard by which art can be quantified, or at the very least some level of consensus which can be accepted as such a standard. Neither is the case. It is not unusual, perhaps even common that a work or a style is discounted when first offered but years later is accepted as art. There was no intrinsic change in the work itself.

1. An artist can only be determined as such after his/her work has been judged by others to be art. In other words there is no such thing as a self-proclaimed artist.

Why is the artist excluded from the group of those who can judge the work? Often artists are their own most harsh critics.