Porn vs. Art

[JFrankA]

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:

You seem to confuse replies because you are wrong with popularity. We are not praising you by replying, we are debating you and yes, fighting you.

You don't throw a punch to people you agree with.

The idea you get the two mixed up is a clear sign that you are sad, lonely little man. And you have my pity.

... since this particular enlightener, that is:

... a mere 140 or so posts back!

Who said that?!

You also don't have a grasp on what sarcasm is either.

That makes four things you have no idea what they are:

1. Sarcasm
2. Popularity
3. Art
4. Porn

 

[Southwind17]

And who are supposed to be the judges of what is skill and what is not?

It depends on the purpose of the judging, of course, as with most things in life.

And how should a budding artist receive his licence to evolve from "a filthy pornographer" to a "skilled artist" ?

"License"? What "license"?

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

I think you mean "Leda and the Swan". Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is, if any.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

I'm sorry, what does?

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.

Difficult to comment without knowing more about the particular works/styles and "acceptance" authority alluded to.

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

As you know (I think), I contest that it's not a question of judging per se. Nonetheless, the artist might have a tendency to be a little biased one way or the other, don't you think (rhetorical question Belz!). As I wrote, the purpose of judging tends to determine the judges, or at least who ought to be excluded.

 

[Belz...]

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".

Pattern that the audience perceives, yes. I would agree with the above.

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

Doesn't that contradict what you just said ? Everything has the potential to be art, depending on how it's interpreted. And even by the usual definitions of art, porn can be deemed artistic.

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.

I would disagree, since the person will interpret their own works as art or not.

 

[Belz...]

That makes four things you have no idea what they are:

1. Sarcasm
2. Popularity
3. Art
4. Porn

Don't forget "per se".

 

[Southwind17]

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".

Pattern that the audience perceives, yes. I would agree with the above.

So migraine's art then?! (only kidding - just!)

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.

Doesn't that contradict what you just said ?

Contradict? It's wholly consistent, surely.

 

[BenBurch]

I'll ask again; How is an exceptional **** different from an exceptional parallel-beam routine? How is it different from a master's ballet performance?

 

[not daSkeptic]

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.

The problem with this is you are assigning qualifiers to words that have no such qualifiers. A golfer is simply one who plays golf. A pianist is simply one who plays the piano. These words do not carry the requirement of qualification. Thus, while you may think these words only apply when one has reached a certain threshold, the definitions of these words do not support that view.

Now, please don't ask me to define such skill thresholds. I'll confess now that I can't.

The fact that you think such thresholds even exist is the entire problem. You seem to want there to be some sort of universal, objective measure of quality. That cannot happen so long as everybody has a different idea of what constitutes good and bad. The reason you cannot define a threshold is because everyone disagrees as to where it should be.

 

[tesscaline]

Golf, art, music, etc.

So your definition of art is circular. Art is only created by artists, artists are people who are skilled at creating art.

 

[tesscaline]

Alleged incorrect usage, yes.


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


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.


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.

Hello pot, meet kettle.

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!

Oh, I know the phrase. And you have used it in such a way that it muddies the meaning of what you wrote. This is not a new thing for you.

In which case I'll ask again - where?

I'll stick to the example we've been using.

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!

Again, you fail to understand where you've gone wrong with your statements, despite it being explained to you. Yes, the generally applied to the first part of the sentence. However, you're failing, still, to understand the nuance of "per se". Per se is something to be used without qualification. Period. If a statement requires qualification, use of "per se" in regards to it is incorrect.

The use of "generally" says that the show you refer to is not always the things you have described. Therefore, it cannot be the things you have described "per se".

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.

Then why do you keep insisting you're using the term appropriately when you're most definitely not? I'm not the only person to point out the problem with your usage of "per se".

Fact of the matter is you're unable to show where <insult snipped>

I have repeatedly pointed out at least one instance. That you fail, continually, to not understand why your vocabulary usage is poor is not my problem.

I notice you have ignored the questions posed in the rest of my post.

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

 

[BenBurch]

So your definition of art is circular. Art is only created by artists, artists are people who are skilled at creating art.

Of course "skill" and "artist" simply do not go together.

Yoko Ono.

 

[Southwind17]

So your definition of art is circular. Art is only created by artists, artists are people who are skilled at creating art.

There's nothing circular about that, because what it shows, now by introduction of the criterion for "skill", is that there's an implied definition of art. If art requires "skill" then that will be reflected somehow in the created work, as opposed to, say, a random "pattern" of paint on canvas. I believe the definition of "art" that I quoted from the Chambers Dictionary previously supports this reasoning.

 

[tesscaline]

There's nothing circular about that, because what it shows, now by introduction of the criterion for "skill", is that there's an implied definition of art. If art requires "skill" then that will be reflected somehow in the created work, as opposed to, say, a random "pattern" of paint on canvas. I believe the definition of "art" that I quoted from the Chambers Dictionary previously supports this reasoning.

It's become obvious that you are living in some fantasy land of your own creation where the words you use and read do not mean the same things that they mean to everyone else.

The statement "art is created by artists, and artists are people who are skilled at creating art" is entirely circular. The skill part of the statement doesn't stop it from being circular. It is not supported by the definition of "art" from the Chambers Dictionary that you quoted. It isn't supported by the definition of "art" from any main mainstream dictionary.

That you "believe" your blatantly circular logic is supported by the dictionary just demonstrates the level of personal delusion your arguments suffer from.

 

[not daSkeptic]

It's become obvious that you are living in some fantasy land of your own creation where the words you use and read do not mean the same things that they mean to everyone else.

The statement "art is created by artists, and artists are people who are skilled at creating art" is entirely circular. The skill part of the statement doesn't stop it from being circular. It is not supported by the definition of "art" from the Chambers Dictionary that you quoted. It isn't supported by the definition of "art" from any main mainstream dictionary.

That you "believe" your blatantly circular logic is supported by the dictionary just demonstrates the level of personal delusion your arguments suffer from.

Quite.

 

[Southwind17]

It's become obvious that you are living in some fantasy land of your own creation where the words you use and read do not mean the same things that they mean to everyone else.

The statement "art is created by artists, and artists are people who are skilled at creating art" is entirely circular. The skill part of the statement doesn't stop it from being circular. It is not supported by the definition of "art" from the Chambers Dictionary that you quoted. It isn't supported by the definition of "art" from any main mainstream dictionary.

That you "believe" your blatantly circular logic is supported by the dictionary just demonstrates the level of personal delusion your arguments suffer from.

You can seek to debate the circularity or otherwise of arguments as much as you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that artistry requires skill, and hence artwork, to be classed as such, must reflect the application of such skill (amongst other attributes, of course). Happy to debate that further.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... artistry requires skill ...

And what constitutes skill?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Even my youngest kids know the answer to this one. Do you have a dictionary? That's an excellent starting point.

Ok, fine.

skill: The ability to do something well.

Would you agree with this definition?

 

[tesscaline]

You can seek to debate the circularity or otherwise of arguments as much as you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that artistry requires skill, and hence artwork, to be classed as such, must reflect the application of such skill (amongst other attributes, of course). Happy to debate that further.

I don't intend to debate the circularity of your logic. It's plain for anyone to see on their own. I will, however, point out that circularity, and other flaws, so that those reading this thread who do not already know better are not pulled in by your sophistry.

You have still not answered the question from my previous posts. Please do so.

 

[Toke]

There's nothing circular about that, because what it shows, now by introduction of the criterion for "skill", is that there's an implied definition of art. If art requires "skill" then that will be reflected somehow in the created work, as opposed to, say, a random "pattern" of paint on canvas. I believe the definition of "art" that I quoted from the Chambers Dictionary previously supports this reasoning.

That does not really account for the chimp above, does it?

 

[Southwind17]

skill: The ability to do something well.

Would you agree with this definition?

I don't find that particular definition objectionable.