Porn vs. Art

[Belz...]

Funny - the important thing was to "affect the senses or emotions" a couple of posts back, which, in any event, clearly doesn't work.

How else would you define art ? Art has to evoke an emotional response or else it will not be viewed as such.

Common usage, to be accurate. Regardless, I don't think the limited number of contrary, possibly biased, views here on the forum really stands as proof of anything.

Limited number ? Nobody agrees with you.

 

[Belz...]

"Inglorious Basterds" and other movies of the same genre can't really qualify as comedies, even though they contain comical elements, can they?!

Depends. If a particular bloke thinks that there's a big proportion of humour in it, and classifies it as comedy, then to that person it is. In some video stores it might be in the comedy section.

In fact, once I buy the DVD I'll be tempted to put it in that very section of my collection. So clearly it CAN qualify as comedy.

 

[Belz...]

I still believe Pluto's a planet, for example.

I believe Pluto and the other "dwarf planets" should've been classified differently.

But since the definition of "Planet" no longer includes Pluto, your belief clashes with reality.

Just as your definition of art does.

 

[Southwind17]

But you've said a dozen times you think intent is important! What if this person with a serious mental disorder makes a video of himself having sex? Does that mean since there's no intent to arouse, you wouldn't consider the video pornographic?

Of course not. Is a sex education video pornographic just because it depicts sexual acts?!

How else would you define art ? Art has to evoke an emotional response or else it will not be viewed as such.

So, if the Mona Lisa, for example, had been kept in a locked trunk and never revealed it wouldn't classify as "art"?

Limited number ? Nobody agrees with you.

By "nobody" you mean about half-a-dozen people here on this Forum, right?

Depends. If a particular bloke thinks that there's a big proportion of humour in it, and classifies it as comedy, then to that person it is. In some video stores it might be in the comedy section.
In fact, once I buy the DVD I'll be tempted to put it in that very section of my collection. So clearly it CAN qualify as comedy.

So you're in the same camp as Marcus: one can classify as one, personally, sees fit. That's fine for your home DVD collection, but not much help if you're seeking to locate a particular book in a library, for example, is it!

I believe Pluto and the other "dwarf planets" should've been classified differently.
But since the definition of "Planet" no longer includes Pluto, your belief clashes with reality.
Just as your definition of art does.

"[My] belief clashes with reality"! Reality, in this case (definition of "planet"), being other people's beliefs. Interesting observation.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So, if the Mona Lisa, for example, had been kept in a locked trunk and never revealed it wouldn't classify as "art"?

If a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and there's no one around to hear it, did it make a sound at all?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Of course not. Is a sex education video pornographic just because it depicts sexual acts?!

So intent matters when determining what is porn, but not in determining what is art.

So, to take your example further, instead of a mentally challenged person, let's use a child with no knowledge of any kind of art. If this child plays with crayons, or, say, bangs on a piano with no plan and just happens to create something beautiful, you would call it art, right?

 

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Southwind17
So, if the Mona Lisa, for example, had been kept in a locked trunk and never revealed it wouldn't classify as "art"?

If a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and there's no one around to hear it, did it make a sound at all?

Perhaps not. But it certainly made a detectable disturbance in a frequency range which many organisms (including humans) can perceive.

An interesting conundrum can be drawn from this. Although I feel relatively confident that at some point SW has suggested that the observer's input merited more consideration than he seems to here, I will admit that his initial efforts depended on the intent of the the creator as an artist.

He has also maintained that the relative skill of the creator of any piece is intrinsic to its classification as art.

So the Mona Lisa is placed in a closed box. It contains art. The random scribblings of a two year old are placed in a box. It contains not-art (per SW definition, for the sake of discussion).

A drawing by an unknown, un-judged for skill by any other human, is placed in a box. Art or not-art?

Schrödinger's art? Quantum art?

It's art-ness apparently cannot not exist until the box is opened. The box is opened by a random observer. Does that observer need to know the intent of the unknown creator before a state of art can exist? Does the observer need to know the creator's credentials as an artist? Must it remain art/not-art until those conditions are satisfied?

 

[not daSkeptic]

So, if the Mona Lisa, for example, had been kept in a locked trunk and never revealed it wouldn't classify as "art"?

That would depend entirely upon anybody who had experienced it prior to it being locked away. If they thought it was art, then it was art to them.

So you're in the same camp as Marcus: one can classify as one, personally, sees fit. That's fine for your home DVD collection, but not much help if you're seeking to locate a particular book in a library, for example, is it!

The value of a given classification varies depending on the specific context. What of it?

"[My] belief clashes with reality"! Reality, in this case (definition of "planet"), being other people's beliefs.

I don't know how you're using the term belief, but there is no faith or trust involved.

 

[Belz...]

So, if the Mona Lisa, for example, had been kept in a locked trunk and never revealed it wouldn't classify as "art"?

If nobody ever saw it, it would still be considered art or not by the author for as long as he lived.

Remember, YOU are the one who is claiming that "artistic" is some sort of intrinsic quality.

By "nobody" you mean about half-a-dozen people here on this Forum, right?

That IS where the debate is taking place.

So you're in the same camp as Marcus: one can classify as one, personally, sees fit. That's fine for your home DVD collection, but not much help if you're seeking to locate a particular book in a library, for example, is it!

Irrelevant. The person in charge of the library will DECIDE where the book belongs. So it may confuse (puzzle) you if you go there and don't find it in the section you were expecting, but it is still true.

"[My] belief clashes with reality"! Reality, in this case (definition of "planet"), being other people's beliefs. Interesting observation.

Southwind, you seem to be unaware that definitions are a matter of consensus. If the scientific community has decided that, from now on, "planet" no longer includes Pluto, then that's it. You cannot ignore this change and claim that you are correct because there IS NO correct definition. It's simply a way to classify celestial bodies. You may disagree, mind you, but you can't continue to believe that Pluto is a planet, because by definition you are wrong.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Since southwind seems to believe every one of the posters in this thread disagreeing with him doesn't prove his position an uncommon one, perhaps we could start a poll to see what the rest of the forum thinks "art" means? My submission is the sentence that starts the wiki article. I also assert that Southwind has to post a definition that agrees with the claims he's made in this thread, and as such, he can't quote his chambers dictionary.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Southwind, you seem to be unaware that definitions are a matter of consensus. If the scientific community has decided that, from now on, "planet" no longer includes Pluto, then that's it. You cannot ignore this change and claim that you are correct because there IS NO correct definition. It's simply a way to classify celestial bodies. You may disagree, mind you, but you can't continue to believe that Pluto is a planet, because by definition you are wrong.

Actually, I don't think he's completely wrong on this one. In scientific texts, Pluto is no longer a planet; there's no question about that. But for many other purposes, such as literature, poetry and astrology, to name a few, Pluto still is a "planet". So as long as we're not talking astronomy, it may still be reasonable to refer to it as such.

 

[Southwind17]

If a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and there's no one around to hear it, did it make a sound at all?

Perhaps not. But it certainly made a detectable disturbance in a frequency range which many organisms (including humans) can perceive.

I think you've produced a response that was fermenting in my mind but which I abandoned as I don't believe Ron's falling tree is a valid analogy.

So intent matters when determining what is porn, but not in determining what is art.

Correct. I suggest that you, too, look up the definition of "porn" in a dictionary. Whether looking up the definition of "art" will prove a fruitful comparison, however, is questionable.

So, to take your example further, instead of a mentally challenged person, let's use a child with no knowledge of any kind of art. If this child plays with crayons, or, say, bangs on a piano with no plan and just happens to create something beautiful, you would call it art, right?

No, not if it's created by chance happening, as you suggest (highly unlikely anyhow). The application of skill is essential. Note that skill can be applied subconsciously, as in the hypothetical mentally ill person, or even most people, in fact. But let's not head down a philosophical path, eh!

An interesting conundrum can be drawn from this. Although I feel relatively confident that at some point SW has suggested that the observer's input merited more consideration than he seems to here, I will admit that his initial efforts depended on the intent of the the creator as an artist.

I think the meritoriousness of the observer's input extends only(!) to determining the degree of skill applied (if any) and whether the subject work constitutes art inherently as distinct from some other pre-classification (such as "motor car", for example). We've touched on this, if not debated it already, and I openly acknowledge that as much as I stand by this view it's certainly not an easy one to reconcile in one's mind so far as definitions and boundaries go. Fine arts, fine (possibly), but other "art" - more difficult, for sure. As to intent - irrelevant.

He has also maintained that the relative skill of the creator of any piece is intrinsic to its classification as art.

Correct.

So the Mona Lisa is placed in a closed box. It contains art. The random scribblings of a two year old are placed in a box. It contains not-art (per SW definition, for the sake of discussion).

You could have written simply "It doesn't contain art (per SW definition ...)" instead.

A drawing by an unknown, un-judged for skill by any other human, is placed in a box. Art or not-art?

It's art-ness apparently cannot not exist until the box is opened. The box is opened by a random observer. Does that observer need to know the intent of the unknown creator before a state of art can exist? Does the observer need to know the creator's credentials as an artist? Must it remain art/not-art until those conditions are satisfied?

If skill was applied in producing it, then art. If not, then not art. The degree of skill then determines how good a piece of art it is. Clearly, the degree of skill, if any, can only be judged by the observer(s) when the box is opened. Whilst you're right that its "artness" cannot not exist until the box is opened its existence cannot be established until the box is opened. So, until it is opened we don't know whether it's art or not, just like we don't know whether it's simply a jack or not waiting to surprise us!

That would depend entirely upon anybody who had experienced it prior to it being locked away. If they thought it was art, then it was art to them.

Again, if "art" relies entirely on each individual for its legitimacy then the whole idea of art resolves essentially to an emotion, like happy or sad. If that's what you want art to be, that's fine, but I'm not sure how we then process that notion practically.

The value of a given classification varies depending on the specific context. What of it?

Not sure what you mean by "value". Isn't classification essentially a value in itself?

I don't know how you're using the term belief, but there is no faith or trust involved.

Perhaps "consideration" is a less "spiritual", and hence more apt word than "belief" for you. I didn't intend to infer any spiritualism or such like.

If nobody ever saw it, it would still be considered art or not by the author for as long as he lived.

Only insofar as the author is entitled to his opinion.

Remember, YOU are the one who is claiming that "artistic" is some sort of intrinsic quality.

I haven't forgotten. Intrinsicality doesn't require, or even imply, intent, though.

That IS where the debate is taking place.

My point exactly.

Irrelevant. The person in charge of the library will DECIDE where the book belongs. So it may confuse (puzzle) you if you go there and don't find it in the section you were expecting, but it is still true.

Interesting, then, that the books I want are usually where I first look. Spooky!

Southwind, you seem to be unaware that definitions are a matter of consensus. If the scientific community has decided that, from now on, "planet" no longer includes Pluto, then that's it. You cannot ignore this change and claim that you are correct because there IS NO correct definition. It's simply a way to classify celestial bodies. You may disagree, mind you, but you can't continue to believe that Pluto is a planet, because by definition you are wrong.

Did you read what I posted? The "consensus" re. Pluto is clearly far from unanimous, and the "scientific community" to which you refer is actually only a select number of researchers who attended an IAU meeting in Prague.

Since southwind seems to believe every one of the posters in this thread disagreeing with him doesn't prove his position an uncommon one ...

I've never claimed my views are necessarily common, just like Einstein didn't before he enlightened us with his famous equation.

... perhaps we could start a poll to see what the rest of the forum thinks "art" means? My submission is the sentence that starts the wiki article.

That would be the definition that I've already shown doesn't work, right? Go for it, but I suggest you heed this first.

I also assert that Southwind has to post a definition that agrees with the claims he's made in this thread, and as such, he can't quote his chambers dictionary.

But the Chambers Dictionary definition does, essentially, form a large part of the basis of my claimviews as to what does and doesn't constitute "art"! Or do you mean my claim that porn is not art per se?

 

[Belz...]

Actually, I don't think he's completely wrong on this one. In scientific texts, Pluto is no longer a planet; there's no question about that. But for many other purposes, such as literature, poetry and astrology, to name a few, Pluto still is a "planet". So as long as we're not talking astronomy, it may still be reasonable to refer to it as such.

Perhaps, but I don't think that's what he meant.

 

[Belz...]

Only insofar as the author is entitled to his opinion.

I would hope so, since what is and isn't "art" is a matter of opinion.

I haven't forgotten. Intrinsicality doesn't require, or even imply, intent, though.

No, it doesn't. But I don't think a computer can interpret something as art.

Interesting, then, that the books I want are usually where I first look. Spooky!

That's because for most books, most people will agree on how to classify them. Of course, you're not arguing from popularity, are you ?

The "consensus" re. Pluto is clearly far from unanimous, and the "scientific community" to which you refer is actually only a select number of researchers who attended an IAU meeting in Prague.

A consensus needs not be unanimous. If they disagreed they should've attended.

I've never claimed my views are necessarily common, just like Einstein didn't before he enlightened us with his famous equation.

Comparing yourself with the giants, now, are you ?

 

[not daSkeptic]

... I'm not sure how we then process that notion practically.

This is precisely why issues involving the arts are so controversial and why they make life difficult for lawyers and legislators.

Not sure what you mean by "value".

Worth, usefulness, significance.

 

[Southwind17]

I would hope so, since what is and isn't "art" is a matter of opinion.

So you're not claiming I'm wrong, then.

No, it doesn't. But I don't think a computer can interpret something as art.

That's because for most books, most people will agree on how to classify them. Of course, you're not arguing from popularity, are you ?

I'm not arguing from anything. I'm stating a fact.

A consensus needs not be unanimous. If they disagreed they should've attended.

Many who attended did disagree, but that's beside the point.

Comparing yourself with the giants, now, are you ?

No, just drawing a useful analogy.

This is precisely why issues involving the arts are so controversial and why they make life difficult for lawyers and legislators.

And not just the arts!

Worth, usefulness, significance.

I see - three different meanings. I believe that's called hedging one's bets. Or are you just blindly citing a dictionary entry out of context?

 

[Belz...]

So you're not claiming I'm wrong, then.

Depends if you agree with my statement or not.

Computers don't have emotion. Therefore even an intelligent computer, in my opinion, cannot tell art from non-art. That's because nothing is art per se.

I'm not arguing from anything. I'm stating a fact.

You're stating a perceived fact.

 

[Southwind17]

Depends if you agree with my statement or not.

How can your not claiming that I'm wrong possibly depend on whether or not I agree with your statement? The two are not related.

Computers don't have emotion. Therefore even an intelligent computer, in my opinion, cannot tell art from non-art. That's because nothing is art per se.

What does this debate have to do with the capabilities of computers!

You're stating a perceived fact.

No. It's an actual fact that when I go into a library to find a book it's usually in the first category area I look (assuming the library even holds to book in stock, that is, or that I don't search by ISBN!).

 

[Belz...]

How can your not claiming that I'm wrong possibly depend on whether or not I agree with your statement? The two are not related.

You said "Only insofar as the author is entitled to his opinion.". Hopefully you're saying that the author IS entitled to his opinion, and agreeing that whether something is art or not depends solely on such an opinion, and is therefore not inherent to the piece itself.

What does this debate have to do with the capabilities of computers!

Perhaps if you bothered to read what I said you'd understand:

Computers don't have emotion. Therefore even an intelligent computer, in my opinion, cannot tell art from non-art. That's because nothing is art per se.

No. It's an actual fact that when I go into a library to find a book it's usually in the first category area I look (assuming the library even holds to book in stock, that is, or that I don't search by ISBN!).

Ah, then. Usually is the operative word, here. Sorry I missed it.

 

[Southwind17]

You said "Only insofar as the author is entitled to his opinion.". Hopefully you're saying that the author IS entitled to his opinion, and agreeing that whether something is art or not depends solely on such an opinion, and is therefore not inherent to the piece itself.

Sure, he's entitled to his opinion, but I maintain that opinion doesn't determine whether something qualifies as art. Art is inherently so, although I admit that determination can sometimes rely to a degree on subjectivity (some art is obviously so) in identifying and/or interpreting inherent characteristics.

Perhaps if you bothered to read what I said you'd understand:

Computers don't have emotion. Therefore even an intelligent computer, in my opinion, cannot tell art from non-art. That's because nothing is art per se.

Again, but this time as a direct question: what does this debate have to do with the capabilities of computers?

Ah, then. Usually is the operative word, here. Sorry I missed it.

Of course. There are always exceptions to rules and standards (not to mention accidental/careless misplacement by staff and the public ).