Porn vs. Art

[not daSkeptic]

Is 200°F hot per se?

 

[Southwind17]

So to sum up: You have your own personal definition of art per se, which you can't define, and by that personal definition porn cannot be art per se.

That might be your summation, but it's certainly not mine.

If a painting depicts something, can it not be argued that it's primary function is to be an accurate representation of some real-life object?

Sometimes, yes, but the truth lies in what the painter intends, which is usually manifest in what he/she does with the finished painting and what purpose it then serves. There's a fundamental difference, for example, between a drawing that's produced for the purpose of illustrating a procedure in a car maintenance manual and a drawing produced for the purpose of displaying in a gallery for pure visual gratification (or whatever else people visit art galleries for).

Wouldn't that prevent it from being art 'per se', the way you define it?

It's purpose of creation largely determines its categorisation.

How about if a motor car was designed not with the primary intention of providing transport, but arousing certain emotions in the driver? Would it still primarily be a mode of transport, not art?

What relevance does the notion of "arous[ing] certain emotions" have to my claim? You seem to be inferring a definition for "art"! If one modelled a motor car from clay for display purposes (possibly even to "arouse certain emotions"!) that might well qualify as art. Producing a functional scale version and throwing in a remote control tends to skew matters. Producing a fully driveable version that derives satisfaction from the driving experience or the amenity - not art.

No, my reference to intrinsic characteristics does NOT miss the point of the OP. I really hate to get into this again, but it seems that you do not understand the meaning of "per se". Your use of "per se" makes my questions about intrinsic characteristics directly relevant.

That statement hardly qualifies as "get[ting] into this again". Some supporting explanation might help.

If you cannot define what "art per se" is, then you have no basis to claim that something is not "art per se". Thus, the problem with your claim.

Does one need to "define" this ...

... to validly claim that this ...

... is something different?!

Is 200°F hot per se?

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "per se". Temperature is relative. (That's "relative", not "subjective", before you go heading down the particular alley your obviously facing. There's a difference.)

 

[not daSkeptic]

It's purpose of creation largely determines its categorisation.

Can a thing have only one categorization at a time?

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "per se". Temperature is relative. (That's "relative", not "subjective", before you go heading down the particular alley your obviously facing. There's a difference.)

Oh, so you do understand subjectivity? One can only conclude then that you just don't like it.

 

[tesscaline]

That might be your summation, but it's certainly not mine.

Seemed a fair summation to me.

Sometimes, yes, but the truth lies in what the painter intends, which is usually manifest in what he/she does with the finished painting and what purpose it then serves. There's a fundamental difference, for example, between a drawing that's produced for the purpose of illustrating a procedure in a car maintenance manual and a drawing produced for the purpose of displaying in a gallery for pure visual gratification (or whatever else people visit art galleries for).


It's purpose of creation largely determines its categorisation.


What relevance does the notion of "arous[ing] certain emotions" have to my claim? You seem to be inferring a definition for "art"! If one modelled a motor car from clay for display purposes (possibly even to "arouse certain emotions"!) that might well qualify as art. Producing a functional scale version and throwing in a remote control tends to skew matters. Producing a fully driveable version that derives satisfaction from the driving experience or the amenity - not art.

Why? How do you know? Above you say that it's the purpose of a creation that determines whether or not it's art, and now you're saying that it's the functionality of an object that determines whether or not it's art. You're contradicting yourself, and making assertions based on nothing other than your own opinion, all the while applying that opinion as if it's objective fact.

That statement hardly qualifies as "get[ting] into this again". Some supporting explanation might help.

You've already gotten tons of explanation. Frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself. You're the one making claims here, you need to back them up, or shut up. It's really that simple.

Does one need to "define" this ...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c35061619cec.jpg[/qimg]
... to validly claim that this ...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c350662e0b24.jpg[/qimg]
... is something different?!

Yes, yes one does. Otherwise, how do you know that they're different? What is the rationale for saying that two things are different if it's not identifying the principle characteristics of one thing and comparing them to the principle characteristics of the other?

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "per se". Temperature is relative. (That's "relative", not "subjective", before you go heading down the particular alley your obviously facing. There's a difference.)

LOL. Wow, you so totally missed the point of that statement. And you're still the one who doesn't understand "per se".

 

[Southwind17]

Can a thing have only one categorization at a time?

Of course not - that's not my claim. But "per se" tends to constrain. Whilst wave action in oceans does not generate electricity per se, it can be harnessed to generate electricity, for example. In other words, whilst oceans fit into varying categories, depending on the topic, "readily available energy source" is not one.

Oh, so you do understand subjectivity? One can only conclude then that you just don't like it.

Seemed a fair summation to me.

Then you're similarly confused, obviously.

Why? How do you know? Above you say that it's the purpose of a creation that determines whether or not it's art, and now you're saying that it's the functionality of an object that determines whether or not it's art. You're contradicting yourself, and making assertions based on nothing other than your own opinion, all the while applying that opinion as if it's objective fact.

Aren't purpose and functionality essentially synonymous, in this context?

You've already gotten tons of explanation. Frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself. You're the one making claims here, you need to back them up, or shut up. It's really that simple.

One rule for one, another for another, eh. I see.

Yes, yes one does. Otherwise, how do you know that they're different? What is the rationale for saying that two things are different if it's not identifying the principle characteristics of one thing and comparing them to the principle characteristics of the other?

And two key differentiating principal characteristics between elephants and zebra are trunks and stripes. You're not seriously telling me you need a definition of each animal to determine they're not the same, when its patently obvious just from observing them, are you?!

LOL. Wow, you so totally missed the point of that statement. And you're still the one who doesn't understand "per se".

Again, lack of support.

 

[tesscaline]

Then you're similarly confused, obviously.

Nope.

Aren't purpose and functionality essentially synonymous, in this context?

No, they're not.

One rule for one, another for another, eh. I see.

I've already provided a metric ton (pardon the exaggeration) of evidence for everything I've claimed in this thread already. You need to go back and actually read if you don't remember what that evidence is. You, however, have consistently failed to support your own claims with anything even remotely resembling evidence. Thus, I'm asking for it. Still.

And two key differentiating principal characteristics between elephants and zebra are trunks and stripes. You're not seriously telling me you need a definition of each animal to determine they're not the same, when its patently obvious just from observing them, are you?!

Yes. We do. Elephants and zebras are both animals. They are also both mammals. They also both have four legs, two eyes, two ears and one mouth. They are the same in many ways. So, you need to define what you mean by "different" before anyone can agree with you.

You also have to define what one thing IS before you can say that something else is NOT that thing.

You have thus far entirely failed to define what art IS. Therefore you have absolutely no ground, at all, whatsoever, to start spouting off about other things not being art. Do you understand yet?

Again, lack of support.

Wrong.

 

[not daSkeptic]

And two key differentiating principal characteristics between elephants and zebra are trunks and stripes. You're not seriously telling me you need a definition of each animal to determine they're not the same, when its patently obvious just from observing them, are you?!

Can you show us examples of things in which it is patently obvious to all that one is art per se and the other is not?

 

[quadraginta]

And two key differentiating principal characteristics between elephants and zebra are trunks and stripes. You're not seriously telling me you need a definition of each animal to determine they're not the same, when its patently obvious just from observing them, are you?!

Can you show us examples of things in which it is patently obvious to all that one is art per se and the other is not?

Sure he can. That's why he picked a zebra and an elephant earlier. Because it's obvious.

Now if he had picked a zebra, an Arabian, and an Appaloosa it would be a bit different.

 

[Megalodon]

Does one need to "define" this ...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c35061619cec.jpg[/qimg]
... to validly claim that this ...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c350662e0b24.jpg[/qimg]
... is something different?!

Let's see... it's eucaryote, has bilateral symmetry, has a spinal chord, is a mammal, placental, land-dwelling, quadruped, herbivore, it's natural habitat is the savanna, it's regularly captured by humans for entertainment or food, falls prey to large carnivores, it's communal, it migrates...

Which one am I talking about?

 

[Mirrorglass]

So, the intent of the artist is what determines whether or not something is art? But if an artist creates a functional motor car with the primary intention of creating art, then it's functionality becomes the purpose, despite the artist's wishes? It really seems like a double standard to me.

If I took the Mona Lisa and used it as a snowboard, would it cease being art? After all, it would be a fully functional snowboard, and function equals purpose, which means it must have been created to be a snowboard, right?

Honestly, it seems you define art as 'anything I want to be art'. If you want to prove me wrong, it's easy: just provide an actual definition of 'art'. It really isn't that hard.

 

[Marcus]

Can you show us examples of things in which it is patently obvious to all that one is art per se and the other is not?

Or even better, something that is art per se, and something else that is just art. Since you are insisting on the "per se"(Southwind), and claiming that this category of objects doesn't include porn, I don't see why this would be a problem.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Is 200°F hot per se?

All this talk of hot per se is making me hor ne.

 

[Southwind17]

Nope.

Yep. (See how that works (not!)?!)

No, they're not.

Yes, they are. (Ditto)

... of evidence for everything I've claimed in this thread already. You need to go back and actually read if you don't remember what that evidence is.

You're taking the proverbial, surely?! If not, please get real (that's "real", not "surreal", to be sure!)

You, however, have consistently failed to support your own claims with anything even remotely resembling evidence. Thus, I'm asking for it. Still.

We've previously debated, to a degree, the relevance, or otherwise, of "evidence" in claiming and debating, and I've made my [not invalidated] view clear. I suggest that you go back and read.

Yes. We do. Elephants and zebras are both animals. They are also both mammals. They also both have four legs, two eyes, two ears and one mouth. They are the same in many ways. So, you need to define what you mean by "different" before anyone can agree with you.

I believe you conveniently overlooked the trunk and stripes?!

You also have to define what one thing IS before you can say that something else is NOT that thing.

If a horse-shaped animal has stripes and no trunk what's the likelihood that it's an elephant?!

You have thus far entirely failed to define what art IS. Therefore you have absolutely no ground, at all, whatsoever, to start spouting off about other things not being art. Do you understand yet?

Do you understand the patently obvious differences between a zebra and an elephant yet?!

Wrong.

Wrong. (Ditto)

Can you show us examples of things in which it is patently obvious to all that one is art per se and the other is not?

No, but I can show an example of things in which it is patently obvious to all rational people that one is art per se and the other not:





Care to demonstrate your rationality, or otherwise?!

Let's see... it's eucaryote, has bilateral symmetry, has a spinal chord, is a mammal, placental, land-dwelling, quadruped, herbivore, it's natural habitat is the savanna, it's regularly captured by humans for entertainment or food, falls prey to large carnivores, it's communal, it migrates...

Which one am I talking about?

Let's see... it's eucaryote, has bilateral symmetry, has a spinal chord, is a mammal, placental, land-dwelling, quadruped, herbivore, it's natural habitat is the savanna, it's regularly captured by humans for entertainment or food, falls prey to large carnivores, it's communal, it migrates, has a trunk ...

You tell me?!

So, the intent of the artist is what determines whether or not something is art? But if an artist creates a functional motor car with the primary intention of creating art ...

I think you're scraping the barrel here. I used the motor car in a main stream context, because some people claim that certain main stream motor cars are art per se. Perhaps some artists have indeed created works of art that also happen to be functional motor cars, in which case they're probably art.

This, for example, however ...



... is not art per se.

If I took the Mona Lisa and used it as a snowboard, would it cease being art?

"Cease being art". Please explain what, in your mind, classifies the Mona Lisa as "art" in the first place, and not a snowboard!

Honestly, it seems you define art as 'anything I want to be art'.

On the contrary. That's many other people's definition, and precisely what I'm objecting to, in the context of porn in particular.

Or even better, something that is art per se, and something else that is just art. Since you are insisting on the "per se"(Southwind), and claiming that this category of objects doesn't include porn, I don't see why this would be a problem.

"Art per se" and "just art" are one and the same. This, for example ...



is art per se, or "just art", if you will.

This, however ...



is not art per se, or not "just art", if you will. It's a motorcycle emblazened with art.

 

[tesscaline]

We've previously debated, to a degree, the relevance, or otherwise, of "evidence" in claiming and debating, and I've made my [not invalidated] view clear. I suggest that you go back and read.

I've snipped the bickering from your post. Please don't start it up again.

You made claims. You have not supported those claims with evidence. It is your responsibility to do so. It is not our responsibility to "invalidate" your claims.

I believe you conveniently overlooked the trunk and stripes?!


If a horse-shaped animal has stripes and no trunk what's the likelihood that it's an elephant?!


Do you understand the patently obvious differences between a zebra and an elephant yet?!

And you have conveniently missed the point. If you are going to say that one thing is different from another, you must first define what each thing IS.

I think you're scraping the barrel here. I used the motor car in a main stream context, because some people claim that certain main stream motor cars are art per se. Perhaps some artists have indeed created works of art that also happen to be functional motor cars, in which case they're probably art.

This, for example, however ...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c365e98632ab.jpg[/qimg]

... is not art per se.


"Cease being art". Please explain what, in your mind, classifies the Mona Lisa as "art" in the first place, and not a snowboard!


On the contrary. That's many other people's definition, and precisely what I'm objecting to, in the context of porn in particular.


"Art per se" and "just art" are one and the same. This, for example ...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c366201a27a7.jpg[/qimg]

is art per se, or "just art", if you will.

This, however ...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334c3662229208d.jpg[/qimg]

is not art per se, or not "just art", if you will. It's a motorcycle emblazened with art.

"per se" does not mean "just". Thus your entire argument above is based upon a flawed premise and logically unsound. Whether or not something is "art per se" or "just art" are two entirely separate subjects.

 

[Megalodon]

So, I demonstrate that you do need definitions to differentiate between the two animals you've chosen (or any others), and you reply by showing that, if we focus on the differences, we can tell them apart... Congratulations, Captain Obvious, maybe you can fly to catch the point that just went over your head.

 

[Southwind17]

I've snipped the bickering from your post. Please don't start it up again.

I'll interpret that as a dodge, if that's OK!

And you have conveniently missed the point. If you are going to say that one thing is different from another, you must first define what each thing IS.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: What do you think these are pictures of?





Assuming you answered correctly(!), explain how you differentiated between them?

"per se" does not mean "just".

OK let's test that. Please post a picture of a zebra per se and another picture of just a zebra.

So, I demonstrate that you do need definitions to differentiate between the two animals you've chosen (or any others), and you reply by showing that, if we focus on the differences, we can tell them apart... Congratulations, Captain Obvious, maybe you can fly to catch the point that just went over your head.

So whilst you accept that there are differences between elephants and zebra howsoever defined you see no in-principle difference between a centre-page spread in Hustler and the Mona Lisa. Congratulations to you too!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Assuming you answered correctly(!), explain how you differentiated between them?

We differentiated between them because we have extensive pre-existing knowledge of how to categorise different kinds of animal.

Compare this to, for example, the various photographs of chickens here or the various photographs of dogs here. An alien would not be able to determine at first glance whether a silkie was the same species as a seabright, or a beauceron was the same species as a bichon frise, however someone with relevant knowledge of Earth life can do so.

The argument you are making is misplaced, because there is definitely a sound, evidence-based body of background knowledge we share about topics like "what is a dog?" or "what is a shark?", but whether or not there is a similar body of background knowledge of art is in fact the question under discussion.

The point you are arguing for is that there is such a body of background knowledge and that you personally can use it to make true judgments about what is and is not "art per se". You have not established this point to anyone's satisfaction except possibly your own, if you are not in fact just trolling. Until you do so, discerning "art per se" from non-"art per se" is not analogous to discerning a shark from a dolphin, or a basset from an azawakh.

 

[Megalodon]

So whilst you accept that there are differences between elephants and zebra howsoever defined you see no in-principle difference between a centre-page spread in Hustler and the Mona Lisa. Congratulations to you too!

I'm sure you'll be able to produce the quote where I say that "no in-principle difference between a centre-page spread in Hustler and the Mona Lisa"... you wouldn't be openly lying about what I said in this thread, would you?

 

[Southwind17]

We differentiated between them because we have extensive pre-existing knowledge of how to categorise different kinds of animal.

For "knowledge" read "experience", or even, dare I use it(?!), "common sense"?! Regardless, no definition needed, then. Thank you.

I'm sure you'll be able to produce the quote where I say that "no in-principle difference between a centre-page spread in Hustler and the Mona Lisa"... you wouldn't be openly lying about what I said in this thread, would you?

No need for such sensitivity, now - no quote necessary. Your argument, or rather your contention of mine, logically leads to that conclusion, by way of example.

 

[Southwind17]

The argument you are making is misplaced, because there is definitely a sound, evidence-based body of background knowledge we share about topics like "what is a dog?" or "what is a shark?", but whether or not there is a similar body of background knowledge of art is in fact the question under discussion.

The point you are arguing for is that there is such a body of background knowledge and that you personally can use it to make true judgments about what is and is not "art per se". You have not established this point to anyone's satisfaction except possibly your own, if you are not in fact just trolling. Until you do so, discerning "art per se" from non-"art per se" is not analogous to discerning a shark from a dolphin, or a basset from an azawakh.

So you personally see no in-principle difference between these, then, in the context of categorising things as art?:





BTW - I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word "knowledge", as I alluded to before.