What is the difference between art and advertising?

[Tricky]

I disagree.

I was fairly certain you would. I predicted as much back in post #47.

 

[Giggywig]

I was fairly certain you would. I predicted as much back in post #47.

So are you Nozed's sockpuppet, or is he yours?

 

[quixotecoyote]

I was fairly certain you would. I predicted as much back in post #47.

Off by 2 Tricky, off by 2

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't say it had.

In yet another feeble attempt to avoid giving your definition of "sell" (as in All art is selling something), you attempted to shift the goal posts again by bringing art patrons into the discussion, which has nothing at all to do with it. This attempt did not work.

What is your definition of "sell" as you used in the sentence, "all art is selling something"?

 

[athon]

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence? Just yes or no, please.

Do you see the irony in you claiming I haven't shown evidence, after which you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?

Three questions you expect me to answer when you can't answer one? Just how bloody arrogant are you? (that question's rhetorical - no need to give an answer to that)

You answer mine first, and then we'll take it from there - in clear, non-obfuscating terms, what do you mean by 'sell'?

Athon

 

[athon]

I find it bizarre to the extreme that Claus finds it acceptable to pursue, badger, harass and bully people who won't answer his questions in plain speech, yet he feels obliged to avoid answering a simple question himself.

Do you even see what you're doing, Claus? That is why you have zero credibility here. That is why you're the forum joke.

Answer the damn question.

Athon

 

[Tricky]

Off by 2 Tricky, off by 2

Dammit, am I going to have to admit I was wrong a third time in this thread? Oh well. It's the honest thing to do. Mia culpa. Mia culpa. Mia tria culpa.

 

[CFLarsen]

In yet another feeble attempt to avoid giving your definition of "sell" (as in All art is selling something), you attempted to shift the goal posts again by bringing art patrons into the discussion, which has nothing at all to do with it. This attempt did not work.

What is your definition of "sell" as you used in the sentence, "all art is selling something"?

It can hardly be shifting goal posts, if you partly agree with me that patrons are one of the reasons why all art sells.

Three questions you expect me to answer when you can't answer one? Just how bloody arrogant are you? (that question's rhetorical - no need to give an answer to that)

You answer mine first, and then we'll take it from there - in clear, non-obfuscating terms, what do you mean by 'sell'?

I find it bizarre to the extreme that Claus finds it acceptable to pursue, badger, harass and bully people who won't answer his questions in plain speech, yet he feels obliged to avoid answering a simple question himself.

Do you even see what you're doing, Claus? That is why you have zero credibility here. That is why you're the forum joke.

Answer the damn question.

Athon

This is silly. Really silly.

If you don't think I have explained what I mean, how can you disagree with it?

If you don't agree with what I say, how can you say that you don't understand what I say?

Stop this silly charade and answer the questions:

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence? Just yes or no, please.

Do you see the irony in you claiming I haven't shown evidence, after which you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?

 

[athon]

This is silly. Really silly.

You've at last got something right.

If you don't think I have explained what I mean, how can you disagree with it?

We disagree that all art sells something, by how we understand the meaning of the term 'sell'. We also disagree that all art advertises something, but the closest you'll come to describing how you view the word 'advertise' is that it must sell something...which leaves us where we're at.

I can't see any definition of the word 'sell' which could make me agree with your view that all art does this.

The really, really absurd thing, typical of your game playing, is that you only need say 'Oh, by 'sell' I mean 'all art encourages a person to give something to the artist in exchange for something'. You will not do this, as obviously this is a ludicrous statement which cannot be supported. It's far safer for you to keep dancing about and avoiding the question.

Remember, if a woo did this, you'd be all over them like flies on dead meat.

So...let's keep trying. Just give a sentence that explains what you mean by the word 'sell'. The more responses you give which avoid doing this, the more pathetic you appear. I'm curious to know how long you can keep going for. I don't see why I should entertain your questions if you're incapable of answering this one.

Athon

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It can hardly be shifting goal posts, if you partly agree with me that patrons are one of the reasons why all art sells.

I don't agree at all. Hear those goal posts moving again?

But maybe we are starting to get a definition. You are saying art sells, one reason being the existance of patrons. So you are now defining "sell" as in selling for money. In which case your original claim that "all art sells something" is wrong.

So either you have attempted (and failed) to move the goalposts again, or your original claim is wrong. Which is it? I'll let you decide.

 

[athon]

I have a sneaking suspician this thread will go the way of the drumstick/snake eyelid one...he's off badgering others while ignoring the hard question here. Hypocrits don't come in brighter colours than this one.

*bumping anyway*

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

We disagree that all art sells something, by how we understand the meaning of the term 'sell'.

No, no, no. You don't merely say that you don't understand what I mean by selling. You also disagree when I use "sell".

I can't see any definition of the word 'sell' which could make me agree with your view that all art does this.

In which case, you cannot possibly disagree with me, since you don't understand what I am saying.

The really, really absurd thing, typical of your game playing, is that you only need say 'Oh, by 'sell' I mean 'all art encourages a person to give something to the artist in exchange for something'. You will not do this, as obviously this is a ludicrous statement which cannot be supported. It's far safer for you to keep dancing about and avoiding the question.

No, it doesn't need to encourage a person to give something to the artist. Art can also sell an idea or a concept.

When you see this work of art, is the artist not trying to sell you the idea that communism is swell?

Remember, if a woo did this, you'd be all over them like flies on dead meat.

It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

I don't agree at all. Hear those goal posts moving again?

But maybe we are starting to get a definition. You are saying art sells, one reason being the existance of patrons. So you are now defining "sell" as in selling for money. In which case your original claim that "all art sells something" is wrong.

So either you have attempted (and failed) to move the goalposts again, or your original claim is wrong. Which is it? I'll let you decide.

I said one of the reasons.

 

[athon]

No, no, no. You don't merely say that you don't understand what I mean by selling. You also disagree when I use "sell".

I don't know what you mean by the word 'sell'. I know what I would mean by the word, and I know what the word means by the dictionary meaning. In both cases, 'sell' is an exchange of goods or services. Not all art does this...so you must have another meaning we're not aware of.

What is your meaning, Claus?

In which case, you cannot possibly disagree with me, since you don't understand what I am saying.

Hence why we're asking to clarify. You can't seriously be suggesting we agree because we can't understand you enough to disagree.

I've made this very simple - based on what we understand your words to mean, you are wrong. Not all art sells something.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

No, it doesn't need to encourage a person to give something to the artist. Art can also sell an idea or a concept.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

When you see this work of art, is the artist not trying to sell you the idea that communism is swell?

It depends. What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

You've already agreed opinions can be wrong.

You wouldn't let a woo get away with not answering a question. What do you mean by the word 'sell'? Or, if you prefer, answer this; why can't you answer that question with a simple definition?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Hence why we're asking to clarify. You can't seriously be suggesting we agree because we can't understand you enough to disagree.

I am pointing out that you cannot disagree if you don't understand what I say. "Not disagreeing" does not mean "agreeing". It can also simply mean "I don't know enough to either agree or disagree".

If you disagree with me, then you understand what I mean - you just disagree with it. But, since you don't understand what I mean, you cannot disagree with me.

As for "selling", I have made it as clear as I possibly can.

It depends. What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

I am asking what you think - with your meaning of "sell". Tell me what you think.

You've already agreed opinions can be wrong.

Sure, if the opinions are based on something demonstrably wrong. But the purpose of art is inherently a matter of opinion.

 

[athon]

I am pointing out that you cannot disagree if you don't understand what I say. "Not disagreeing" does not mean "agreeing". It can also simply mean "I don't know enough to either agree or disagree".

Don't be daft. I've made it clear, and you're intentionally skipping around it. I'll repeat it for you;

You made a statement. We disagree with your statement as we understand the words to mean. We're asking you now to clarify what you think you mean by your words, since you clearly mean something different to what we are saying.

If you disagree with me, then you understand what I mean - you just disagree with it. But, since you don't understand what I mean, you cannot disagree with me.

Fine. Then we understand you to mean all art encourages an exchange of goods or services between two parties. Which is wrong. Your opinion is therefore wrong.

I anticipate you to argue against this, and therefore ask you to include in your argument a definition for what you mean by 'sell'.

Why can't you answer the question, Claus?

As for "selling", I have made it as clear as I possibly can.

Damn, I should have put money on this predictable answer. It's your typical tactic - dance about for a dozen posts, ignoring a question, and the retaliate with 'but I've made it clear'. Next you'll lie and point out several posts without quoting precisely where you were clear.

So, we'll make it simple. No you haven't been clear. You haven't given a definition for 'sell'. What do you mean by the word?

I am asking what you think - with your meaning of "sell". Tell me what you think.

I've done that already, Claus. Unlike you, I debate openly, clearly and honestly. Transparent as glass.

In both cases, 'sell' is an exchange of goods or services. Not all art does this...so you must have another meaning we're not aware of.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

Sure, if the opinions are based on something demonstrably wrong. But the purpose of art is inherently a matter of opinion.

Can I say 'all art drives cars' and still be correct? Can I say 'all art can be milked for beer' and still be correct?

No Claus. Once again your use of language has descended into the ridiculous. It's no different to your 'all legs are drumsticks', or 'people can be intending to be married and not engaged'. Once again, language is not malleable to your beliefs. That is no different to somebody saying there is such a thing as 'life energy', relying on a personal definition for 'energy'.

Now, why can't you give a clear definition for 'sell'?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Fine. Then we understand you to mean all art encourages an exchange of goods or services between two parties. Which is wrong. Your opinion is therefore wrong.

Public opinion now determines right or wrong? O...K.

Damn, I should have put money on this predictable answer. It's your typical tactic - dance about for a dozen posts, ignoring a question, and the retaliate with 'but I've made it clear'. Next you'll lie and point out several posts without quoting precisely where you were clear.

Ah, yes. If I don't point to where I explained it, I am evading. If I do, I'm lying.

I just can't win, can I?

I've done that already, Claus. Unlike you, I debate openly, clearly and honestly. Transparent as glass.

Let's see about that.

If you don't agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell, then you say that propaganda isn't selling ideas.

But that's an untenable position - isn't it? Because you know damn well what propaganda is, and how it works. It sells ideas, just as effectively as ads sell detergent - often even more effectively, since propaganda usually isn't bound by laws restricting what it can and can't do.

So, you will have to agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell.

And that means you will have to agree that at least some art can sell ideas.

Can all art sell ideas? Does art have to have an idea behind it? If it doesn't, isn't that an idea in itself?

You bet ideas both can and are sold. Art does it all the time.

Still don't agree?

More dishonesty, and the goal posts are now in another country.

How is that dishonest?? How is that moving goal posts??

Nobody is contending whether a specific art piece might be described as 'art'. We are contending whether once something is agreed to be art that it sells something.

See above.

 

[CFLarsen]

I see you retracted your accusation that I was dishonest and moving the goal posts. Thank you.

 

[athon]

Public opinion now determines right or wrong? O...K.

When it comes to the meaning of words, yes. Language relies on popular opinion.

Should the definitions of words rely upon individual opinion, Claus? How would we communicate then?

What do you mean by 'sell'? Why can't you answer that question?

Ah, yes. If I don't point to where I explained it, I am evading. If I do, I'm lying.

I just can't win, can I?

Probably not at this point. That happens when you paint yourself into a corner by lying and evading. People start to call you out on it.

Let's see about that.

If you don't agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell, then you say that propaganda isn't selling ideas.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

But that's an untenable position - isn't it? Because you know damn well what propaganda is, and how it works. It sells ideas, just as effectively as ads sell detergent - often even more effectively, since propaganda usually isn't bound by laws restricting what it can and can't do.

What do you mean by 'sell'? You can't escape that question by simply using the word more.

So, you will have to agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

And that means you will have to agree that at least some art can sell ideas.

Can all art sell ideas? Does art have to have an idea behind it? If it doesn't, isn't that an idea in itself?

It depends on what you mean by 'sell'. If sell means 'an exchange of goods or services', then you are wrong. Not all art encourages an exchange of goods or services. I draw art all the time. It's part of my job. It does not sell anything at all - it requires nothing being given of the audience.

But you must have a definition of the word 'sell' which does not mean 'an exchange of goods or services'. What is it?

You bet ideas both can and are sold. Art does it all the time.

What do you mean by the word 'sold'? Why can't you answer the question? Why do you continue to use a word when we've asked you to provide your meaning for it?

How is that dishonest?? How is that moving goal posts??

You're making out this is an argument on what can be called art. Before we can have that discussion, we need to clarify your use of the term 'sell'. By avoiding that clarification with a simple definition, you are being dishonest in trying to disguise the argument.

Now, to understand what you think you mean by 'all art sells something' as a definition for 'art', what do you mean by 'sell'?

Can all art drive a car?

Can all art be milked for beer?

Why can't you answer those questions?

Athon

 

[athon]

I see you retracted your accusation that I was dishonest and moving the goal posts. Thank you.

No, you are dishonest. Goal posts have been moved. I simply felt I had a better way of articulating what I had to say. So, you can pull your head our of your arse, if you like.

Thank you.

Funny how you're quick to jump on those points, but struggle to answer the questions. The hilarious thing is every post you make which avoids it only further highlights how much of a hypocrite you are. So, please, continue.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

I see it makes absolutely no difference what I do.

When I explain, I'm lying, dishonest and moving the goal posts.

When I point to previous explanations, I am evading.

If you are not prepared to listen to your opponent, you are not interested in changing your mind.

You just want me to be wrong.

Oh, well.