What is the difference between art and advertising?

[CFLarsen]

This argument commits the logical fallacy of low redefinition by widening the definition of "sell" far beyond the meaning that the word has in ordinary usage. If "sell" is equivalent to "add value" then you've sold the JREF forum nearly 40,000 times over. I sold my car this morning by changing a burned out brake light. And I'm sure the local health board will want to know that I sell food without a license every morning when I fix myself breakfast.

Which point do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Which point do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3?

Objection, multifarious.

Objection, leading.

Objection, argumentative.

Objection, incomplete hypothetical.

Objection, nonresponsive.

Objection, misstates the record.

Oh, pardon me, your honor: shamelessly and flagrantly misstates the record in a willful effort to force the opponent to accept premises that no one but he has stated.

And it still doesn't show how it is selling something.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I think I'll let Tricky handle this from now on.

Mr. Larsen doesn't much like responding to my posts, but when someone starts scoring points, I've noticed a tendency to focus on the bit players and generate noise so that the really telling points (hopefully) get missed. Since Tricky is holding the high cards on this one, there's no need for me to act as a kibitzer -- but I note with quiet satisfaction that we're past page 4 and well on our way to page 24.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Again, take a look at the study Gericault made for The Raft. How much do each of you think that will sell for it today's market? It's a study, for crying out loud: It's not a finished work of art, it's not what the artist intended. You want to use it for starting a camp fire? No, you know you got a valuable piece on your hands.

Now I see the problem - English is not your first language.

For this entire thread, we have been discussing whether art does/does not "sell" anything. Apparently, all along you were discussing what art "sells for", as in money.

Two entirely different things.

But then, even more likely, this is your way of admitting you are wrong, by trying to shift the goal posts. It was all a wacky mis-understanding. We've seen that act before. Doesn't work on a skeptics forum.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Good news everyone: here (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3594960&postcount=139) Claus has promised to view an art exhibition at TAM 6 and then return here and tell everyone what that art is selling!

 

[CFLarsen]

Objection, multifarious.

Objection, leading.

Objection, argumentative.

Objection, incomplete hypothetical.

Objection, nonresponsive.

Objection, misstates the record.

Oh, pardon me, your honor: shamelessly and flagrantly misstates the record in a willful effort to force the opponent to accept premises that no one but he has stated.

And it still doesn't show how it is selling something.

Would you mind letting me make my own argument, please?

 

[CFLarsen]

Now I see the problem - English is not your first language.

For this entire thread, we have been discussing whether art does/does not "sell" anything. Apparently, all along you were discussing what art "sells for", as in money.

Two entirely different things.

But then, even more likely, this is your way of admitting you are wrong, by trying to shift the goal posts. It was all a wacky mis-understanding. We've seen that act before. Doesn't work on a skeptics forum.

No. I have been discussing whether or not art sells anything. In the post you responded to, I specifically talk about added value, not just in monetary terms, but also added skills. You left that out, for some reason.

Incidentally, your use of "whether" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "we have been discussing whether or not art 'sells' anything", or "we have been discussing whether art 'sells' anything or not."

 

[Tricky]

No. I have been discussing whether or not art sells anything. In the post you responded to, I specifically talk about added value, not just in monetary terms, but also added skills. You left that out, for some reason.

Incidentally, your use of "whether" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "we have been discussing whether or not art 'sells' anything", or "we have been discussing whether art 'sells' anything or not."

If memory serves me correctly, we were discussing whether or not all art sells something, which was your original premise. I notice your tendency to leave out that little word that turns your original contention from one of absolute to occasional. Not a single person here has argued that there isn't some art that is specifically commercial.

And no, my drawing didn't add value to anything. It didn't make me a better artist, because I don't really do art, at least not portraits, but even if it did, as Prometheus points out, that in no way equates to "selling". I never showed it to anyone. Even if I did save my notebook after that class was finished, I suspect now that it is destroyed (my apartment burned to the ground 30 years ago).

Claus, you misused a word. It's okay. It happens to everyone. Most people say "oops" and correct it. Why is it that for you, such a correction is so onerous that you will redefine words and lie in order to keep from making it?

 

[CFLarsen]

If memory serves me correctly, we were discussing whether or not all art sells something, which was your original premise. I notice your tendency to leave out that little word that turns your original contention from one of absolute to occasional.

I haven't changed my contention or premise at all.

Not a single person here has argued that there isn't some art that is specifically commercial.

What do you think of this:

I'm not beyond feeling that all advertising could be considered art. However, I do question the reverse; that all art is advertising.

Do you think that not all art is advertising?

And no, my drawing didn't add value to anything. It didn't make me a better artist, because I don't really do art, at least not portraits, but even if it did, as Prometheus points out, that in no way equates to "selling". I never showed it to anyone. Even if I did save my notebook after that class was finished, I suspect now that it is destroyed (my apartment burned to the ground 30 years ago).

Let's read your account again:

When I was in the 11th grade, I had a major crush on my English teacher, a just-out-of-college bouncy little blonde named Rita. Since I really didn't need much help learning English literature (I'd read the whole textbook in the first month) I spent the whole class for over a week making a picture of her. I'd study her intently and add a line or two, erase and do it again. I sat in the back of the class so nobody would see me. I never showed the picture to anybody. I have no idea what happened to it.

That was art. Maybe not good art, but it was art. It was not for selling. It was not for propaganda. It was not for any purpose but my own personal satisfaction.

You went back to the drawing, again and again, studying your subject intently. You sure got a lot of practice - yet you didn't get better?

How ridiculous can you get?

Claus, you misused a word. It's okay. It happens to everyone. Most people say "oops" and correct it. Why is it that for you, such a correction is so onerous that you will redefine words and lie in order to keep from making it?

I haven't lied, nor have I misused any words. If you don't agree with me, I'm fine with that.

But don't claim that practice doesn't improve your skills, just because you can't stand admitting that I actually have a point.

 

[Tricky]

I haven't changed my contention or premise at all.

You conveniently omit the word "all" from time to time.

What do you think of this:

I think that Athon made the point that most people here agree to.

I Do you think that not all art is advertising?

Yes I do. Various people have given you examples of art that is not advertising. Instead of describing how they are advertising, you ramble on "improving skill" or "adding value". I don't know what bizarre dictionary you are using, but those things are not advertising. You make yourself look ridiculous by claiming they are.

You went back to the drawing, again and again, studying your subject intently. You sure got a lot of practice - yet you didn't get better?

I might have gotten better. That still doesn't make it advertising. Practicing is not advertising. They have completely different meanings.

How ridiculous can you get?

I'm willing to learn at the foot of the master.

I haven't lied, nor have I misused any words. If you don't agree with me, I'm fine with that.

You did lie. I showed it very clearly. You have still never answered my question of exactly what definition of "selling" you are using. You claimed you did. It's not a really important lie, as these things go, but it's right there in your own words. You are hoist by your own petard.

But don't claim that practice doesn't improve your skills, just because you can't stand admitting that I actually have a point.

I have not said that practice doesn't improve skills, only that my skills are still fairly poor in art. What I have said is that not all art is advertising. I still say that. That is the topic of the thread. Practice and improving skills is not relevant to the topic. That is your little smoke screen, but I don't think anyone is fooled by it. When you say "all art is advertising", you have not yet made a single point. You have not successfully refuted any example of "non-advertising art" that you have been given. You have instead lied and gone off-topic and refused to concede that you have misused a word. You have, in short, behaved like CFLarsen.

But don't worry. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Incidentally, your use of "whether" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "we have been discussing whether or not art 'sells' anything", or "we have been discussing whether art 'sells' anything or not."

Evidence?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Good news everyone: here (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3594960&postcount=139) Claus has promised to view an art exhibition at TAM 6 and then return here and tell everyone what that art is selling!

Claus is going to tell us what the art at the Las Vegas exhibit is selling. So perhaps we should wait until then? Of course, samples of it are online right now, and he could use those to tell us what they are selling, but I suspect he will need to stand in front of them in order to make that call. Or at least to buy time.

 

[CFLarsen]

You conveniently omit the word "all" from time to time.

Show me where I "omit" it to change my argument.

No, not your post-hoc interpretation of whether I do or not; but where I actually say one thing and then another.

I think that Athon made the point that most people here agree to.

Yes I do. Various people have given you examples of art that is not advertising. Instead of describing how they are advertising, you ramble on "improving skill" or "adding value". I don't know what bizarre dictionary you are using, but those things are not advertising. You make yourself look ridiculous by claiming they are.

Why? It's a matter of disagreement. People look ridiculous if they disagree with you?

I might have gotten better. That still doesn't make it advertising. Practicing is not advertising. They have completely different meanings.

You keep missing the point. Practicing made Picasso better. His first works didn't pay as much as his later works, and they didn't advertise as well either.

Ever heard the quip about how to get to Carnegie Hall? You don't want to go hear some flunky fiddling at the Carnegie Hall - but you'll stand in line for hours to hear some world-class violinist.

You know about Zukerman, Stern and Mutter because they have practiced. They didn't just discover they had talent and waded onto the world's most prestigious stages.

You bet practicing is advertising.

You did lie. I showed it very clearly. You have still never answered my question of exactly what definition of "selling" you are using. You claimed you did. It's not a really important lie, as these things go, but it's right there in your own words. You are hoist by your own petard.

People may disagree with you, but that doesn't make them liars.

Did I claim that practice doesn't improve your skills? You are certainly implying that. So I challenge you to find where I claimed that.

Here:

It didn't make me a better artist

What I have said is that practice and improving skills isn't advertising. I still say that. That is the topic of the thread. Practice and improving skills is not relevant to the topic. That is your little smoke screen, but I don't think anyone is fooled by it. When you say "all art is advertising", you have not yet made a single point. You have not successfully refuted any example of "non-advertising art" that you have been given. You have instead lied and gone off-topic and refused to concede that you have misused a word. You have, in short, behaved like CFLarsen.

You cannot decide which arguments I choose.

 

[Tricky]

Show me where I "omit" it to change my argument.
No, not your post-hoc interpretation of whether I do or not; but where I actually say one thing and then another.

Right here.

No. I have been discussing whether or not art sells anything.

This changes the question, which is "Is all art advertising". Everyone agrees that some art is advertising.

Why? It's a matter of disagreement. People look ridiculous if they disagree with you?

No, they look ridiculous if they use non-standard definitions and then refuse to provide them. Did you see the example I gave earlier of a biblical literalist using a non-standard definition for "good"? Wouldn't you agree they look ridiculous when they call God "good"?

You keep missing the point. Practicing made Picasso better. His first works didn't pay as much as his later works, and they didn't advertise as well either.

No, I understand that point. But Picasso didn't make all the art in the world. Paid artists didn't make all the art in the world. But if you want to use a famous artist, why don't you tell me what Van Goph was advertising when he painted "Wheatfield with Crows" right before blowing his brains out?

Ever heard the quip about how to get to Carnegie Hall? You don't want to go hear some flunky fiddling at the Carnegie Hall - but you'll stand in line for hours to hear some world-class violinist.

You know about Zukerman, Stern and Mutter because they have practiced. They didn't just discover they had talent and waded onto the world's most prestigious stages.

That still doesn't make it advertising. The words have completely different meanings.

You bet practicing is advertising.

Yes, I know this is your "opinion", but you opinion is not supported by any widely accepted sources, like dictionaries. So feel free to redefine words to suit your purpose, but if you do so, prepare to be regarded as ridiculous.

People may disagree with you, but that doesn't make them liars.

True. Only lying makes them liars.

Here:

You know, you are correct. I see how that could be interpreted to mean that I was saying practice didn't make me better. I only meant that it didn't make me appreciably better and it in no way furthered my future in art. But it is true I said that and it is true that my two weeks of drawing a single picture probably made me very slightly better. I was wrong to have said otherwise. You are right about this.

See how easy it is?

By the way, I recognised this mistake myself. The edits I made to my post occurred before I saw this one from you, but I do not deny that your quote was my original version.

You cannot decide which arguments I choose.

Of course I can't. I can only comment on them. I stand by those comments.

 

[CFLarsen]

Right here.
This changes the question, which is "Is all art advertising". Everyone agrees that some art is advertising.

Here is what you deliberately left out:

In the post you responded to, I specifically talk about added value, not just in monetary terms, but also added skills. You left that out, for some reason.

So, no I didn't change anything. And you had to cheat to make it seem as if I did.

No, they look ridiculous if they use non-standard definitions and then refuse to provide them.

If you don't think I have provided them, how do you know they are non-standard? You can't have it both ways.

Did you see the example I gave earlier of a biblical literalist using a non-standard definition for "good"? Wouldn't you agree they look ridiculous when they call God "good"?

You forget that "good" is not an objective term. It may be "good" to them, just as the Taleban thinks it is "good" to execute women who show a little skin.

No, I understand that point. But Picasso didn't make all the art in the world. Paid artists didn't make all the art in the world. But if you want to use a famous artist, why don't you tell me what Van Goph was advertising when he painted "Wheatfield with Crows" right before blowing his brains out?

First of all, get your facts straight: He didn't paint "Wheatfield with Crows" right before blowing his brains out. It wasn't his last painting.

Second, Van Gogh was advertising a whole new way of painting: That he wasn't successful doesn't mean he wasn't advertising.

Unless you want to argue that only successful advertising is really advertising?

That still doesn't make it advertising. The words have completely different meanings.

Yes, I know this is your "opinion", but you opinion is not supported by any widely accepted sources, like dictionaries. So feel free to redefine words to suit your purpose, but if you do so, prepare to be regarded as ridiculous.

If all the practice that Mutter, Stern and Zukerman did has no effect on their fame, what has? Their talent?

You know, you are correct. I see how that could be interpreted to mean that I was saying practice didn't make me better. I only meant that it didn't make me appreciably better
...
made me very slightly better.

Moving the goalpost.

Of course I can't.

Then don't.

Don't tell me what arguments I can use. Don't move the goalposts. Don't cheat. And get your facts straight.

 

[Morrigan]

My boyfriend's father is retired and does watercolour painting as a hobby. He practices and gets better with time, and he even gave us a few of his paintings to hang on our walls (they are quite lovely too). A few of his own decorate his own house. He never sold any of his paintings, nor does he intend to. He just enjoys painting.

Even if we make the ridiculous stretch of equating practicing with selling (which absolutely no one except Claus would do) in terms of artists who do sell their art, I'd really like to see how it applies to my father-in-law. What is he selling?

And then there's the fact that an artwork being sold itself, has nothing to do with an artwork meant to promote another product (or service). Advertising means propagating (or trying to) awareness of a product you want to sell. Selling a painting isn't advertising per se, but a cool logo/sign saying "Awesome Paintings Inc. - buy Awesome Paintings for Affordable Prices Here!" would be advertising. Then again, the distinction is obvious to anyone who's not Claus.

 

[Prometheus]

Which point do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3?

All three of your "points" are unsound conclusions drawn upon an incorrect premise. It is the premise with which I take issue. None of your points follow from anything that Tricky said, because the definition of "sell" which you appear to be using is simply wrong.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Claus has moved the goal posts so many times, I'm not sure what the claim is anymore!

I know there are several questions he hasn't (and won't) answer.

 

[Tricky]

In the post you responded to, I specifically talk about added value, not just in monetary terms, but also added skills. You left that out, for some reason.

Yet you still have not answered my question of what definition you are using for "selling". You claim you did, but you clearly haven't. That makes your claim a lie.

So, no I didn't change anything. And you had to cheat to make it seem as if I did.

Yes you did. You left out the "all" important word, just as I showed.

If you don't think I have provided them, how do you know they are non-standard? You can't have it both ways.

By your usage. Your usage indicates that you are making synonyms of "adding value" and "selling", also of "improving your skill" and "selling". Now I might be wrong on that, so I asked you to provide your the definition you were using for "selling" so that if I was making mistakes based on my interpretation of your usage, you could clarify them. But you chose not to answer my politely-asked question. Repeatedly.

You forget that "good" is not an objective term. It may be "good" to them, just as the Taleban thinks it is "good" to execute women who show a little skin.

But a peron who calls a thing "good" should be consistant in their application of the word. They should be able to define it for their usage. If they refuse to do so, then they look foolish. That is why I ask you to define your usage of the word "selling". You refuse to do so.

First of all, get your facts straight: He didn't paint "Wheatfield with Crows" right before blowing his brains out. It wasn't his last painting.

I might be wrong on that. I read it long ago in a Time/Life book. I never bothered to confirm it. So I will admit (for the second time this thread) that you could be right. But you still have not shown that Van Goph was advertising anything. Certainly not under any definition of "advertising" I have ever heard.

Unless you want to argue that only successful advertising is really advertising?

I don't argue that. I argue that to be advertising, you must have the goal of selling something. You have never shown that all art has that goal. You have never come close to supporting that contention. You have been provided numerous examples of art which was not selling anything, and you have failed utterly in refuting them.

Then don't.

I haven't. I do not and cannot tell you what to post. If I could, you wouldn't look like such a dishonest egomaniac.

Moving the goalpost.

Claus, I quite clearly said I was wrong. A look at the time stamps will show that I realized I was wrong before you pointed it out. How is explaining how I was wrong "moving the goalposts"? You win this point. Is my admission not enough for you? Must you edit my post to make it appear that I am still trying to make the point I have conceded?

Don't tell me what arguments I can use. Don't move the goalposts. Don't cheat. And get your facts straight.

I have not told you any such thing. I have not moved any goalposts. I have admitted it when I made mistakes of fact. That doesn't make me some kind of hero. But I'll stake my honesty against yours any day. Just say the word, Claus, and we'll take a poll. I'll even agree that we both have to approve the wording.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

How ridiculous can you get?

I have an inkling (from past experience), but I don't think we'll really know how ridiculous it can get for another 18-19 pages.