What is the difference between art and advertising?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What is a painting of a man walking on his drumsticks trying to sell?

 

[athon]

What is a painting of a man walking on his drumsticks trying to sell?

Engagement rings?

Athon

 

[athon]

I would argue that advertising does not need to 'sell' something, if by 'sell' it is meant that there is the intention of encouraging somebody to part with money or goods in exchange for goods or services. After all, you can advertise free events, advertise elections, advertise your intentions to do something etc, which don't require the target to part with anything material. However, by these examples 'advertise' still requires you behave in an expected manner. Perhaps that behaviour is to vote for a particular person, or attend a particular event, or watch a particular television show. I cannot think of a single advertisement which was not created with the intention of provoking a behaviour.

Not all art does this. I attend life-drawing classes every week, just for relaxation. I love to draw. I have a book of sketches which I would definitely describe as my art, and yet it has no audience, and definitely has no intention to provoke a behaviour.

Athon

 

[athon]

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

Moved them? They've been moved, changed to billiards pockets and he's switched the ball to a meat-loaf sandwich.

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

Which is why it's obvious Claus is only ever out to antagonize for his own retarded fetish. I wish I could put his naivity (yes...I'm attacking the arguer and not the argument, so report me!) down to a lack of comprehension concerning the subtleties of English literacy, or to the fact I assume he doesn't have a lot of worldly experience, but his tenacity says it's just arrogance mixed with a kick he gets with provoking pointless arguments.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

OK, you disagree with my premise. Can't do much about that. But you really have to understand that disagreement with someone does not mean that that person is "wrong".

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

You can't cheat and expect to be right.

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.

No, no. You cannot point to my "usage" and then claim I haven't provided the definitions.

Either I haven't provided the definitions, or I have (by my "usage"), only they are non-standard. Which is it?

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.

Consistent with what? Your definition of "good"? Why does it have to be consistent with anything? Good is a very versatile concept. What is good for a fundamentalist is not necessarily good for you.

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.

No, you might not be wrong on that. You are wrong on that.

That you never bothered to check says a lot about how strong your argumentation is. You just throw out something and expect people to believe it.

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.

I believe I have argued that it does have that goal. You disagree - fine with me.

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.

Yes, you have, and continue to do.

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?

No, you didn't "realize" you were "wrong". You changed the meaning of your words. Moving the goal posts - once again.

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.

Honesty is not decided by a public poll.

Moved them? They've been moved, changed to billiards pockets and he's switched the ball to a meat-loaf sandwich.

Which is why it's obvious Claus is only ever out to antagonize for his own retarded fetish. I wish I could put his naivity (yes...I'm attacking the arguer and not the argument, so report me!) down to a lack of comprehension concerning the subtleties of English literacy, or to the fact I assume he doesn't have a lot of worldly experience, but his tenacity says it's just arrogance mixed with a kick he gets with provoking pointless arguments.

Instead of attacking the arguer: Is your participation in this thread only meant to present pure facts about art?

 

[athon]

Claus, consider this; why do you think so many threads you participate in end up this way? Why do think so few people seem to agree with you, even on the most ridiculously trivial points? Why is it on a skeptics board, and uber-skeptic like you has next to no fans, especially considering you are the top poster?

I'll provide you with a hint - when you provide a claim, point of view or an opinion, people need you to be clear about your meaning. Now, here's a generalised 'attack on your argument' rather than an attack on you personally - the language you choose to use in making a statement of claim, view or opinion is often taken as arrogant, aggressive, and/or vague. You refuse to be clear when asked for clarity, refuse to provide straight-forward answers when asked for comprehensive meanings to the terms you use, and refuse to provide evidence that can be directly tied to the claim when requested.

These tactics are the very same ones people use when defending an undefensible claim. They lie, then say they never lied in the face of several people showing otherwise. They create strawmen on what the discussion is really about even when nobody had made such a claim. And, as you are notorious for doing, they use words in a manner which most people don't use them and then claim it is a matter of opinion.

No Claus. Words have meanings, even if those meanings can change with cultural context. Even then, one can always show where it is the case. Definitions are no opinions, and when a word is used in a particular way it is easy for one to show that use extends beyond one's own personal interpretation of it. 'Advertise', 'sell' and 'art' all have definitions, even if the precise boundaries can be debated. Everybody but you has used these words in a manner that is commonly understood, to the point they draw no debate. Everybody, except you.

You're a writer who is easily confused by words, it seems. Which is rather pitiful. And, personally, I think you embarrass yourself by demonstrating this and then try to justify it out of pride. Which is why you cannot define 'sell' or 'advertise' here. Backed into a corner, you evade, obfiscate and muddy the water.

Think on this - you're just shy of 40,000 posts. You don't seem to have too much of a life away from here. If you've bullied and antagonised so many potential friends here, and shown yourself to be a weak writer and thinker, just how much of those 40,000, and how many of the next 40,000, have been a waste of time? Especially as so few people really take seriously what you have to say here anymore.

Athon

Please remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Piscivore]

...it's just arrogance mixed with a kick he gets with provoking pointless arguments.

If you translate his name into English the "CF" stands for "Cluster [edited][rule X]"

Please do not circumvent the autocensor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Piscivore]

Think on this - you're just shy of 40,000 posts. You don't seem to have too much of a life away from here. If you've bullied and antagonised so many potential friends here, and shown yourself to be a weak writer and thinker, just how much of those 40,000, and how many of the next 40,000, have been a waste of time? Especially as so few people really take seriously what you have to say here anymore.

He's gone the way of all trolls. He failed to win respect for the wisdom and intelligence he assumed he had, so he's going to ensure his immortality by following the lesson of Herostratus. If he can't be Randi's heir apparent, If he cannot be our resident uberskeptic, If he cannot stand in the same Limelight as Shermer and Dawkins... he'll be Franko. Or Mayday. Or Tai Chi.

I wish I could go to TAM. I'd love to watch him sucking up to Shermer and Randi. I imagine him following them around like a neglected puppy, or presiding over the book table like it was the key to skepticism's very survival. That's the impresion I get from his posts.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, consider this; why do you think so many threads you participate in end up this way? Why do think so few people seem to agree with you, even on the most ridiculously trivial points? Why is it on a skeptics board, and uber-skeptic like you has next to no fans, especially considering you are the top poster?

It isn't a popularity contest.

I'll provide you with a hint - when you provide a claim, point of view or an opinion, people need you to be clear about your meaning.

I take that as an admission that I did present my opinion here. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

What about you? Is your participation in this thread only meant to present pure facts about art?

Now, here's a generalised 'attack on your argument' rather than an attack on you personally - the language you choose to use in making a statement of claim, view or opinion is often taken as arrogant, aggressive, and/or vague. You refuse to be clear when asked for clarity, refuse to provide straight-forward answers when asked for comprehensive meanings to the terms you use, and refuse to provide evidence that can be directly tied to the claim when requested.

I do not refuse to be clear when asked for clarity. But I refuse to be forced to make an argument I am not arguing. And I definitely refuse to have my opinions thrown back at me as if they were facts.

These tactics are the very same ones people use when defending an undefensible claim. They lie, then say they never lied in the face of several people showing otherwise. They create strawmen on what the discussion is really about even when nobody had made such a claim. And, as you are notorious for doing, they use words in a manner which most people don't use them and then claim it is a matter of opinion.

I still challenge anyone to point out just one lie I made. Anywhere. Anytime.

Not something that is disagreement. But a clear lie.

No Claus. Words have meanings, even if those meanings can change with cultural context. Even then, one can always show where it is the case. Definitions are no opinions, and when a word is used in a particular way it is easy for one to show that use extends beyond one's own personal interpretation of it. 'Advertise', 'sell' and 'art' all have definitions, even if the precise boundaries can be debated. Everybody but you has used these words in a manner that is commonly understood, to the point they draw no debate. Everybody, except you.

You disagree with my contention. I'm fine with that.

You're a writer who is easily confused by words, it seems. Which is rather pitiful. And, personally, I think you embarrass yourself by demonstrating this and then try to justify it out of pride. Which is why you cannot define 'sell' or 'advertise' here. Backed into a corner, you evade, obfiscate and muddy the water.

Oddly enough, I don't hear this when I write about the paranormal/supernatural/miraculous - something that is not merely a matter of opinion, such as this subject - art. Why do you think that is?

Think on this - you're just shy of 40,000 posts. You don't seem to have too much of a life away from here.

Don't speculate or assume anything about my life, mate. What I need you or anyone else to know about me, I will tell you myself. How I happen to be able to spend time here is none of your damn business.

If you've bullied and antagonised so many potential friends here, and shown yourself to be a weak writer and thinker, just how much of those 40,000, and how many of the next 40,000, have been a waste of time? Especially as so few people really take seriously what you have to say here anymore.

If you think what I write is a waste of time, you can always put me on ignore.

 

[CFLarsen]

He's gone the way of all trolls. He failed to win respect for the wisdom and intelligence he assumed he had, so he's going to ensure his immortality by following the lesson of Herostratus. If he can't be Randi's heir apparent, If he cannot be our resident uberskeptic, If he cannot stand in the same Limelight as Shermer and Dawkins... he'll be Franko. Or Mayday. Or Tai Chi.

I wish I could go to TAM. I'd love to watch him sucking up to Shermer and Randi. I imagine him following them around like a neglected puppy, or presiding over the book table like it was the key to skepticism's very survival. That's the impresion I get from his posts.

But that's just my opinion.

Do come to TAM. Reality is not what you think.

 

[athon]

It isn't a popularity contest.

Oh, I'm fully aware of how you must justify it to yourself. 'Nobody seems to agree with me, but then I'm sure Randi feels like that some days.'

Thing is, people like Randi might be aggressive, but they are clear, articulate and use language well. Sure, pseudoscience and paranormal advocates are antagonised by their writing, but if they lacked fans even amongst skeptics they could be considered to have failed at what they do.

It's no popularity contest, but when you regularly fail to win the agreements of people who otherwise share your philosophy, you've really got something to think about.

I take that as an admission that I did present my opinion here. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

I never said you didn't. Yet that opinion should still make sense, be clear in its phrasing and supported with good reason. You've not done any of that.

What about you? Is your participation in this thread only meant to present pure facts about art?

No. Why the dichotomy? Opinions should still be based on commonly understood definitions, facts and good reasoning.

I do not refuse to be clear when asked for clarity. But I refuse to be forced to make an argument I am not arguing. And I definitely refuse to have my opinions thrown back at me as if they were facts.

Again, you do refuse to be clear when asked for clarity. For example, what do you mean precisely by the word 'sell', and why does the context you use the term in imply you're using it in a way people don't normally use the word?

Nobody has 'thrown' your opinion back at you 'as if they were facts'. Please don't become the drama queen, it really doesn't suit you.

People have asked you to be clear about your statements and to support them with reasons, definitions and facts.

If somebody said 'It's my opinion that homeopathy is a medicine' you'd be all over them like a rash. You'd demand evidence, even though it is an opinion. You'd ask them to define medicine, and if they used a definition that was not commonly understood you'd be laying into them like there was no tomorrow.

That makes you a hypocrit, Claus. And it is why you've lost all credibility.

I still challenge anyone to point out just one lie I made. Anywhere. Anytime.

Point being what? We've played this game - you try to again play word games. Tricky did a fine job above, which you simply dismiss with nonsense justifications and evasion. I'll leave the evidence stand there. Most people see it for what it is, even if you're playing the Emporer who has a fine new suit.

Oddly enough, I don't hear this when I write about the paranormal/supernatural/miraculous - something that is not merely a matter of opinion, such as this subject - art. Why do you think that is?

Huh? If somebody is doing what you are doing right now, and you're laying into them for it, you tend to be correct. I won't argue if you point out somebody is lying, making strawmen and evading the point. You display that behaviour, and when we point it out you play the very same game they do. That's the story Claus.

Stick to the scenario.

Don't speculate or assume anything about my life, mate. What I need you or anyone else to know about me, I will tell you myself. How I happen to be able to spend time here is none of your damn business.

Touchy. But I feel it might be significant, even if it is speculation. Sitting behind a computer screen scoring up the posts all day doesn't do a great deal about informing you of the world outside the window. Of course I could be wrong, but your naivity about language is a perfect example.

The real world is not a blog or a forum, mate. It's a little different. You could well learn from it.

If you think what I write is a waste of time, you can always put me on ignore.

And we end with a classic demonstration - I never said responding to your nonsense is a waste of time. It's not - it serves to show people that we don't swallow your horse poo, and that some people won't tolerate bad reasoning regardless of whether you're a believer or a skeptic.

I am saying you're wasting your own effort, assuming you write here to try to inform, challenge and change people's opinions about things.

Athon

 

[athon]

He's gone the way of all trolls. He failed to win respect for the wisdom and intelligence he assumed he had, so he's going to ensure his immortality by following the lesson of Herostratus. If he can't be Randi's heir apparent, If he cannot be our resident uberskeptic, If he cannot stand in the same Limelight as Shermer and Dawkins... he'll be Franko. Or Mayday. Or Tai Chi.

I wish I could go to TAM. I'd love to watch him sucking up to Shermer and Randi. I imagine him following them around like a neglected puppy, or presiding over the book table like it was the key to skepticism's very survival. That's the impresion I get from his posts.

But that's just my opinion.

Actually, in person Claus is quite amiable. He wouldn't dare communicate in reality as he does here, as (just as I said before) reality is different to a blog or forum. It's easy to be an arse hidden a keyboard. While I don't respect Claus one bit for his writing here, I do like him personally. Unfortunately I suspect I might be avoided at TAM for my stance against him here, but then I really have a sore spot for self-proclaimed skeptics who behave in a manner which serves only to put skepticism in an anti-social, dogmatic light. It's a shame about the dissonance between 'real' Claus and 'forum' Claus.

However as I said, I suspect the disbalance between the time he spends out talking to a variety of people face-to-face through the week and his time arguing on here might be responsible for his miscommunication on the boards.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, I'm fully aware of how you must justify it to yourself. 'Nobody seems to agree with me, but then I'm sure Randi feels like that some days.'

Huh? What the heck does Randi have to do with this?

Thing is, people like Randi might be aggressive, but they are clear, articulate and use language well. Sure, pseudoscience and paranormal advocates are antagonised by their writing, but if they lacked fans even amongst skeptics they could be considered to have failed at what they do.

It's no popularity contest, but when you regularly fail to win the agreements of people who otherwise share your philosophy, you've really got something to think about.

Because you disagree with me on non-skeptical issues does not make me a bad skeptic.

I never said you didn't.

Oh, yes you did:

Burden of proof is on you, sunshine. You're stating that graffiti is advertising - you need to a) provide a definition of advertising which isn't just your make-believe interpretation, and b) show that graffiti is commonly accepted as subscribing to this accepted definition. Going on your track record of 'engagement' and 'drum-sticks', I won't hold my breath that you have a clue of either point.
...
You don't have any evidence? I guess once again, you lose then. Sorry, it's your claim. 'All art is a form of advertising'. I'm asking you to define advertising and then show how all art does this. You haven't done that.
...
I'm asking for evidence, which I'm sure you'll fumble to provide some nonsense links and then later point to some post in defence of your claim which fails to support anything you've said. If you can't support your claim in the next post, we might just skip to the part where it's accepted by the majority that you're once again stirring the pot and speaking through your arse.

This is simple - back up your claim, Claus, without trying to spin this around. Where is your evidence? I'm calling you out, squire.

Or did I "misunderstand" you? "Evidence", "proof", "back up claim"...doesn't mean what I thought it meant?

Yet that opinion should still make sense, be clear in its phrasing and supported with good reason. You've not done any of that.

It is the easiest - and cheapest - way to dismiss your opponent's argument as being nonsense.

No. Why the dichotomy? Opinions should still be based on commonly understood definitions, facts and good reasoning.

Good. Then, you should have the courtesy to extend that to me as well.

Unless, of course, you didn't mean "evidence" when you said "evidence".

Again, you do refuse to be clear when asked for clarity. For example, what do you mean precisely by the word 'sell', and why does the context you use the term in imply you're using it in a way people don't normally use the word?

Nobody has 'thrown' your opinion back at you 'as if they were facts'. Please don't become the drama queen, it really doesn't suit you.

See your own post.

People have asked you to be clear about your statements and to support them with reasons, definitions and facts.

If somebody said 'It's my opinion that homeopathy is a medicine' you'd be all over them like a rash. You'd demand evidence, even though it is an opinion. You'd ask them to define medicine, and if they used a definition that was not commonly understood you'd be laying into them like there was no tomorrow.

That makes you a hypocrit, Claus. And it is why you've lost all credibility.

Whether homeopathy is a medicine or not is something we can decide skeptically. Whether all art sells is a matter of opinion. That's what you are missing.

Point being what? We've played this game - you try to again play word games. Tricky did a fine job above, which you simply dismiss with nonsense justifications and evasion. I'll leave the evidence stand there. Most people see it for what it is, even if you're playing the Emporer who has a fine new suit.

Point being that you back up your claim? It isn't a matter of opinion whether I have lied or not - is it?

Huh? If somebody is doing what you are doing right now, and you're laying into them for it, you tend to be correct. I won't argue if you point out somebody is lying, making strawmen and evading the point. You display that behaviour, and when we point it out you play the very same game they do. That's the story Claus.

Stick to the scenario.

You may think that. But why only on subjects that are a matter of opinion? Maybe - just maybe - I have different opinions on some issues (but certainly not all), and I argue my case maybe just a wee tad stronger than you are used to?

It is rather odd, isn't it - that you are hard pressed to find flaws when I challenge woos - but when it is a matter of opinion, I always abandon all critical thinking.

Don't you think it is odd?

Touchy. But I feel it might be significant, even if it is speculation. Sitting behind a computer screen scoring up the posts all day doesn't do a great deal about informing you of the world outside the window. Of course I could be wrong, but your naivity about language is a perfect example.

I am telling you right now, Athon, so there is no way you can misunderstand:

Stay the hell out of my private life.

Is that clear?

The real world is not a blog or a forum, mate. It's a little different. You could well learn from it.

Yes, it is. Which is why I don't judge people I know outside solely based on what they post here.

And we end with a classic demonstration - I never said responding to your nonsense is a waste of time.

More to the point, I never said you did. I suggested that if you thought that way, there was a way you could avoid my posts altogether.

You see what happened here? You jumped at me, even though I didn't say what you thought I did. You just thought the worst of me. Merely because we disagreed.

It's not - it serves to show people that we don't swallow your horse poo, and that some people won't tolerate bad reasoning regardless of whether you're a believer or a skeptic.

I am saying you're wasting your own effort, assuming you write here to try to inform, challenge and change people's opinions about things.

That is definitely where you and I are different. While I want to inform, challenge and change people's stance when it comes to woo, my goal is not to make people change their opinions about things that are merely a matter of opinion. Contrary to you, I respect if people have different opinions on issues that are only opinions.

Actually, in person Claus is quite amiable. He wouldn't dare communicate in reality as he does here, as (just as I said before) reality is different to a blog or forum. It's easy to be an arse hidden a keyboard.

That shows how little you know of me. I am no different in real life than here.

While I don't respect Claus one bit for his writing here, I do like him personally. Unfortunately I suspect I might be avoided at TAM for my stance against him here, but then I really have a sore spot for self-proclaimed skeptics who behave in a manner which serves only to put skepticism in an anti-social, dogmatic light. It's a shame about the dissonance between 'real' Claus and 'forum' Claus.

This is what I find most disturbing: If people disagree about something that is inherently a matter of opinion - art, politics, music - they are automatically bad skeptics.

It's not just you. I've seen it with quite a lot of people in the past few years. They think that, because they are right about creationists, psychics and astrologers, they are right about everything else. And they have a hell of a lot of trouble separating those issues we can skeptically determine and those we cannot.

I would love to discuss this further at TAM. With as many people as possible.

However as I said, I suspect the disbalance between the time he spends out talking to a variety of people face-to-face through the week and his time arguing on here might be responsible for his miscommunication on the boards.

Stay out, Athon. I mean it.

 

[Tricky]

OK, you disagree with my premise. Can't do much about that. But you really have to understand that disagreement with someone does not mean that that person is "wrong".

And as I have pointed out to you, a premise can be incorrect. An opinion can be incorrect. I'm not sure why anyone should have to explain this to you. When you use a definition that only you accept, then that definition is incorrect, no matter how deep and sincere your opinion is.

No, no. You cannot point to my "usage" and then claim I haven't provided the definitions.

Of course I can. Whenever I see a word that is used oddly, it is my practice to look it up to see if I am simply ignorant of one of the non-standard definitions of the word. Well, I've looked up "selling" and I can't find any definitions that match your usage, so I asked you to provide it. You didn't. Then you lied about it. I can show you the lie again if you care to see it.

Consistent with what? Your definition of "good"? Why does it have to be consistent with anything? Good is a very versatile concept. What is good for a fundamentalist is not necessarily good for you.

Most Christian fundamentalists don't believe murder of innocents is "good", yet they call a God that, according to their holy books, murders innocents "good". That is an example of the usage not matching the definition.

No, you might not be wrong on that. You are wrong on that.

That you never bothered to check says a lot about how strong your argumentation is. You just throw out something and expect people to believe it.

Okay I WAS wrong on that. I admit it. I didn't research it, I recalled it from memory. That was a mistake.

You are wrong on your usage of the word "selling". A little lexicographical research would point that out to you, yet rather than do any or even provide a definition, you persist in proclaiming that your are not wrong but simply "have an opinion". You don't practice what you preach.

But this is a good case to demonstrate how the reactions of people differ when they are shown to be wrong.

And of course, this thread isn't about Van Gogh, or about Picasso or about Zukerman, Stern and Mutter. It is about whether all art is "selling" something. Your attempt to steer it elsewhere is transparent.

I believe I have argued that it does have that goal. You disagree - fine with me.

Yes, you have argued it, and that argument has been shown to be contrary to a great deal of evidence. That makes your argument wrong. That's how it works, you see.

Honesty is not decided by a public poll.

If you want to know if people regard you as honest, then a public poll is in fact, the best way to tell. Almost everyone here knows why you won't agree to such a poll. You do too.

But you're right, honesty is not decided by a public poll. Honesty is shown by not telling lies. Honesty is shown by admitting mistakes.

 

[CFLarsen]

And as I have pointed out to you, a premise can be incorrect. An opinion can be incorrect. I'm not sure why anyone should have to explain this to you.

Of course premises and opinions can be incorrect. I haven't said otherwise. They can be incorrect if they are based on falsehoods.

When you use a definition that only you accept, then that definition is incorrect, no matter how deep and sincere your opinion is.

So, you do think I have defined "sell". Thank you.

Of course I can. Whenever I see a word that is used oddly, it is my practice to look it up to see if I am simply ignorant of one of the non-standard definitions of the word. Well, I've looked up "selling" and I can't find any definitions that match your usage, so I asked you to provide it. You didn't. Then you lied about it. I can show you the lie again if you care to see it.

Oops. You're back to me not defining it. So, which is it?

Most Christian fundamentalists don't believe murder of innocents is "good", yet they call a God that, according to their holy books, murders innocents "good". That is an example of the usage not matching the definition.

You forget that Christian fundamentalists do not think they are equal to their god. Their god can do what they can't.

Okay I WAS wrong on that. I admit it. I didn't research it, I recalled it from memory. That was a mistake.

Thank you.

You are wrong on your usage of the word "selling". A little lexicographical research would point that out to you, yet rather than do any or even provide a definition, you persist in proclaiming that your are not wrong but simply "have an opinion". You don't practice what you preach.

But this is a good case to demonstrate how the reactions of people differ when they are shown to be wrong.

And of course, this thread isn't about Van Gogh, or about Picasso or about Zukerman, Stern and Mutter. It is about whether all art is "selling" something. Your attempt to steer it elsewhere is transparent.

Again, I will choose whatever points I want to present my argument. You do not decide what I can use or not.

Yes, you have argued it, and that argument has been shown to be contrary to a great deal of evidence. That makes your argument wrong. That's how it works, you see.

Evidence, you say? So, we can skeptically determine what art is, and what it does?

If you want to know if people regard you as honest, then a public poll is in fact, the best way to tell. Almost everyone here knows why you won't agree to such a poll. You do too.

There you go, moving the goal posts once again. First, you wanted a poll to decide who was honest of you and me. Now, you want a poll to decide who is regarded as honest. From fact you move to opinion.

But you're right, honesty is not decided by a public poll. Honesty is shown by not telling lies. Honesty is shown by admitting mistakes.

Still no evidence of my lies.

 

[Tricky]

I believe I am done with Claus here. I think it has been demonstrated by numerous people with numerous, unrefuted examples, that not all art is advertising under any commonly accepted definitions of "advertising" or "selling".

Other things have been demonstrated too.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I believe I am done with Claus here. I think it has been demonstrated by numerous people with numerous, unrefuted examples, that not all art is advertising under any commonly accepted definitions of "advertising" or "selling".

Other things have been demonstrated too.

Claus' claim that all art sells something has been withdrawn.

His behavior in this thread (and many others) has been quite "Shanek-like". Which explains a lot.

 

[athon]

I attempted to respond to some of your points Claus, but realised it makes no difference. We're speaking two different languages, and you're so focussed on appearing to be right that it doesn't matter what anybody says anyway. It's the same story every time, and it's just gotten so damn repetitive.

I'll just comment on one thing - you seem to fall into the common trap of thinking 'opinion' is a free for all where all opinions are equally valid. While all people have equal right to an opinion, some are more correct than others. While I can state 'x is an example of y' as a matter of opinion, if the common definition of 'y' does not include 'x' then my opinion is incorrect. Of course I could reinvent those definitions to make myself correct, as you seem so inclined to do, but it doesn't change the fact that you've needed to change the meaning of the language to suit the term.

On the matter of your private life, I don't see how I am 'in it', let alone can stay out of it. I've speculated based on your post-count and rather narrow understanding of language. Big deal. Armchair critics who have narrow experience of the world outside their door bug me, but ignore it if such an opinion upsets you so much. According to you, I'm entitled to it. However, I've not asked you to comment on it, and admit I could be totally wrong. I wouldn't know squat about your private life. I do apologise for obviously offending you on the matter, for what it's worth.

Lastly, you're right that I don't know you. I tried to give a benefit of the doubt that you might have enough common sense to not act like an asshat in real life as you do here. But I stand corrected if you insist you're the same here as IRL.

I'm bowing out of the discussion too. I expect these posts will be AAH'd by morning anyway, but at least I've had my say.

Athon

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So, you do think I have defined "sell". Thank you.

This is about the most willfully dishonest thing I have seen posted in almost 2 years.

I am going by memory, so it might not be a full two years, but that's my estimate at this time.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is about the most willfully dishonest thing I have seen posted in almost 2 years.

I am going by memory, so it might not be a full two years, but that's my estimate at this time.

What is sad is that he actually believes it.