Is It Art?

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
My favorite art is neoclassicism and the pre-Raphaelites. What astonishes me is how radical they were considered at the time; the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood's work is, of course, completely tame by today's standards. But the humanization of biblical scenes and other directions the brotherhood took shocked their audiences then.

Just an observation.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
PureX, when I said that this "artist" steals from people via the government, you corrected me and said that he didn't steal from anybody. (post #36)

Were you stating an objective fact, or were you just offering your opinion?

If it was just your opinion, why didn't you say so? And why should I change my opinion to conform with yours?

Is there anything you've said on this thread that is not just your opinion?
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

I dunno, he seemed to give a pretty simple answer...

You call this an answer?

Originally posted by PureX

That depends on what you believe is "wrong", doesn't it. Some people will believe it's OK, and some won't.

You can call this a lot of things (sick, perverted, a copout, an escape) but it's anything but an answer. PureX wouldn't give an honest answer if his life depended on it.

Like you said, granite, the question of the Nazi's killing the Jews being wrong, should be a no brainer. That's exactly why it should be brought up. If one can't see that such a tragedy was so obviously wrong then how much credit can you give that person? PureX does not believe that the Nazi's killing the Jews was absolutely wrong. Do you agree with this?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Well...in post 71 he did say he considered the Holocaust wrong. (And in interests of full disclosure, I'm half-Jewish and some of my Polish ancestors were shot by the SS, so it's not like I don't have a personal reaction to this subject.)

I don't want to put words in the guy's mouth--PureX is a big boy and can speak for himself. I'd say that ANY murder of ANY kind is of course "absolutely" wrong "absolutely" all the time. But that's just me.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

Well...in post 71 he did say he considered the Holocaust wrong. (And in interests of full disclosure, I'm half-Jewish and some of my Polish ancestors were shot by the SS, so it's not like I don't have a personal reaction to this subject.)

I don't want to put words in the guy's mouth--PureX is a big boy and can speak for himself. I'd say that ANY murder of ANY kind is of course "absolutely" wrong "absolutely" all the time. But that's just me.

PureX said his opinion was that it was wrong. But if another person said that his opinion is that killing the Jews was a good thing, PureX would say that that's ok too. You said that this subject is personal for you. Aren't you outraged that PureX will never say that killing the Jews was absolutely wrong because he says it cannot be known?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Poly

PureX said his opinion was that it was wrong. But if another person said that his opinion is that killing the Jews was a good thing, PureX would say that that's ok too. You said that this subject is personal for you. Aren't you outraged that PureX will never say that killing the Jews was absolutely wrong because he says it cannot be known?

Yes--his personal opinion is that it was wrong (though not a crime; that kind of hair-splitting I just don't appreciate from anyone). I doubt PureX would unconditionally come out and condemn the Shoah; who knows. I don't want to attack the guy too much because I appreciate a lot of what he posts here. But I'll admit, when it comes to this--or any other organized atrocity--there's a point where you have to throw your hands up when someone starts pondering whether it's ever "absolutely" wrong.

Some things are just self-evident.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

Yes--his personal opinion is that it was wrong (though not a crime; that kind of hair-splitting I just don't appreciate from anyone). I doubt PureX would unconditionally come out and condemn the Shoah; who knows. I don't want to attack the guy too much because I appreciate a lot of what he posts here. But I'll admit, when it comes to this--or any other organized atrocity--there's a point where you have to throw your hands up when someone starts pondering whether it's ever "absolutely" wrong.

Some things are just self-evident.
Then how in the world can you "appreciate a lot of what he posts here"? I'm sorry I don't get it. When a person can't see that killing the Jews, molesting children, raping women, etc. is absolutely wrong and that there's no room for one's opinion on the matter, how can you appreciate anything that person has to say?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Poly

Then how in the world can you "appreciate a lot of what he posts here"? I'm sorry I don't get it. When a person can't see that killing the Jews, molesting children, raping women, etc. is absolutely wrong and that there's no room for one's opinion on the matter, how can you appreciate anything that person has to say?

Because I don't approach people here in a black or white scenario. I mean, I even agree with YOU some of the time, Poly.:D

But that doesn't mean it's a one-way-or-another type thing. Sometimes PureX has a point, sometimes not.
 

the Sibbie

New member
Originally posted by PureX

These definitions are wrong and archaic.
Why? Because they are from a dictionary that is 5-years-old, which, btw, specifies which definitions are archaic and obsolete? :rolleyes:
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by Turbo

PureX, when I said that this "artist" steals from people via the government, you corrected me and said that he didn't steal from anybody. (post #36)

Were you stating an objective fact, or were you just offering your opinion?

If it was just your opinion, why didn't you say so? And why should I change my opinion to conform with yours?

Is there anything you've said on this thread that is not just your opinion?
Everything I post is the absolute truth. Whatever you think about it is irrelevant. You should just accept this and bow to my superior wisdom.

There, feel better? Isn't this the absolutist stance you're looking for?
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by Poly PureX wouldn't give an honest answer if his life depended on it.
Aparently, you wouldn't recognize an honest answer if it bit you.

What you wanted was an absolutist answer, and because you didn't see one you decided to call me names. Aren't you proud of yourself, now?

Originally posted by Poly Like you said, granite, the question of the Nazi's killing the Jews being wrong, should be a no brainer. That's exactly why it should be brought up. If one can't see that such a tragedy was so obviously wrong then how much credit can you give that person? PureX does not believe that the Nazi's killing the Jews was absolutely wrong. Do you agree with this?
The nazis thought that their own moral, physical, and intellectual superiority over the Jews was also absolute and "self-evident". In fact, it's because they considered their racism and violent arrogance absolute and self-evident that they were able to act on it without the least bit of hesitation or doubt.

Lots of people think they're absolutely right, and that their view of reality is "self-evident". But this never made them absolutely right, and it doesn't make you absolutely right, either. All it does is give you an excuse to treat other people badly and pretend that you're justified in doing so.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
People who are sure themselves can turn dangerous pretty quickly...especially with a "If God is for us, who can be against us?" mindset.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by Poly PureX said his opinion was that it was wrong. But if another person said that his opinion is that killing the Jews was a good thing, PureX would say that that's ok too. You said that this subject is personal for you. Aren't you outraged that PureX will never say that killing the Jews was absolutely wrong because he says it cannot be known?
I'm not in charge of other people's opinions. I'm not in charge of what's "good" and what's not. I am only in charge of my own opinions, and my own actions in response to the behavior of others.

Turbo asked a question and I answered it. I'm not going to pretend I'm God and tell you or him or anyone else that my opinions are the absolute truth. If you don't like that, too bad. If you want to call me names because of it then I think you're a fool, but I can't stop you from being a fool. Aparently you can't stop yourself, either.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by the Sibbie Why? Because they are from a dictionary that is 5-years-old, which, btw, specifies which definitions are archaic and obsolete?
I've studied art. I have a masters degree from the Art Institute of Chicago. I have been a working artist for many years, and I still work in the art field. I know what art is, and what it's not. If you would like to open a discussion about what art is I'd be happy to ablige you, but I'm not going to accept archaic and ill-considered dictionary definitions. I can tell you that whoever wrote the definitions you posted did not ask any artist what art is. That "art is the pursuit of the lofty and beautiful" stuff might have worked during a short period in art history called "romanticism" but that's about it.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by granite1010 People who are sure themselves can turn dangerous pretty quickly...especially with a "If God is for us, who can be against us?" mindset.
Yes. The whole addiction to this absolutist nonsense is so people can pretend their right without actually having to prove it. And it does very often seem to express itself as the justification for violence against others.
 

the Sibbie

New member
Originally posted by PureX

I've studied art. I have a masters degree from the Art Institute of Chicago. I have been a working artist for many years, and I still work in the art field. I know what art is, and what it's not. If you would like to open a discussion about what art is I'd be happy to ablige you, but I'm not going to accept archaic and ill-considered dictionary definitions. I can tell you that whoever wrote the definitions you posted did not ask any artist what art is.
What's your definition of an "artist"? Only those that create visual art?
That "art is the pursuit of the lofty and beautiful" stuff might have worked during a short period in art history called "romanticism" but that's about it.
Your narrow definition of art seems to only apply to visual art, which I guess is to be expected coming from one who has such a refined education in art.

It seems artist is broadly used term. While they are have more specific names musicans, singers, painters, composers and magicians these are all still called artists (unless that is now no longer politically correct). Then again, as I've observed before, hoity-toities are pretty particular when it comes to using terms from their area of expertise.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by PureX

I've studied art. I have a masters degree from the Art Institute of Chicago. I have been a working artist for many years, and I still work in the art field. I know what art is, and what it's not. If you would like to open a discussion about what art is I'd be happy to ablige you, but I'm not going to accept archaic and ill-considered dictionary definitions. I can tell you that whoever wrote the definitions you posted did not ask any artist what art is. That "art is the pursuit of the lofty and beautiful" stuff might have worked during a short period in art history called "romanticism" but that's about it.
Is this just more opining, or are you speaking authoritatively and absolutely?
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by the Sibbie What's your definition of an "artist"?
An artist is someone who does art.
Originally posted by the Sibbie Only those that create visual art?
The physical medeum or sensory organs involved in conveying art from one person to another only matter as they relate to that which is being conveyed. Art is an endeavor; it's not defined by process or medium.
Originally posted by the Sibbie Your narrow definition of art seems to only apply to visual art, which I guess is to be expected coming from one who has such a refined education in art.
You should wait until you get an answer before you jump to negative conclusions like this.
Originally posted by the Sibbie It seems artist is broadly used term. While they are have more specific names musicans, singers, painters, composers and magicians these are all still called artists (unless that is now no longer politically correct). Then again, as I've observed before, hoity-toities are pretty particular when it comes to using terms from their area of expertise.
I would suppose that it's their expertise that allows them to be more particular, don't you think? People who spend a great deal of time and money and effort to become experts in a particular field might resent some ignoramus who has never bothered to learn anything about that field spouting off as if he were some sort of know-it-all.

Musicans, singers, painters, composers and magicians are musicans, singers, painters, composers and magicians. They are not artists. Artists are people who do art. It's true that some artists convey their art through music, for example, and thus they can also be called a "musician" as music is sound arranged by human beings for a purpose. But in this case the purpose is art, and so although this artist is a musician, he/she is principally an artist.

Here is an example: Laurie Anderson received her BFA in sculpture, but then went to the Julliard School of Music for her masters. As a result she became what's knows an a "performance artist" who's performances mostly involved her playing a violin along with some pre-taped sounds and some visual projections. But even though her performances involved "music", their primary function was as art. I admit that with some artists, like Laurie Anderson, the lines become somewhat overlapped. But the way these things are classified, and for the most part always have been, is by focussing on the represented intent of whatever it is we're experiencing.

Art is a category of human endeavor. It's a very peculiar category of human endeavor in that it's defined by it's lack of definition. By that I mean that art is the endeavor we are engaged in when we begin actively exploring our own cognition; how we are relating to the world around us, and what meaning we are deriving from these relationships.
 
Last edited:
Top