- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 10 May 2009 08:10:18 +0000
Listen, Stop Him, you cannot prove that "everything that is created is art" because this statement is false.
Oh Christ. I don't know how to respond to this, because I can't tell if you're just unable to understand what I've been saying all this time - or if your writing is too dreadful to convey the idea back in an accurate manner.
That's not what I've been saying. At best, it's a garbled, edited, abridged version loosely based on things I've said, probably also confused with things other people have said. It's like a book made from a movie made from a book. Even when I've been going on about the definition of art that I've been using, that's NOT saying "everything that is created is art". I use conditions besides the mere creation. You're arguing against your own imagination, not me.
Before you hurr durr at me, listen up, it's a fact: "everything is art" is a modernist concept.
Okay... so it's a Modernist concept. We'll go with that. I can accept that statement as a fact.
You are looking at this argument from a modernist's point of view and you are rejecting all other definitions. Your argument is biased.
A) "Everything is art" is, once again, NOT what I've been saying. That is also a fact. So whether it's a Modernist concept or not makes no goddamn difference except to whatever argument you're having in your own head.
B) I am not outright rejecting other definitions so much as I am questioning the need for them, questioning their validity.
C) What, it can't be right because it's Modernist? No, that one would probably confuse the issue too much for you.
I hate modernism and post-modernism, but I included both in my definition anyway because I wanted it to be unbiased. I never said "abstract expressionism is not art", I said "abstract expressionism is art when the artist is aware of color theory and composition". It matters little to me if it's one or two blotches of paint, what makes it art or not art is the placement of these blotches and what color they are and what they mean, because this is what separates the work of an artist from stuff that is complete garbage. And the only way in which one can make this evaluation is by basing it on existing standards of composition and color. These are standards that don't change overtime, and they are safe for that reason.
"Being unbiased" means a bit more than just tossing in a few examples of things you dislike. You may hate modernism and post-modernism, but including those in your group does not remove all bias from your analysis. It's right there: the need for standards is your bias. It's as blatant as shaving a dead badger and throwing it into a room. It attracts notice like a neon sign that says "look, bias here."
You are not impartial to that issue. You are emotional about that issue. You accept it unquestioningly, as an article of faith. That is not objectivity.
When you mention what you supposedly hate, you say that you respect examples for their thought or their composition, or some other factor. That respect is bias. It is a feeling. It is - yes, an opinion, not a fact. Others respect different qualities, others hold varying standards. There is no constant, no proof for any of them, merely trends and tendencies.
That there have been standards by which one can judge the worth of a piece is not something I dispute.
I propose (have been proposing all along): the worth of a piece (which includes things like respect for its concepts or composition) does not have to define a piece as art. You call it garbage, I say, why can not garbage also be art? This does not mean that the garbage is equal to other art, it would simply mean that it could be art. This does not mean "everything" is art, but that I think (yes, an opinion) that there can be a more unbiased way to look at the concept of art.
This is what I'm trying to do. To strip away what I might feel about art and approach the question of "what is art" from what I can reasonably prove to be true about art. The two criteria I have so far may not, in the end, be the full and complete definition of art, but they do not depend on any emotion on my part to judge. I don't have to respect a concept to any degree, I don't have to appreciate the skill, I don't have to apply any feeling to the question at all.
The concept of art. The idea of art. Not whether a piece of art is of professional quality. Not whether it's worthy to be in a museum. Not whether someone should be able to get a job with it.
I came back to this thread in hopes that things would have calmed down, but no. You are all still being idiots and refusing to accept that without standards, there is no such thing is art.
By your standards. Why your standards, and not someone else's?
By your belief, your opinion. No fact of relevance, no proof.
Why should it calm down? You offer no solid opposition, only rancor, and your "ally" seems content to also stoke the name-calling.
Why should others accept your decree? You can't even argue against what I actually say, you make things up and pretend I say them.
I am appalled. And I am disgusted.
Your outrage is meaningless. You have made yourself into such an obnoxious self-righteous a** over this that any possible sympathy I could ever have had vanished long ago. Why you think this information is at all important to anyone else is a mystery.
I'm not even really trying to convince you so much anymore as I am performing for the crowd, any outside reader who may be interested.
And I am not the Major. He is smarter than I could ever hope to be.
God, you even stroke each other the same. Let's see if you share the same tactic of ignoring things because they're "too long to read".