Michael Jackson was not an artist so I thought I guess.

Michael Jackson was:

NOT AN ARTIST	13.3%	[ 18 ]
A musician	70.4%	[ 95 ]
A giraffe	16.3%	[ 22 ]
Total Votes:			[ 135 ]

[Millie Baldessari]

VXS-Alpha

Millie Nao

VXS-Alpha

Millie Nao

VXS-Alpha

'Very'. I think I'm beginning to get the hang of this back-and-forth between satire, sarcasm and a little bit of the so-so in between.

Though, as far as constructs go--according to the 'general' public, 'artist' is as 'general' as people are going to receive it, be it dictionary or none at all. My mother actually told me this once, which I feel applied to the dying generation of the accepted term: "To the few who appreciate, we are everything else [the specifics of the distinguishable], but to many who merely glance, just an artist."

I know, in retrospect--as I'm inclined to believe, it may sound by all American counts "sappy," but for one who makes publications, she couldn't have been well off the mark; she was dead-on. I read previously in the posts about the dying-language allusion and that made a lot more sense than pulling out a dictionary and citing definitions. Even a dictionary cannot dictate what we need to figure out on our own. That's common sense, wouldn't you say?

I live by common sense. If my point was the dictionary I would have posted the dictionary.

I'm glad you understand and can appreciate my arguments and those of others. It's good to know there are others who roam this forum AND have a brain that can read, write, and think in real time.

Yes, no doubt--no doubt. Common sense is something most people seem to lack in terms of the quick and easy, so to speak. If Google is a convenience, then so too can defining vitiligo and becoming a self-proclaimed professional, yes? I know, I've made the mistake of throwing a rib or two, but my humor is short-lived.

Of course. Who else could tap into the insightful debate while taking a page or two from Real-Time with Bill Maher?

I was raised on the thinking that only smart people can be funny. Smart people can be boring and not funny but stupid people can never be funny.

Now, about internet quoting you have to start somewhere. But they don't go anywhere with it. It's like "here's my source, it's from a database where some doctors post stuff, end of story."
Maybe medicine isn't the best example but the concept is the same.

I'm so over arguing with these people. Now I'm just laughing it off. No dictionary can change my thinking. I can appreciate the dictionary but it's no end all. I'm much to snobbish a fine artist/painter to let some words on a page get me to say "Man, John Mayer is such a great art composer. He really brings his art to life when he plays his guitar. Listening to his art just makes me so happy." Because sure, by definition, it's correct but it's just not right.

Yes, you're right on all counts. That's the quoting of internet sources that has always bothered me, to echo your thoughts: 'they don't go anywhere with it.' As I'd like to allude to a kite given to a kid to fly without instructions; sure the basics are there, but if the kid had no idea how to use a kite--what would the point be in asking him to fly it? So too, the very definition of an artist. Sure, one can say that the dictionary defines all these 'specific' art careers and professions into the definition itself--but if one is going to align their opinion based on a 'published opinion', as I'm calling the dictionary, then it's not really a personal opinion, it's more of an enhanced societal opinion; to continue acting as the groundwork for the general public. I suppose that's why people who think outside the box end up receiving much flak than people who just accept what is given to them without forming personal opinion. To that, I thank you for providing me a stimulating conversation.

And thank you for your thoughts and for making me feel less crazy for being one of two people I've met who feel the same way.

[VXS-Alpha]

Rightfully so. Though, I should have opted out of the creation of tower quotes. They can be quite intimidating to sift through.

[Millie Baldessari]

something interesting I just heard.
"Well Elvis was a composer, a singer, a performer and others...so because he was so many I guess he would be an artist."
Quantity = "artist"???

[Millie Baldessari]

VXS-Alpha

Rightfully so. Though, I should have opted out of the creation of tower quotes. They can be quite intimidating to sift through.

aw well
maybe it'll chase the trolls away.

[YumaKirosaki]

VXS-Alpha

Again, your thought just reinforced the idea of major and minor disagreements; you will stick to your opinion and support it, as I will with mine. It's being dissected to a point where it's too much of a complexity for the common mind to understand, with reservations in mind. Therefore, it must be simplified. It's not the realization of specificity that you need to point out, it's the importance 'of' specificity that needs to be taken into consideration. Like a scientist who generalizes everything, compared to the scientist who specifies everything. We should look for specifics, not basics--otherwise the bigger picture is not seen. I used to think that simplified numbers in chemistry class would be sufficient enough, but when one looks for a smaller margin of errors, the difference is uncanny.

The simplified version may be easier to remember, but what good can come of it if the details aren't fully examined? Of course, I suppose the counter-argument is the existence of abridged and unabridged reading texts.

True, but this is a memorable quote meant to generalize that idea. For instance, if a scientist had to explain a complicated subject to uneducated individuals, which scientist would do the job better? The one who specifies everything, or the one who generalizes everything?

As you said, though, this further proves the point: Some things must be simplified.


@Millie
Sorry for calling you OP; I get lazy sometimes with names. And you're correct; you're only human. This is why I didn't insult you or anything, I just said you were hasty with your thinking. It happens to me all the time. Hell, it happens to everyone all the time.

Being specific depends on the intent. The idea you posted (initially,) generally stated that "Micheal Jackson was not an artist because he didn't paint." While moreso an opinion than a
fact, it still doesn't agree with the definition of what an artist is. Artist generalizes what the person does rather than specifically saying what type of artist they are.

It's like if I said, "Those guys are good with computers," and there was an IT specialist, a Graphic Designer, and a Programmer. (Or rather, if I said: "Nerds", and the same example follows. /can say this proudly while pursuing graphic design)

[VXS-Alpha]

Is that a hopeful thought? I would have imagined it would do more damage in attracting the kinds who quote towers and write off gibberish as their responses. You could only imagine the kind of vexing effect it has on one such as myself. Not even the reprieve excuse of "Sorry, I did not know I was supposed to be doing this." deserves to be created from the tips of their fingers to the board.

[Millie Baldessari]

YumaKirosaki

VXS-Alpha

Again, your thought just reinforced the idea of major and minor disagreements; you will stick to your opinion and support it, as I will with mine. It's being dissected to a point where it's too much of a complexity for the common mind to understand, with reservations in mind. Therefore, it must be simplified. It's not the realization of specificity that you need to point out, it's the importance 'of' specificity that needs to be taken into consideration. Like a scientist who generalizes everything, compared to the scientist who specifies everything. We should look for specifics, not basics--otherwise the bigger picture is not seen. I used to think that simplified numbers in chemistry class would be sufficient enough, but when one looks for a smaller margin of errors, the difference is uncanny.

The simplified version may be easier to remember, but what good can come of it if the details aren't fully examined? Of course, I suppose the counter-argument is the existence of abridged and unabridged reading texts.

True, but this is a memorable quote meant to generalize that idea. For instance, if a scientist had to explain a complicated subject to uneducated individuals, which scientist would do the job better? The one who specifies everything, or the one who generalizes everything?

As you said, though, this further proves the point: Some things must be simplified.


@Millie
Sorry for calling you OP; I get lazy sometimes with names. And you're correct; you're only human. This is why I didn't insult you or anything, I just said you were hasty with your thinking. It happens to me all the time. Hell, it happens to everyone all the time.

Being specific depends on the intent. The idea you posted (initially,) generally stated that "Micheal Jackson was not an artist because he didn't paint." While moreso an opinion than a
fact, it still doesn't agree with the definition of what an artist is. Artist generalizes what the person does rather than specifically saying what type of artist they are.

It's like if I said, "Those guys are good with computers," and there was an IT specialist, a Graphic Designer, and a Programmer. (Or rather, if I said: "Nerds", and the same example follows. /can say this proudly while pursuing graphic design)

I see, I see

[VXS-Alpha]

I welcome the return, Yuma. I can see the idea of a scientist educating a complicated subject matter to uneducated individuals, the one being more general being the one more effective. However, I do like to point out that we're operating on the different suggestion of reality; I made the point of being in a real-time situation where I needed to be as accurate as possible for an experiment; you made the point placed in another real-time scenario prior to an action being performed, which was essentially the calm before the storm--or the learning within a classroom compared to my testing within a lab experiment where the tiniest error could have ruined the better part of my end results.

And yes, some things must be simplified--if only for preparation for the complicated narrows ahead. Though, most of the arguments I've seen, excluding yours, have been more or less 'alphabet arguments', rather than constructed equations.

[Kate Motts]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

[YumaKirosaki]

VXS-Alpha

I welcome the return, Yuma. I can see the idea of a scientist educating a complicated subject matter to uneducated individuals, the one being more general being the one more effective. However, I do like to point out that we're operating on the different suggestion of reality; I made the point of being in a real-time situation where I needed to be as accurate as possible for an experiment; you made the point placed in another real-time scenario prior to an action being performed, which was essentially the calm before the storm--or the learning within a classroom compared to my testing within a lab experiment where the tiniest error could have ruined the better part of my end results.

And yes, some things must be simplified--if only for preparation for the complicated narrows ahead. Though, most of the arguments I've seen, excluding yours, have been more or less 'alphabet arguments', rather than constructed equations.

That's very true. Though, examples or not, the purpose of the generalization matters. As said, for the quote, there is no "complicated narrow" ahead for it; it's just simplifying an idea to a phrase.

[Pinkflower64]

He was too a musician, he was the greatest entertainer of all time!

[selena4610]

michael

[Millie Baldessari]

Pinkflower64

He was too a musician, he was the greatest entertainer of all time!

I never said he wasn't
Unless you believe that musician and artist are two terms that are as interchangeable as a pair of socks or something.

[Millie Baldessari]

selena4610

michael

what about him