What is the difference between art and advertising?

[Tricky]

Over in Religion and philosophy, CFLarsen posed this question:
What is the difference between art and advertising, then?

I replied
Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.
Claus responded:
Patrons of the arts never demanded that they be portrayed favorably?

You don't want to go down that road, do you?
My answer:
Demanding that a product be presented favorably would make it advertising, wouldn't it? It is not the patron creating the art. And I said advertising could (and usually does) contain art.


Obviously this is a derail from the topic of the thread, so I'm bringing it here.

Now let me say in advance that I am aware that the word "art" is fraught with meaning. You can talk about "The art of the deal" or "The art of war" or even "The art of the fart", so to avoid going down that road, I'm going to ask that this be restricted to visual arts, not written, not musical, not performing, not cinema, not farting. In other words, mostly pictures and sculpture, though you can argue for other forms if you like.

I hold that advertising has the goal of portraying a product favorably, usually for monetary, but sometimes for ego reasons. It may and usually does contain art, but that is not its purpose. Art needs no purpose.

[Piscivore]

Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.
I think you have it backwards. Advertising is art that doesn't attempt to carry much more meaning beyond "the product this represents would be good to have". In the case of Claus' patrons, yes they did (usually) want to be portrayed favourably, but the artists were often free to- and often did- express much more than just "Lorenzo d'Medici is a really great guy" or "How about that Pope?"

ETA:
Art needs no purpose.
True, but sometimes it has one, nonetheless.

[Tricky]

I think you have it backwards. Advertising is art that doesn't attempt to carry much more meaning beyond "the product this represents would be good to have". In the case of Claus' patrons, yes they did (usually) want to be portrayed favourably, but the artists were often free to- and often did- express much more than just "Lorenzo d'Medici is a really great guy" or "How about that Pope?"
No, I think I have it forwards. Their commisioned artwork was done at the request of their patrons and if a patron did not like the result, they could order it changed. The final version might not be the same as what the artist wanted. It was what the advertiser wanted.

But yes, the art that is within advertising can, and often does stand on its own irrespective of the product it was pushing.

True, but sometimes it has one, nonetheless.
Sometimes. Sometimes that meaning has to do with presenting something in a favorable light. If that is the purpose, then the combination of that purpose and the art is advertising. Obviously there can be other purposes besides advertising. Propaganda is one example, which may be negative or positive.

[Hokulele]

Advertising is constructed such that all viewers must experience the same message.

Art can be constructed this way, but does not have to be.

[Piscivore]

No, I think I have it forwards. Their commisioned artwork was done at the request of their patrons and if a patron did not like the result, they could order it changed. The final version might not be the same as what the artist wanted. It was what the advertiser wanted.
But not all commisioned artwork was advertising. Granted, the bulk of it was, but even so, didn't Michaelangelo use the Sistine Chapel to show of the anatomy work he'd been doing, the love of humanity beyond just as servants of Jeebus? As long as he got across the message the Pope wanted, he was free to do so. I don't think you'll see a lot of that in advertising.

But yes, the art that is within advertising can, and often does stand on its own irrespective of the product it was pushing.
Wasn't the point of Pop Art, Warhol and Lichtenstein(I'm not Googling for spelling), that even the most crass commercial message had aesthetic value, regardless of intent?

Propaganda is one example, which may be negative or positive.
Isn't that itself a form of advertising?

[ksbluesfan]

There is nothing artistic about the classified section of your local newspaper. "For sale, 1979 Chrysler, 98,000 miles, runs, best offer". Ads can contain art. Art must contain artistic expression.

[CFLarsen]

Sometimes. Sometimes that meaning has to do with presenting something in a favorable light. If that is the purpose, then the combination of that purpose and the art is advertising. Obviously there can be other purposes besides advertising. Propaganda is one example, which may be negative or positive.

But how do you separate the art from the favorable message?

This is unquestionably an ad (http://www.pressfiles.net/absolut/taxfree/ABSOLUT_VODKA_1liter_mrk_hi.jpg).

Is this? (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Image-Library/Exempla/durer-self-portrait-1500-lg.jpg)

Is this? (http://www.print.duncans.tv/images/benetton-pieta-david-kirby.jpg)

[CFLarsen]

Why, the same difference between sharing and selling! Although today an appreciation of these differences typically don't exist.

It has never been like that with art. Art has always been commissioned by patrons, right from the earliest examples right up to modern times, where it became fashionable to be independent.

It was rare for an artist to be able to work without his patrons.

[Walter Wayne]

It has never been like that with art. Art has always been commissioned by patrons, right from the earliest examples right up to modern times, where it became fashionable to be independent.

It was rare for an artist to be able to work without his patrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_paintings ?

[athon]

I don't see what is confusing. Art is merely a form of communication, where media is used to convey a feeling or emotion. If I want you to feel or sympathise with a concept, I use art to communicate it. This means choosing stimuli which hopefully will connect with the target and illicit an emotional response. Of course, this means knowing your target and what makes them tick.

Advertising uses art to illicit a response, ultimately with a purpose - for the target to act in some way in response to the emotion. Art is merely making you feel something, while advertising uses this in order to encourage you to behave in some specific way.

Advertising can obviously rely heavily on art, yet art can exist which isn't a form of advertising.

Athon

[SirPhilip]

It has never been like that with art. Art has always been commissioned by patrons, right from the earliest examples right up to modern times, where it became fashionable to be independent. It was rare for an artist to be able to work without his patrons.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9599/larsonismsconcedingposiyy4.png

(Brother Philip is suddenly holding a cash register..)

So, anyone want to be on the cutting edge (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3603148&postcount=1131) of fashion at TAM this year. Only $59.95 and t-shirts sizes are limited.

[SirPhilip]

Jesus Christ and a choir of f[Radio Edit] angels, 39,000 posts. My work already is so last month.

[Vanda]

The argument about “art” is difficult for me even when other forms are removed from the discussion. Everyone feels differently about exactly what art is.

So when you say that “art needs no purpose,” are you saying that the way you define whether something is art is by determining what its purpose is, or did I misunderstand?

I’m assuming you mean that the artist can create art for no obvious “reason,” like making a political statement or promoting a product or service, or even to sell it to make a living, and that art can be created purely for aesthetic reasons or as a source of pure expression by the artist (or did I just find another way to misrepresent your statement?)

In either case, art must have a purpose, even if it’s purely aesthetic or solely a means of expression by the artist, right? It’s a pointless discussion if art serves no purpose whatsoever. So if art must have a purpose, then the range of purpose might probably include things like aesthetic quality (“high” to “low”), meaning/expression (“ambiguous” to “precise”), and definition (having a purpose that varies between “lofty” or “mundane”).

So, to me, under that “definition,” advertising as a whole is an art form that has a specific purpose of mundane character and is of generally low aesthetic quality compared to other visual art forms. Specifically, individual “pieces,” when compared to other examples of advertising, can range from high quality (an example for some people might be the Escher-inspired car ads) to low quality (an example for probably all people might be local used car ads).

I think I’m coming to see it like this: The purpose of all advertising is to sell something. The technique used to sell is to create desire in the intended audience. In order to create desire, a low form of art, either skillfully or poorly rendered, is used (as opposed to knocking on doors and just describing the product, etc.)

Also, can the idea of the patron forcing the artist to change the product be related to the practice of studios forcing directors to edit their product for non-artistic reasons? To me, even the studio-edited theatrical version of Blade Runner is still a piece of art.

[CFLarsen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_paintings ?

We don't know enough of the social structure to know if they were commissioned or not. It is likely, though, that Grok-Who-Paints-Well got assigned by Throg-Who-Is-20-And-Therefore-Tribe-Elder.

I don't see what is confusing. Art is merely a form of communication, where media is used to convey a feeling or emotion. If I want you to feel or sympathise with a concept, I use art to communicate it. This means choosing stimuli which hopefully will connect with the target and illicit an emotional response. Of course, this means knowing your target and what makes them tick.

Advertising uses art to illicit a response, ultimately with a purpose - for the target to act in some way in response to the emotion. Art is merely making you feel something, while advertising uses this in order to encourage you to behave in some specific way.

Advertising can obviously rely heavily on art, yet art can exist which isn't a form of advertising.

It's a good question if the latter is even possible. What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Even graffiti is some form of advertising: The elaborate graffiti of the NY subway was very much about "advertising": Who had made it.

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

[SirPhilip]

Claus, everyone knows what art is. Art is bought because they relate to it or find it personally relevant, interesting, ironic, humorous, or conversationally fun. Art itself is simply a more very advanced, abstract form of communication to varying psychological depth. Typically associations which require volumes of words are summed up instantly through imagery. Imagery, sound and motion being however ideal.

Try for example, to summarize the force of nature that is Claus Larson, the destroyer of keyboards, into colorless shapeless words. Pages would be required to fully frame - even among an audience of strong atheists, the gravity of the futility. You have to be there with a migraine headache and a sense self-idiocy, catching yourself staring at five pages of failed exchange over common sense, and what instead of a man could very be Curious George hunched over his desk with his nose buried in a mountain of cocaine with an advocacy of evolution and a look of resentment of the saying about a million monkeys typing in his eyes.

[SirPhilip]

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising? Well, the masterpiece I did of you for one thing...

[athon]

It's a good question if the latter is even possible. What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Even graffiti is some form of advertising: The elaborate graffiti of the NY subway was very much about "advertising": Who had made it.

What behaviour does the artwork provoke? Emotions, for sure. But advertising intends to make you do something as a result of the feelings provoked by an art work.

What definition of 'advertise' are you using if you think graffiti is advertising?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

What behaviour does the artwork provoke? Emotions, for sure. But advertising intends to make you do something as a result of the feelings provoked by an art work.

And lots of art intend to make you do something. E.g., David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration) were painted purely to make people accept Napoleon's power. Any religious art is designed to make you realize the glory and might of God and act accordingly.

What definition of 'advertise' are you using if you think graffiti is advertising?

The same as yours: To advertise who made it. What group is behind it. "Look, we kick ass because we can paint where we want."

Graffiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti)

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

[athon]

And lots of art intend to make you do something. E.g., David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration) were painted purely to make people accept Napoleon's power. Any religious art is designed to make you realize the glory and might of God and act accordingly.

I'm not suggesting that some art does not have the ability to advertise. I'd argue that some propaganda pieces could be intended to advertise, as could some religious works.

I'm saying that not all art is necessarily advertising. Advertising requires the intention of inciting a behaviour, not just elliciting an emotion.

The same as yours: To advertise who made it.That's not the definition I used. Stating 'who made it' is not the same as inciting a behaviour in the target.

Now, what is your definition of 'advertise'?

What group is behind it. "Look, we kick ass because we can paint where we want."

That's not advertising.

Graffiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti)

So? I didn't ask for a definition for graffiti.

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?Whoa cowboy. Let's start with what you think 'advertise' means first. If you think it's any form of art that says anything at all, then show where you get that definition.

Athon

[martu]

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Here:

Art (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/10000-random-numbers.png)

[CFLarsen]

I'm not suggesting that some art does not have the ability to advertise. I'd argue that some propaganda pieces could be intended to advertise, as could some religious works.

Which propaganda pieces do not advertise?

Which religious works do not advertise?

I'm saying that not all art is necessarily advertising. Advertising requires the intention of inciting a behaviour, not just elliciting an emotion.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can have an emotion that does not incite a behavior?

That's not the definition I used. Stating 'who made it' is not the same as inciting a behaviour in the target.

I also included other things. However, "who made it" is, in the case of graffiti, an expression of "hey, we're cool! If you admire it, copy it! Let's have a graffiti slam!"

Graffiti painters are hugely competitive.

That's not advertising.

Really? Why not?

So? I didn't ask for a definition for graffiti.

I didn't post it as a definition of graffiti, but as an example of how graffiti is advertising.

Whoa cowboy. Let's start with what you think 'advertise' means first. If you think it's any form of art that says anything at all, then show where you get that definition.

No. Let's start with your claim which hinges on your definition of "advertise". You claimed that:

art can exist which isn't a form of advertising.

Whatever definition of advertising I use has nothing to do with your claim and your definition of "advertise".

So,

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Here:

Art (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/10000-random-numbers.png)

Why is that art?

[martu]

Why is that art?

I like to look at it, it makes me think and I find the construction of it quite elegant.

To me it's art. Do you disagree? If so why?

[HarryKeogh]

Well, they can both sell lots of bad soup.

[CFLarsen]

I like to look at it, it makes me think and I find the construction of it quite elegant.

To me it's art. Do you disagree? If so why?

Oh, it isn't up to me to define what is art to you.

But, given your description of what is art: What is not art - to you?

[volatile]

If you want a professional opinion (I'm an art historian) - all advertising is art; not all art is advertising. That's the formalist model, anyway.

This argument becomes semantic and uninteresting pretty quickly.

[athon]

Which propaganda pieces do not advertise?

Which religious works do not advertise?

Another example of your fetish of turning everything into an argument. Fine, all propaganda could be considered advertising, by way of it inciting the target to behave in an intended fashion.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can have an emotion that does not incite a behavior?

Yes. Not all all emotions make you behave in an intended way. What behaviour do you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'? Or Da Vinci through the Mona Lisa?

I also included other things. However, "who made it" is, in the case of graffiti, an expression of "hey, we're cool! If you admire it, copy it! Let's have a graffiti slam!"

So all graffiti is painted with that as an implicit challenge? Evidence? Or is this more of your naive assumptions?

Really? Why not?

You're yet to show that it is. 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.

I didn't post it as a definition of graffiti, but as an example of how graffiti is advertising.

Please quote where in that wiki article that it said graffiti is advertising. Simply because 'it is competitive' does not mean it is always painted with the intention of inciting a behaviour in the observer.

No. Let's start with your claim which hinges on your definition of "advertise". You claimed that:

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.

Notice a pattern in your arguments, Claus? You claim to understand a word, embarrass yourself by misunderstanding it, then fail to show where it is used in the manner you believe. 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.

Whatever definition of advertising I use has nothing to do with your claim and your definition of "advertise".

So,

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Why is that art?

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

Athon

[athon]

If you want a professional opinion (I'm an art historian) - all advertising is art; not all art is advertising. That's the formalist model, anyway.

This argument becomes semantic and uninteresting pretty quickly.

Thanks Volatile. I don't suppose you can seal the statement with a link? (I believe you, but it'd be nice to have the red stamp just to make it official).

Oh, and 'semantics' is just Latin for 'Claus'.

Athon

[Foolmewunz]

If you want a professional opinion (I'm an art historian) - all advertising is art; not all art is advertising. That's the formalist model, anyway.

This argument becomes semantic and uninteresting pretty quickly.

Bolded portion: You noticed that, did you?

Especially if it all hinges on "every message, every concept, every idea promoted in a work of "art" is, by definition, advertising." Which is not a concept I agree with, but can see no point in arguing.

[martu]

Oh, it isn't up to me to define what is art to you.

But, given your description of what is art: What is not art - to you?

Very true - so do you think it is art?

Peristalsis isn't art for one.

[calebprime]

Is this? (http://www.print.duncans.tv/images/benetton-pieta-david-kirby.jpg)

Claus, everyone knows what art is. Art is bought because they relate to it or find it personally relevant, interesting, ironic, humorous, or conversationally fun. Art itself is simply a more very advanced, abstract form of communication to varying psychological depth. Typically associations which require volumes of words are summed up instantly through imagery. Imagery, sound and motion being however ideal.

Try for example, to summarize the force of nature that is Claus Larson, the destroyer of keyboards, into colorless shapeless words. Pages would be required to fully frame - even among an audience of strong atheists, the gravity of the futility. You have to be there with a migraine headache and a sense self-idiocy, catching yourself staring at five pages of failed exchange over common sense, and what instead of a man could very be Curious George hunched over his desk with his nose buried in a mountain of cocaine with an advocacy of evolution and a look of resentment of the saying about a million monkeys typing in his eyes.

SirPhillip is in good form this morning. I especially liked the Clint Eastwood.

My friend and I were so horrified by billboards of Benetton ads in the Boston area that we seriously considered defacing them. We even bought paint & ski-masks and had a plan. He considered it idolatry. I considered it a worse-than-tasteless blurring of the line between company promotion and exploiting images of suffering. This ad, also, makes me sick. If Benetton were a charity, I would still think these ads were over the line.

actually, by making the grievers look swinish, this image is disgusting on every possible level--which, although interesting, is just too...too.

2¢.

[Wowbagger]

Advertising usurps the concept of art, in order to parasite our minds, for the purpose of selling something.

Not all artwork is parasitic, but most forms of advertising utilize parasitic artwork.

[volatile]

Thanks Volatile. I don't suppose you can seal the statement with a link? (I believe you, but it'd be nice to have the red stamp just to make it official).

Oh, and 'semantics' is just Latin for 'Claus'.

Athon

Well, I don't want to go into a derailing history of formalist debates on what is and isn't art. Suffice to say, the formalist defence of advertising as art would be that advertising uses the same forms as visual art does. In other words, advertising is art because it looks like art. Simplistic, but there you have it.

Take for example this quote (from '"Form" in Art' by Reuben Abel (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, (Mar., 1972), pp. 371-376)):

"Analysis of the term "work of art" indicates that the object must be formed: that is, that materials must be arranged, or composed, or organized, or manipulated intentionally, by a person, who does so for the sake of doing so (regardless of whatever other motives he may also have), and with the objective of evoking a response from some other person to him."

Advertising clearly fulfils this (formalist) definition.

A quick browse of academic sources also dug up this quote, from 'Uneasy Courtship: Modern Art and Modern Advertising' by Jackson Lears (American Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, Special Issue: Modernist Culture in America (Spring, 1987), pp. 133-154), which illustrates less the formal defence but a more political and practical defence:

"And nearly all critics agree that the conflict between modernist art and modern advertising has disappeared - if it ever existed. The cruder version of this argument asserts that modernist art has always reflected the cultural style of capitalist modernization: the restless experimentation, the unrelenting contempt for established forms and values."

This is perhaps what Claus is getting at - contemporary art, existing, as it does, within the art market, has similar if not precisely parallel concerns to advertising.

This book looks interesting, and relevant: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Gw5QvfTS6vAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=is+advertising+art&ots=U_7VPKQNMX&sig=ghn6sWKREXu8aPR306eYP16hR7o#PPR5,M1

[Piscivore]

SirPhillip is in good form this morning. I especially liked the Clint Eastwood.

My friend and I were so horrified by billboards of Benetton ads in the Boston area that we seriously considered defacing them. We even bought paint & ski-masks and had a plan. He considered it idolatry. I considered it a worse-than-tasteless blurring of the line between company promotion and exploiting images of suffering. This ad, also, makes me sick. If Benetton were a charity, I would still think these ads were over the line.

actually, by making the grievers look swinish, this image is disgusting on every possible level--which, although interesting, is just too...too.

2¢.

So in other words, it is a very powerful artistic image for you? :)

[volatile]

So in other words, it is a very powerful artistic image for you? :)

Indeed.

Those Bentton ads are definitely artistic. And successfully so.

[Loss Leader]

I hold that advertising has the goal of portraying a product favorably, usually for monetary, but sometimes for ego reasons. It may and usually does contain art, but that is not its purpose. Art needs no purpose.


Of course art has a purpose. The purpose of art is for the artist to convey the message, "this is how I see the world." Advertising has the same purpose, "This is how we at the Widget Corporation see the world."

Both attempt to open the viewer's mind to a new way of thinking about the universe. There is no difference between the two. In both cases, the viewer alone decides the value of the message.

[calebprime]

So in other words, it is a very powerful artistic image for you? :)

It sure is. If I saw it in a museum, without any connection to Benneton, I would say "Wow, that's interesting. Is there any glimmer of hope, or beauty or morality to be found in the artist's work, so that I don't have to just feel awful? Something to justify the shock?"

Now, for all I know, Benneton has used every penny they've earned, somehow, to treat AIDS patients, or something. I don't know.

In general, media is too aggressive. It's an arms race against the increasing dullness of the viewer's sensitivity and perhaps intelligence. Or maybe just against their increasing hardness. That's too bad in itself. Everywhere, it's pump up the volume, punch up the picture.

[Tricky]

Advertising usurps the concept of art, in order to parasite our minds, for the purpose of selling something.

Not all artwork is parasitic, but most forms of advertising utilize parasitic artwork.
This was a very good example of advertising that is not, under most definitions, art. It could even be a "fill-in-the-blank" form. And classified ads are quite numerous. Some include some "eye-catching" graphic, but many are just information.
There is nothing artistic about the classified section of your local newspaper. "For sale, 1979 Chrysler, 98,000 miles, runs, best offer". Ads can contain art. Art must contain artistic expression.
And as Martu points out, it would be hard to argue that abstract art advertises anything. Look at the works of Mark Rothko*. Hell, look at Van Goph. What was "Wheat Field with Crows" advertising? Suicide?


*Funny story. There is a small gallery in Houston called the Rothko Chapel. I had never seen any of Rothko's work but I knew he was a famous artist, and one day as I was strolling by, I decided to pop in. I went in the chapel and all I saw was a circular room with black panelling. I went out to the front lobby and asked the attendant, "Are the paintings out on loan?" She gave me the look that a snobby art student gives an ignorant philistine and said, "Those are the paintings." Can you blame me for being confused?
http://www.rothkochapel.org/NTryptich.jpg

[NoZed Avenger]

Try for example, to summarize the force of nature that is Claus Larson, the destroyer of keyboards, into colorless shapeless words. Pages would be required to fully frame - even among an audience of strong atheists, the gravity of the futility. You have to be there with a migraine headache and a sense self-idiocy, catching yourself staring at five pages of failed exchange over common sense, and what instead of a man could very be Curious George hunched over his desk with his nose buried in a mountain of cocaine with an advocacy of evolution and a look of resentment of the saying about a million monkeys typing in his eyes.


See? This is art.

[calebprime]

T
*Funny story. There is a small gallery in Houston called the Rothko Chapel. I had never seen any of Rothko's work but I knew he was a famous artist, and one day as I was strolling by, I decided to pop in. I went in the chapel and all I saw was a circular room with black panelling. I went out to the front lobby and asked the attendant, "Are the paintings out on loan?" She gave me the look that a snobby art student gives an ignorant philistine and said, "Those are the paintings." Can you blame me for being confused?
http://www.rothkochapel.org/NTryptich.jpg

Maybe kittnh or someone can comment here--something's wrong. Either the color seriously faded or changed on the paintings or the picture's weird.

His stuff was all about color harmonies, so if it wasn't right, it was nothing.

But I don't see it--I don't have a trained eye. I don't know whether these images, for example, are right:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rothko+pics&btnG=Google+Search

eta: every other source I checked looked the same. The panels are described as "black but colored"...

[athon]

Well, I don't want to go into a derailing history of formalist debates on what is and isn't art. Suffice to say, the formalist defence of advertising as art would be that advertising uses the same forms as visual art does. In other words, advertising is art because it looks like art. Simplistic, but there you have it.

I wouldn't at all say it's a derail. Seems quite within the bounds of what we're discussing.

Given the definition you've provided and the terms, I can't disagree with that. If it looks artistic, it is. Cool. But then it still doesn't mean all advertising is art and all art is advertising. I might question whether somebody who looks at all forms of communication as art is broadening their definition of art to the point of it being useless. Case in point - I would think a person who feels a grocery docket is art has lost the plot.

Take for example this quote (from '"Form" in Art' by Reuben Abel (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, (Mar., 1972), pp. 371-376)):

"Analysis of the term "work of art" indicates that the object must be formed: that is, that materials must be arranged, or composed, or organized, or manipulated intentionally, by a person, who does so for the sake of doing so (regardless of whatever other motives he may also have), and with the objective of evoking a response from some other person to him."

I like the definition, although wonder just what is meant by 'response'. I would contend that in order for the art to be successful, the response evoked should be the same as intended by the artist. If I want you to feel shock and instead I simply get anger, I'm not sure if that could be successful as art.

Advertising clearly fulfils this (formalist) definition.

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

A quick browse of academic sources also dug up this quote, from 'Uneasy Courtship: Modern Art and Modern Advertising' by Jackson Lears (American Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, Special Issue: Modernist Culture in America (Spring, 1987), pp. 133-154), which illustrates less the formal defence but a more political and practical defence:

"And nearly all critics agree that the conflict between modernist art and modern advertising has disappeared - if it ever existed. The cruder version of this argument asserts that modernist art has always reflected the cultural style of capitalist modernization: the restless experimentation, the unrelenting contempt for established forms and values."

This is perhaps what Claus is getting at - contemporary art, existing, as it does, within the art market, has similar if not precisely parallel concerns to advertising.

To be honest, I don't think Claus knows himself what he is getting at. He argues for the sake of it.

From what I gather, he is suggesting all art is a form of advertisement, with the closest he's come to a definition for 'advertise' is to agree with me that an advertisement aims to persuade you into behaving in a specific manner, such as purchasing an item, attending an event, or seeking information. Art, on the other hand, aims to make you feel something, which can lead to a whole range of consequences (of which behaving in a specific manner could well be one).

This book looks interesting, and relevant: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Gw5QvfTS6vAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=is+advertising+art&ots=U_7VPKQNMX&sig=ghn6sWKREXu8aPR306eYP16hR7o#PPR5,M1
[/quote]

I'd check it out if it wasn't half twelve in the morning. :)

Athon

[Wowbagger]

This was a very good example of advertising that is not, under most definitions, art. It could even be a "fill-in-the-blank" form. And classified ads are quite numerous. Some include some "eye-catching" graphic, but many are just information. That is why I said most, not all.

Second of all, you could say that there is an art to writing classified ads. Though, I admit that's stretching things a bit.

[Piscivore]

It sure is. If I saw it in a museum, without any connection to Benneton, I would say "Wow, that's interesting. Is there any glimmer of hope, or beauty or morality to be found in the artist's work, so that I don't have to just feel awful? Something to justify the shock?"
Why would that be neccessary? Are you saying art is supposed to make you feel good?

Now, for all I know, Benneton has used every penny they've earned, somehow, to treat AIDS patients, or something. I don't know.
Would that make a difference to you? Should it?

In general, media is too aggressive. It's an arms race against the increasing dullness of the viewer's sensitivity and perhaps intelligence. Or maybe just against their increasing hardness. That's too bad in itself.
I won't dispute that.

Everywhere, it's pump up the volume, punch up the picture.
Well, maybe I'll dispute just the word "everywhere".

[Tricky]

That is why I said most, not all.
I know you did, but the point was to show that there is a great body of advertising that is arguably not art.

Second of all, you could say that there is an art to writing classified ads. Though, I admit that's stretching things a bit.
That's why I put the disclaimer in the OP that I was excluding things that "could be called art". This would also mean that radio advertising does not contain art, by my restricted definition.

I didn't want this to turn into a discussion of "what is art", or I'm going to have to brag about my creative farting again.;)

[plumjam]

Let me guess, no broad agreement will be reached on this.. and 4 pages later we'll be none the wiser.

[Tricky]

Maybe kittnh or someone can comment here--something's wrong. Either the color seriously faded or changed on the paintings or the picture's weird.

His stuff was all about color harmonies, so if it wasn't right, it was nothing.

But I don't see it--I don't have a trained eye. I don't know whether these images, for example, are right:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rothko+pics&btnG=Google+Search

eta: every other source I checked looked the same. The panels are described as "black but colored"...
If you got really close, you could see little splotches of other very dark colors, but even then, they were barely distinguishable. I just had to say, "I don't get Mark Rothko" and move on.

[NoZed Avenger]

Let me guess, no broad agreement will be reached on this.. and 4 pages later we'll be none the wiser.


Replace "4" with "24" and we're good.

[ImaginalDisc]

If you got really close, you could see little splotches of other very dark colors, but even then, they were barely distinguishable. I just had to say, "I don't get Mark Rothko" and move on.

It sounds more interesting than the enormous brown paper sheets each decorated with a $0.32 stamp that the local Museum of Modern Art bought a while back.

I don't care who made them, it might have been UPS for all I know.

[Tricky]

Let me guess, no broad agreement will be reached on this.. and 4 pages later we'll be none the wiser.
I predict we will reach the general agreement that not all art is advertising but that Claus will never concede this point.

[volatile]

Given the definition you've provided and the terms, I can't disagree with that. If it looks artistic, it is. Cool. But then it still doesn't mean all advertising is art and all art is advertising. I might question whether somebody who looks at all forms of communication as art is broadening their definition of art to the point of it being useless. Case in point - I would think a person who feels a grocery docket is art has lost the plot.

I think advertising is designed to be displayed, looked at and contemplated, as paintings are. Grocery dockets don't quite fulfil these criteria. I'd also think you'd have trouble arguing that grocery dockets are "designed to produce a response" in the way the quote above is implying.

I like the definition, although wonder just what is meant by 'response'. I would contend that in order for the art to be successful, the response evoked should be the same as intended by the artist.

Hmmm... two things wrong here that I can see. The first is that I wouldn't necessarily argue that advertising was necessarily good or successful art, just that it satisfies the formal criteria to be called art in the first place. Whether ads are successful (in artistic terms) is a whole other debate. :)

The second is about artistic intentionality and reception. Nearly all art critics and art historians have moved away from trying to categorise 'success' in terms of the coherency of the affect. Authors cannot control the affective potential of their works, no matter how hard they try. :)

If I want you to feel shock and instead I simply get anger, I'm not sure if that could be successful as art.

I would argue (with people like Deleuze) that genuinely successful art is art that produces reactions. Simon O'Sullivan has called this art you can "encounter". The types of reactions produced might not be those intended by the artist, but that's almost by the by. Indeed, a lot of art work has affective content beyond its narrative content - Gustav Klimt's Kiss, for example, is a narrative painting of a couple embracing, but it's affect (for me), an overwhelming sense of passionate warmth, is something subtly different. Klimt set out to paint a picture of a couple kissing. What that painting does, whilst a function of the work, was not necessarily consciously conceived as the original intention in the way you're implying, I think.

Of course, if you set out to create something profound that induces ridicule, then your art is unsuccessful. But that's slightly different, I think.


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

I question that too, although I think a case could be made.

[calebprime]

It sure is. If I saw it in a museum, without any connection to Benneton, I would say "Wow, that's interesting. Is there any glimmer of hope, or beauty or morality to be found in the artist's work, so that I don't have to just feel awful? Something to justify the shock?"

[QUOTE=Piscivore;3604206]Why would that be neccessary? Are you saying art is supposed to make you feel good?

Heh, you ask a good question. First, no, I don't demand that art makes me feel good. The rougher the experience of receiving it, the more it should have something to say, and if it is a full view of the world, it will include a range of feelings.

The cynicism of the Simpsons includes also the intelligence of Lisa. The cynicism of South Park includes the innocence of the characters and the sophistication of the humor, and the important issues they sometimes address, and good music. Steely Dan's lyrics often have cynical outlaw characters, but this is in the context of craft and a range of lyrics that prevents any one song from being the simple opinion of the band. So irony is possible. Can't say that about Motley Crue. In Beckett, bleakness is balanced by lyricism...

Would that make a difference to you? Should it?

Morally, yes, in the sense that the purpose of the ad was to raise money to end suffering, not to make profit that would go for the CEO's lavish lifestyle, or something.

In a weaker, more aesthetic sense, but also to do with morality, it would justify the objectionable use of shock tactics to make a point. The problem with the Benneton ads is that they showed car crashes, if I recall, just slices of suffering life. It was as if God looked down at his creation and said, "This is the world. The world includes suffering. Buy Benneton." It was, therefore, a way of speaking that would be presumptuous for anyone but God, and since it was just a goddam advertisement, it didn't really have a purpose distinct enough from overcoming our resistence to being sold to. It was a deliberate grab at our attention, another pity ploy, designed to fool our critical intelligence. It was dazzle camouflage of a particularly odious kind. The effect is not to raise our awareness, but to turn AIDS (or other suffering) into just another image that we learn to ignore. maybe. possibly. i'm not sure. sorry for the derail, tricky. also, i think we're getting slightly wiser by mulling this stuff over. ultimately, of course, we can't take our brains with us when we die. life causes brain-damage, so we're ultimately none the wiser.

[plumjam]

I predict we will reach the general agreement that not all art is advertising but that Claus will never concede this point.

Yeah, I'd agree that not all art is advertising. I mean, I could (and often do) paint a masterpiece alone in a room, and when it's finished burn it, without anyone else having seen it. It would still be a masterpiece of art. And its creation would have been its own reason; an act of supreme value in itself. Would Van Gogh's works have been any the less if he had been the only one ever to see them? No.

Even a masterfully artistic piece of advertising couldn't count as advertising, in any meaningful sense, until it was communicated to at least one other consciousness.

I reckon that's the difference. And I reckon everyone including Claus should agree with me. And then we could get on with other stuff.

[Wowbagger]

This would also mean that radio advertising does not contain art, by my restricted definition. At the risk of derailing the thread, I just wish to briefly remind everyone that art does not need to be visual. We have all heard the term "music artist" before, right?

Back on Topic:
I am curious to see if there is any further feedback of my "parasite" idea? Do people like it or not? Once again, in summary: Not all art is parasitic. However, advertising tends to use parasitic forms of art.

To expand on it, a little:
Perhaps the more leisurely, and less vital to life, the product is, the MORE parasitic its advertisting tends to be, in order to be effective. Think Coca-Cola.
The more vital the product, the less parasitic it would need to be.

However, the noise of the parasites might be effecting more vital products in certain ways, that they now need to utilize some forms of parasitism, to get noticed. Think about drug commercials.

Art could be mimetic. But, not all memes are so parasitic. (Though, you might argue that, in general, they all usurp various aspects of our felxible minds, in order to exist. But, the intended context is a higher level than that.)

I'm going to have to brag about my creative farting again.Let us all hope and pray this line never gets pulled out of context.

[Piscivore]

Heh, you ask a good question. First, no, I don't demand that art makes me feel good. The rougher the experience of receiving it, the more it should have something to say,
What if "life is brutal" is all it is meant to say? Isn't criticising the work because there is no "hope" in it censuring (and that's censure, not censor :)) the artist that wanted to share dispair?

As the old saying goes: if you don't like the art you see, maybe it's time to make your own.

and if it is a full view of the world, it will include a range of feelings.

The cynicism of the Simpsons includes also the intelligence of Lisa. The cynicism of South Park includes the innocence of the characters and the sophistication of the humor, and the important issues they sometimes address, and good music. Steely Dan's lyrics often have cynical outlaw characters, but this is in the context of craft and a range of lyrics that prevents any one song from being the simple opinion of the band. So irony is possible. Can't say that about Motley Crue. In Beckett, bleakness is balanced by lyricism...
Those were their creator's artistic choices. It doesn't necessitate that anyone else make the same ones.

Morally, yes, in the sense that the purpose of the ad was to raise money to end suffering, not to make profit that would go for the CEO's lavish lifestyle, or something.
What on earth has morals to do with art?

Are you familiar with John Ruskin?

In a weaker, more aesthetic sense, but also to do with morality, it would justify the objectionable use of shock tactics to make a point.
You say that like justification is necessary.

The problem with the Benneton ads is that they showed car crashes, if I recall, just slices of suffering life. It was as if God looked down at his creation and said, "This is the world. The world includes suffering. Buy Benneton." It was, therefore, a way of speaking that would be presumptuous for anyone but God, and since it was just a goddam advertisement,
I think the message was rather more "Look how deep we are. Buy Benneton." :)

it didn't really have a purpose distinct enough from overcoming our resistence to being sold to. It was a deliberate grab at our attention, another pity ploy, designed to fool our critical intelligence.
And? You seem to be revealing again and unstated expectaion that "art" be somehow "noble" or "good" or "embiggening". That's just not the case.


It was dazzle camouflage of a particularly odious kind.
To you. That's not flip, it is an important point.

The effect is not to raise our awareness, but to turn AIDS (or other suffering) into just another image that we learn to ignore.
That may or may not be so, but it does not lessen the fact it is art.

[plumjam]

Wowbagger,
it's a discussion about art/advertising.. both high(ish) level human activities.
What you're doing is trying to make every darned thing just a branch of biology.. spreading these notions about "memes" and parasites. It doesn't work. It's trying to apply the terminology of one particular branch of learning, which exists at its own particular level, into areas it doesn't belong.
It's a kind of discipline imperialism.

[Piscivore]

Yeah, I'd agree that not all art is advertising. I mean, I could (and often do) paint a masterpiece alone in a room, and when it's finished burn it, without anyone else having seen it. It would still be a masterpiece of art.
Only to you.

And its creation would have been its own reason; an act of supreme value in itself.
Only to you.

Would Van Gogh's works have been any the less if he had been the only one ever to see them? No.
Fixed that for you. The way you had it was ludicrous. No one can value what they've never seen.

Even a masterfully artistic piece of advertising couldn't count as advertising, in any meaningful sense, until it was communicated to at least one other consciousness.
It can't count as art, either.

I reckon that's the difference.
your difference is no difference.

[plumjam]

Fixed that for you. The way you had it was ludicrous. No one can value what they've never seen.


It can't count as art, either.

I reckon that's the difference.
your difference is no difference.

So what is this magic whereby the finished paintings of Van Gogh only acquire artistic value once someone other than Van Gogh gets to see them?
Do the eyes of this second person emit a kind of value-emitting laser light?
I think you're radically philosophically confused.

[fuelair]

If you want a professional opinion (I'm an art historian) - all advertising is art; not all art is advertising. That's the formalist model, anyway.

This argument becomes semantic and uninteresting pretty quickly.Yes it has, not referring to your comment as such, just the posts.

[Piscivore]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I just wish to briefly remind everyone that art does not need to be visual.
Correct, but Tricky did stipulate at the beginning he wished to keep the converstaion to that medium.

Back on Topic:
I am curious to see if there is any further feedback of my "parasite" idea? Do people like it or not? Once again, in summary: Not all art is parasitic. However, advertising tends to use parasitic forms of art.
Honestly, not really. What you are calling "parasitic" is the primary message of art intended for advertisment. It is to me a little like saying eating and pooping is parasitic to my body.

I think you're having the same trouble Caleb is, that you have this assumption that "art" should be somehow noble and above such petty things as commerce. That was an idea that had currency in the century before last, but it is seen as outdated and a bit naive today. I should add that a large part of the modern art movement was geared to resisting that idea, including and particularly the Dadaists.

To expand on it, a little:
Perhaps the more leisurely, and less vital to life, the product is, the MORE parasitic its advertisting tends to be, in order to be effective. Think Coca-Cola.
The more vital the product, the less parasitic it would need to be.

However, the noise of the parasites might be effecting more vital products in certain ways, that they now need to utilize some forms of parasitism, to get noticed. Think about drug commercials.
This whole bit is based on the assumption that the content of the art is primary in determining the value of the artistic expression. While that's true faor a large number of people, it's a bit naive. If you saw someone in a gallery staring at Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" and you asked him his opinion, and his response was "Dude, it's great, you can totally see her tits!", what would you think?

That's what I see you doing here, in reverse. It's not art or not because of what it depicts, or does not depict.

By the way, if that ever happens, warn me if you see my wife coming, okay?

[Piscivore]

So what is this magic whereby the finished paintings of Van Gogh only acquire artistic value once someone other than Van Gogh gets to see them?
Ah, but I didn't say "only acquire artistic value", did I? They would have artistic value- to him. And him alone. But you said "Would Van Gogh's works have been any the less"- yes, because a lot of the artistic value in Van Gogh's work lies in their status as a cultural referent. In the fact that two different people can talk about and share the image and the experience if they've both see the work without the work being present.

[Wowbagger]

What you're doing is trying to make every darned thing just a branch of biology.. spreading these notions about "memes" and parasites. It doesn't work. It's trying to apply the terminology of one particular branch of learning, which exists at its own particular level, into areas it doesn't belong.
It's a kind of discipline imperialism. What if modeling advertisements as parasites affords us new, predictive insights into their existence and "behavior"?

I could be wrong in my hypothesis. But, you are NOT going to debunk it with your claims. You have to demonstrate why such a model does not work in a more scientific manner. Develop examples that counter my claim, for starters.

Meanwhile, I will have to try my best to defend it in a scientific manner. I may or may not succeed. But, claiming "discipline imperialism" is not helpful to the discussion.

What if the difference between art and advertising really does boil down to how each one clings to mental processes, one being more parasitic than the other? Especially when it comes to products that are not vital to survival?

[plumjam]

Ah, but I didn't say "only acquire artistic value", did I? They would have artistic value- to him. And him alone. But you said "Would Van Gogh's works have been any the less"- yes, because a lot of the artistic value in Van Gogh's work lies in their status as a cultural referent. In the fact that two different people can talk about and share the image and the experience if they've both see the work without the work being present.

They would have artistic value, full stop. This stuff about status as a cultural referent is extraneous and misleading. At first, for quite a few years, his paintings were scoffed at and neglected... so in those years they had no 'artistic "value" derived from status as a cultural referent', yet now they are revered. Nothing about the paintings themselves has changed, so this artistic "value" derived from opinion, status, and being a cultural referent is clearly bogus.
The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.
Would they gain in artistic value the more people saw them?
If they were flown to a planet with a population of 60 billion humans would the artistic value of the paintings themselves multiply by 10?
Of course not, your views lead to absurd conclusions.

[volatile]

That sounds like the same (untenable) argument that rights are inherent to the human being.

There can be no such thing as "inherent" artistic value in the same way there can be no "inherent" rights - artistic value, as rights, is a construct, and it is subjective, ephemeral and specific.

Now, a painting does have some kind of inherent 'luminosity' (as Deleze calls it) in that it produces some kind of affective content even if no-one looks at it (in other words, a painting is a painting even if only the painter sees it), but shoe-horning this into an affirmation of "value" or "merit" is misguided.

[Piscivore]

They would have artistic value, full stop. This stuff about status as a cultural referent is extraneous and misleading. At first, for quite a few years, his paintings were scoffed at and neglected... so in those years they had no 'artistic "value" derived from status as a cultural referent', yet now they are revered. Nothing about the paintings themselves has changed, so this artistic "value" derived from opinion, status, and being a cultural referent is clearly bogus.
No it isn't, your own post proves my point. Nothing about the painting itself changed, but yet it was once scoffed and laughed at, and now is revered. Why did that happen?

The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.
And what is that inherent artistic value? Tell me what it is.

Would they gain in artistic value the more people saw them?
If they liked it, yes.

If they were flown to a planet with a population of 60 billion humans would the artistic value of the paintings themselves multiply by 10?
Only if they valued it.

If you flew it to a planet of aliens who didn't use vision as we know it, would they value it? Would it have any artistic meaning to them?

Of course not, your views lead to absurd conclusions.
Only to the man with absurd premises.

[Loss Leader]

They would have artistic value, full stop. This stuff about status as a cultural referent is extraneous and misleading. At first, for quite a few years, his paintings were scoffed at and neglected... so in those years they had no 'artistic "value" derived from status as a cultural referent', yet now they are revered. Nothing about the paintings themselves has changed, so this artistic "value" derived from opinion, status, and being a cultural referent is clearly bogus.


Your argument supports the exact opposite of your conclusion. For years, Van Gogh's paintings were ignored, then they were revered. So, the consensus on whether the paintings had artistic value did change over time. The value did derive from opinion and status. You've given no reason why that is "clearly bogus." You have, in fact, given reason why it is clearly true.


The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.


Do dollar bills have monetary value in themselves? Does a corn dog have gastornomic value in itself? Do diamonds have aesthetic value in themselves?

These things only have value in the minds of the individuals who value them. When a sufficient number of people agree that something has value to them, we might say that the thing is valuable. But this is only shorthand. The thing has no objective value.

Van Gogh's "Starry Night" has an exact caloric value - an exact amount of energy that burning it would release. This number is far more an objective value than how "artistic" the painting is. This number would be the same whether humans existed to appreciate it or not. The "artistic" value would die when humans did.


Would they gain in artistic value the more people saw them? If they were flown to a planet with a population of 60 billion humans would the artistic value of the paintings themselves multiply by 10?


One can argue that "artistic" value is a ratio of people who think the painting has meaning to total people who've heard of it. Or one can argue that "artistic" value is just the number of total people who appreciate a painting as art. In one case, the answer to your question is No. In the other, it is Yes. In any case, artistic value is entirely subjective.


Of course not, your views lead to absurd conclusions.


Quite the opposite.

[martu]

The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.


This doesn't make any sense.

[Prometheus]

I would say that both art and advertising are forms of communication, but that advertising must create a one-to-many relationship between advertiser and audience, because it is striving to alter behaviour of others (note the plural) in some specific way. Art may exhibit a one-to-any relationship, in that it doesn't need to be reaching out to a number of people. Art may be created solely to reach a single intended person, or may even be only for the artist's own enjoyment.

Of course the two overlap somewhat. And an object or image may start out in one category and later be shifted to the other.

[plumjam]

What if modeling advertisements as parasites affords us new, predictive insights into their existence and "behavior"?
I could be wrong in my hypothesis. But, you are NOT going to debunk it with your claims. You have to demonstrate why such a model does not work in a more scientific manner. Develop examples that counter my claim, for starters.
Meanwhile, I will have to try my best to defend it in a scientific manner. I may or may not succeed. But, claiming "discipline imperialism" is not helpful to the discussion.
What if the difference between art and advertising really does boil down to how each one clings to mental processes, one being more parasitic than the other? Especially when it comes to products that are not vital to survival?

I read the previous post of yours again, and I didn't feel like it explained very well whatever is the theory you're trying to propose.
Do you really think that a theory that models advertisements as parasites could possibly give us 'predictive insights', or even add in any meaningful way to our understanding (little as it is) of the advertising industry?
It really doesn't need to be complicated, involving parasites, memes, 'vital to life', and such life. Just look at your own experience of advertising. All it is is people using ideas to sell stuff. Moreover the 'creatives' in advertising endeavour to be as unpredictable as possible. They don't know themselves from one day to the next what they're going to produce, so it's even less likely that a Dawkins-driven theory from biology which is attempting to explain life the universe and everything using a palette of just a few concepts from biology is going to cast any light on the whole matter.
Anyway, I can see you're sincere in the way you go about things, and you do it in the right spirit, so good on you for that, it's admirable.

[Wowbagger]

Honestly, not really. What you are calling "parasitic" is the primary message of art intended for advertisment. It is to me a little like saying eating and pooping is parasitic to my body. "Parasitic" is a statement of behavior, not a reflection of morality nor nobility nor anything else. Advertisements sway humans to behave differently, for the benefit of the advertisers and their products. Sometimes this is symbiotic: Sometimes both the advertisers and the people mutually benefit. Often, (as is the case with some non-vital products and services) it is to the detriment of the humans.

you have this assumption that "art" should be somehow noble and above such petty things as commerce. Parasitism was not meant to be a statement about nobility in context like that.

No, I do not have such arrogant notions that art should be noble and above anything.

Yes, I acknowledge that not all advertisements are "evil". The accusation of "parasitic" was not meant to imply evilness, it was merely a statement of behavior model.

I can see why my statements were easy to misunderstand, though.

It's not art or not because of what it depicts, or does not depict. The difference between art and advertisement could boil down to how it impacts your mind. Who is benefiting, and by how much?

Correct, but Tricky did stipulate at the beginning he wished to keep the converstaion to that medium. Acknowledged.

[Piscivore]

Advertisements sway humans to behave differently, for the benefit of the advertisers and their products.
Can't you say the same about most art, though? The artists that doesn't want to have some sort of effect on his audience is rare, yes?

Or is it jsut the "benefit the artist" part with which you are taking issue?

Sometimes this is symbiotic: Sometimes both the advertisers and the people mutually benefit. Often, (as is the case with some non-vital products and services) it is to the detriment of the humans.
Without getting into a tangent about non-vital products harming, why does "who benefits" matter in what makes art?

Parasitism was not meant to be a statement about nobility in context like that.

No, I do not have such arrogant notions that art should be noble and above anything.

Yes, I acknowledge that not all advertisements are "evil". The accusation of "parasitic" was not meant to imply evilness, it was merely a statement of behavior model.

I can see why my statements were easy to misunderstand, though.
And I have done so, my apologies.

The difference between art and advertisement could boil down to how it impacts your mind. Who is benefiting, and by how much?
If someone sells a painting that isn't an advertisement to someone wo can ill afford it, is it still art?

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]No it isn't, your own post proves my point. Nothing about the painting itself changed, but yet it was once scoffed and laughed at, and now is revered. Why did that happen?

So the logical consequence to this is that if the Van Gogh paintings were in the next 20 years, say, to fall out of fashion and favour then the paintings themselves would somehow become worse paintings. That the paintings would change.
This is an Alice in Wonderland scenario. In such a world if you could convince 99.9% of the population that the painting made by a baby baboon were the greatest painting ever made then that painting would indeed be the greatest painting ever made.
(Until of course the fashion changed once more)



And what is that inherent artistic value? Tell me what it is.
That is the particular arrangement of paint on the canvas. That is where the value of the painting lies. If the arrangement of the paint were altered by flood or fire then the painting would lose its aesthetic value.
You know... it isn't that difficult; what it looks like.


If they liked it, yes.
Lol.. this is getting hilarious.


If you flew it to a planet of aliens who didn't use vision as we know it, would they value it? Would it have any artistic meaning to them?
I have no idea, they might or they might not. But the fact that those aliens perceived the painting a different way in no way changes the painting itself. Plus it was made by a human being with human sight, FOR humans with human sight.
Just because one man in the audience is deaf does not mean that the music being played loses its objective value as a piece of music.

Your problem is this: you are holding to a democratic view of aesthetics. In other words you believe that the more people there are that like something then the better that thing is.
You are a fan of modern visual art. The majority of people dislike it. So of your two views: democratic aesthetics, and the high quality of modern art .. both can't be right at the same time.
You are either wrong about democratic aesthetics, or wrong about modern art being good. You may be right about one.
I think you're wrong about both.

[plumjam]

This doesn't make any sense.

what doesn't make sense to you?
the value of the painting lies in the painting itself.
the value of a banana lies in the banana itself.
the value of water lies in water itself
etc..

all these things are valuable arrangements of matter/energy/information

when they come into contact with human consciousness what occurs is appreciation of that inherent value

[Piscivore]

So the logical consequence to this is that if the Van Gogh paintings were in the next 20 years, say, to fall out of fashion and favour then the paintings themselves would somehow become worse paintings. That the paintings would change.
No, this is one of those absurd conclusions that result from your absurd premise that the work has intrisic value bound up it its paints and brushstrokes.

Why do you think the value of the painting changed- which you already acknowledged has done so once before?

This is an Alice in Wonderland scenario. In such a world if you could convince 99.9% of the population that the painting made by a baby baboon were the greatest painting ever made then that painting would indeed be the greatest painting ever made.
(Until of course the fashion changed once more)
Instead of retreating to hyperbole, please just explain why you think the value of Van Gogh's work changed if the value is inherent in the painting.

That is the particular arrangement of paint on the canvas. That is where the value of the painting lies.
I get that you think that's where it is, but what is the aesthetic value?

If the arrangement of the paint were altered by flood or fire then the painting would lose its aesthetic value.
You know... it isn't that difficult; what it looks like.
If it is just its appearance than what makes one image more aesthetically valuable than another? And why do people disagree about that value?

I have no idea, they might or they might not. But the fact that those aliens perceived the painting a different way in no way changes the painting itself.
No, but it does affect how much they value it. Would you enjoy a painting that was done in a wavelength of light you could not see? Would the work still have "objective" value?

Just because one man in the audience is deaf does not mean that the music being played loses its objective value as a piece of music.
So you keep saying. What is the "objective" value of "Starry Night". Don't tell me where it lies, tell me what it is.

Your problem is this: you are holding to a democratic view of aesthetics. In other words you believe that the more people there are that like something then the better it is.
Nope. I said the more valuable it is, in general. There are several pieces I like that aren't popular, they are "better" to me than something else that more people may like. And other people have their own opinions. That's why value is subjective.

You are a fan of modern visual art. The majority of people dislike it. So of your two views: democratic aesthetics, and the high quality of modern art .. both can't be right at the same time.
Neither are correct, neither are my view, and that's a false dichotomy. I've rejected your incorrect notion of "democratic aesthetics" just above, "Modern art" is not a monolithic entity with a single value- some of it is good, some bad, some explicit, some obtuse- and the two incorrect ideas, even if they were correct, are not mutually exclusive. You don't just get things wrong, you go for the epic fail.

You are either wrong about democratic aesthetics, or wrong about modern art being good. You may be right about one.
I think you're wrong about both.
I think you're wrong, because you are wrong about what you think I am wrong about.

[Wowbagger]

Do you really think that a theory that models advertisements as parasites could possibly give us 'predictive insights', or even add in any meaningful way to our understanding (little as it is) of the advertising industry? Host migration could be one possible aspect. When one host of a parasite "dries up", the parasite will try to move onto another one.

For example: Mosquitoes, who once fed off of birds, that were trapped in the London Underground, moved onto rats, instead.

In fact, such migration could be a key characteristic, as some parasites often go unnoticed until they are witnessed attempting to move onto different hosts.

Predicting how, when and where advertisers will change target audiences and advertising strategies could be enhanced if we model them as parasites with host-seeking behaviors.

That is a hypothesis, anyway. You could help develop evidence for or against this idea. But, arguments about "applying biology where it does not belong" will not contribute to either effort.

It really doesn't need to be complicated, involving parasites, memes, 'vital to life', and such life. Complicated?! What could be more simple than an analogy to a fairly well understood biological phenomenon?!

Just look at your own experience of advertising. All it is is people using ideas to sell stuff. Science is not satisfied with what is obvious. Science investigates.

Moreover the 'creatives' in advertising endeavour to be as unpredictable as possible. They don't know themselves from one day to the next what they're going to produce, so it's even less likely that a Dawkins-driven theory from biology which is attempting to explain life the universe and everything using a palette of just a few concepts from biology is going to cast any light on the whole matter. Ironically, what you are saying seems to fit fairly well into Dawkins' framework (perhaps with light modifications, here and there). There is no grand plan, only the emergent properties of entities acting on their instincts. Some ideas work, others will not. How is that not Darwinian/Memetic/Dawkinsy/etc.?

There could be one difference in survival strategies, you bring up, though: Biological parasites more often develop creative and unpredictable strategies, in order to avoid detection by potential hosts. Advertisers, on the other hand, try to develop creative and unpredictable strategies to gain notice by its hosts.
This is interesting to think about, but certainly does NOT disprove the hypothesis. In fact, it could actually enlighten us on various aspects of the fitness landspace, in each case.

Anyway, I can see you're sincere in the way you go about things, and you do it in the right spirit, so good on you for that, it's admirable. Thanks.

[Loss Leader]

the value of a banana lies in the banana itself.


What the hell is the value of a banana?


when they come into contact with human consciousness what occurs is appreciation of that inherent value


How is "value" different from "the appreciation" of value?

[CFLarsen]

Another example of your fetish of turning everything into an argument. Fine, all propaganda could be considered advertising, by way of it inciting the target to behave in an intended fashion.

Precisely.

Yes. Not all all emotions make you behave in an intended way. What behaviour do you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'?

This: The Fighting Temeraire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fighting_Temeraire#Symbolism)

Or Da Vinci through the Mona Lisa?

The Mona Lisa is a classic example of probably the most common type of commissioned art, the portrait. It is meant to express not just the visual appearance of a person, but also (if successfully painted) give at least some clue as to how the person is like.

Portraits were also very much a signal of power: He, who could afford to pay for one, clearly showed that he was richer than the one who couldn't. The better/more famous the artist, the more gloating value.

So all graffiti is painted with that as an implicit challenge? Evidence? Or is this more of your naive assumptions?

You're yet to show that it is. 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.


Please quote where in that wiki article that it said graffiti is advertising. Simply because 'it is competitive' does not mean it is always painted with the intention of inciting a behaviour in the observer.



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.

Notice a pattern in your arguments, Claus? You claim to understand a word, embarrass yourself by misunderstanding it, then fail to show where it is used in the manner you believe. 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.

Who claimed evidence? I'm giving you my opinion. We are talking about art, which is inherently about opinion - not something that can be decided objectively.

Since you think otherwise, I would love to hear why.

Very true - so do you think it is art?

Not more than a population graph is.

Peristalsis isn't art for one.

Why not?

This is perhaps what Claus is getting at - contemporary art, existing, as it does, within the art market, has similar if not precisely parallel concerns to advertising.

Yes, that's pretty close. Advertising can definitely in some cases be considered art - especially after the ad achieves historical value.

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

Then, give an example of art that is not advertising.

To be honest, I don't think Claus knows himself what he is getting at. He argues for the sake of it.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

From what I gather, he is suggesting all art is a form of advertisement, with the closest he's come to a definition for 'advertise' is to agree with me that an advertisement aims to persuade you into behaving in a specific manner, such as purchasing an item, attending an event, or seeking information. Art, on the other hand, aims to make you feel something, which can lead to a whole range of consequences (of which behaving in a specific manner could well be one).

Advertising is also very much about making you feel something - e.g., the desire to be like the ad itself: You want to be the Marlborough Man, or a Cover Girl, to live the life they do. And you get that by buying the product.

[Tricky]

I'm not sure what the "value" of art has to do with anything. To me, it is art if it was created to be art. Envision the sketchbook that the geeky guy in high school keeps where he draws all the pictures of his sci-fi fantasies. Nobody hase ever seen it but him. Then one day, he drops it on the floor and other students see the drawings and say, "Wow, Cuthbert, you really are a great artist!" Was Cuthbert not an artist until that point? Is it something like a collapsing wave function that requires observation to convert his drawings into art?

Advertising, on the other hand, has the express purpose of communication. You could have a scrapbook of drawings which had the express purpose of some day merchandising something, but until somebody elses sees them, they haven't actually advertised anything. They would just be art.

[JFrankA]

I know you did, but the point was to show that there is a great body of advertising that is arguably not art.


Is it "not art" or is it really "bad art"?

(I hope that this isn't a thread derail, if it is, I'm sorry but that question popped into my head when I read the above quote.....)

[Tricky]

Is it "not art" or is it really "bad art"?

(I hope that this isn't a thread derail, if it is, I'm sorry but that question popped into my head when I read the above quote.....)
Recall that, for the purposes of this thread, I'm restricting the kinds of art to visual things like paintings and sculpture. While classified ads are technically visual, I don't think that they were created for visual effect (other than being legible) so I'd have to say they are not art.

Obviously, a person could be skilled at writing ads and you might call him as "classified ad artist", but let's not be going off the rails on that crazy train.

[Piscivore]

I'm not sure what the "value" of art has to do with anything. To me, it is art if it was created to be art. Envision the sketchbook that the geeky guy in high school keeps where he draws all the pictures of his sci-fi fantasies. Nobody hase ever seen it but him. Then one day, he drops it on the floor and other students see the drawings and say, "Wow, Cuthbert, you really are a great artist!" Was Cuthbert not an artist until that point? Is it something like a collapsing wave function that requires observation to convert his drawings into art?

Well, the Berkeley answer (or should that be Knox?) is that the artist is an observer. :)

But no, the idea isn't that the sketchbook isn't "art" until someone sees it, but that the aestheic value, or quality is a subjective judgement by the perciever.

[Loss Leader]

Is it "not art" or is it really "bad art"?

(I hope that this isn't a thread derail, if it is, I'm sorry but that question popped into my head when I read the above quote.....)


Exactly.

Art is anything that the viewer subjectively interprets as art. So there may be no difference between "not art" and "bad art" except an artificial and subjective dividing line which only seems real because of semantics.

Personally, I believe the goal of the artist is to communicate his vision to the viewer. Thus, "bad art" is anything that the artist created with the intent of communicating his vision which partially or wholly fails to do so. "Not art" would be anything not intended to communicate.

In my opinion, paintings by gorillas are not art. Coke commercials, however, are.

[TheDoLittle]

It's funny because I just had this conversation with the head of the art department here at school about how to classify art and advertising. She put is very bluntly:

"All art is subjective. Once art ceases to be subjective and starts to become objective, then ceases to be art and starts to become advertising. This is true with any painted canvas hanging on a gallery wall to the billboard outside promoting the painted canvas hanging on the gallery wall... Unless there is a bright orange 'Reduced to Sale' sticker on it, in which case that's now classified as Pop Art!"

[Piscivore]

You want to be the Marlborough Man, or a Cover Girl, to live the life they do. And you get that by buying the product.

Really? 'Cause I've bought all kinds of Cover Girl stuff, and I'm still fat and have a penis.

[Giggywig]

Really? 'Cause I've bought all kinds of Cover Girl stuff, and I'm still fat and have a penis.

It's going to take a lot of paper cuts to solve the penis situation.

[athon]

I think advertising is designed to be displayed, looked at and contemplated, as paintings are. Grocery dockets don't quite fulfil these criteria. I'd also think you'd have trouble arguing that grocery dockets are "designed to produce a response" in the way the quote above is implying.

I agree. I guess I was getting at the fact that some things that advertise, such as a classified in a newspaper (which, like a docket, hardly looks like art), according to that definition is an advertisement that is not an art piece. Of course, it's just one definition where that conflict arises.

Hmmm... two things wrong here that I can see. The first is that I wouldn't necessarily argue that advertising was necessarily good or successful art, just that it satisfies the formal criteria to be called art in the first place. Whether ads are successful (in artistic terms) is a whole other debate. :)

Interesting, though. I would think that in order to evoke a response - such as 'buy this' or 'visit here' - the art involved would need to be successful in getting you to feel a relevant emotion. Otherwise, what would be the point in using it?

The second is about artistic intentionality and reception. Nearly all art critics and art historians have moved away from trying to categorise 'success' in terms of the coherency of the affect. Authors cannot control the affective potential of their works, no matter how hard they try. :)

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I can't help but see that (mind you, from a naive viewpoint) as a rather weak point of the artist. As somebody who himself draws and paints, I do so with a mind of evoking a response and drawing appeal. If the response was embarrassment, or fear, I would feel as if my art has failed. Especially as I illustrate a newsletter aimed at children. I'd think if Monet's impressionist work drew feelings of despondancy where he was painting a tranquil garden scene he might not be so happy with his work. To then claim it is still successful art, to me, seems to defeat its very purpose of communication.

I would argue (with people like Deleuze) that genuinely successful art is art that produces reactions. Simon O'Sullivan has called this art you can "encounter". The types of reactions produced might not be those intended by the artist, but that's almost by the by. Indeed, a lot of art work has affective content beyond its narrative content - Gustav Klimt's Kiss, for example, is a narrative painting of a couple embracing, but it's affect (for me), an overwhelming sense of passionate warmth, is something subtly different. Klimt set out to paint a picture of a couple kissing. What that painting does, whilst a function of the work, was not necessarily consciously conceived as the original intention in the way you're implying, I think.

I'm not so sure. There was a reason why Klimt chose the golden colours and the geometric shapes he did, and the style of of the lovers bent as they were. While we all bring our own perception and our own history to the artwork, there would be shared emotions felt by his target audience. He wasn't doing a realistic scene aimed at people who like realism, or a Japanese garden scene aimed at people from the East, for example. Even if ultimately his only intended target audience was himself (I've known some artists who create purely for themselves, after all), he chose his media to communicate something. If others see something in it which they like, so be it. I feel the purpose and role of art is diluted, however, if an artist claims they've been successful purely because people look at it and just feel anything at all.

Of course, if you set out to create something profound that induces ridicule, then your art is unsuccessful. But that's slightly different, I think.

Really? Hm. I'm not sure.

I question that too, although I think a case could be made.

Well, a case could be made for anything if one designs their own definitions independently of what is broadly or commonly accepted. However, the point is whether if you pointed at a tag on a bench chair in the middle of a mall and said 'hey, it's an advertisement', would people commonly agree? Making anything manmade an advertisment almost broadens the definition to absurdity.

The Mona Lisa is a classic example of probably the most common type of commissioned art, the portrait. It is meant to express not just the visual appearance of a person, but also (if successfully painted) give at least some clue as to how the person is like.

Portraits were also very much a signal of power: He, who could afford to pay for one, clearly showed that he was richer than the one who couldn't. The better/more famous the artist, the more gloating value.

You failed to state what actions it directly inspires. You're evidentally using a different definition to mine. Again, not surprising.

Who claimed evidence? I'm giving you my opinion. We are talking about art, which is inherently about opinion - not something that can be decided objectively.

Aaaaaand there we have the typical 'Claus clause'. When you've got nothing, claim it's an opinion.

Imagine a woo doing this -
'Water is a medicine'
'No it's not. I don't see how that fits the definition of a medicine.'
'A medicine is anything that makes your body feel good. If you don't drink water, it makes you feel bad, therefore drinking water makes you feel good and it's a medicine.'
'Where's your evidence for that definition? Where's your evidence that water matches that definition?'
'Hey, it's just my opinion.'

You're a hypocrit, Claus.

Advertising is also very much about making you feel something - e.g., the desire to be like the ad itself: You want to be the Marlborough Man, or a Cover Girl, to live the life they do. And you get that by buying the product.

The argument isn't whether advertising can use art. Nobody has a problem with that. Stick to the scenario, Claus.

Yet seeing as you've avoided providing evidence, and have resorted to the 'it's my opinion' defence, I guess there's nothing more for you to add.

Athon

[Piscivore]

Aaaaaand there we have the typical 'Claus clause'. When you've got nothing, claim it's an opinion.

Imagine a woo doing this -
'Water is a medicine'
'No it's not. I don't see how that fits the definition of a medicine.'
'A medicine is anything that makes your body feel good. If you don't drink water, it makes you feel bad, therefore drinking water makes you feel good and it's a medicine.'
'Where's your evidence for that definition? Where's your evidence that water matches that definition?'
'Hey, it's just my opinion.'

Claus spent so much time embroiled in debates with Mayday and Tai Chi that he's adopted their logic and debate tactics. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

But of course, that's just my opinion.

[trvlr2]

They would have artistic value, full stop. This stuff about status as a cultural referent is extraneous and misleading. At first, for quite a few years, his paintings were scoffed at and neglected... so in those years they had no 'artistic "value" derived from status as a cultural referent', yet now they are revered. Nothing about the paintings themselves has changed, so this artistic "value" derived from opinion, status, and being a cultural referent is clearly bogus.
The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.
Would they gain in artistic value the more people saw them?
If they were flown to a planet with a population of 60 billion humans would the artistic value of the paintings themselves multiply by 10?
Of course not, your views lead to absurd conclusions.

I think that the really absurd part , is that useless fops have to declare it "art", or else, it just never makes the transition from speckles of paint on media.

[Tricky]

The argument isn't whether advertising can use art. Nobody has a problem with that. Stick to the scenario, Claus.
See post 49.

[athon]

Claus spent so much time embroiled in debates with Mayday and Tai Chi that he's adopted their logic and debate tactics. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

But of course, that's just my opinion.

:D

See post 49.

I think we're getting better, though. Once it would have taken to page 8 before it became obvious. Give it another few months and we'll have it down to 'by Claus' first post'. ;)

Athon

[Piscivore]

I think that the really absurd part , is that useless fops have to declare it "art", or else, it just never makes the transition from speckles of paint on media.

The Conclave of Fops, Dandies, and Popinjays wrested control of the arts in a perfectly legal, if underhanded, maneuver back in 1723. What are you going to do?

[CFLarsen]

You failed to state what actions it directly inspires. You're evidentally using a different definition to mine. Again, not surprising.

Whatever actions it inspires it naturally is up to the observer to decide. Not even propaganda always has the same effect on everyone.

Aaaaaand there we have the typical 'Claus clause'. When you've got nothing, claim it's an opinion.

Imagine a woo doing this -
'Water is a medicine'
'No it's not. I don't see how that fits the definition of a medicine.'
'A medicine is anything that makes your body feel good. If you don't drink water, it makes you feel bad, therefore drinking water makes you feel good and it's a medicine.'
'Where's your evidence for that definition? Where's your evidence that water matches that definition?'
'Hey, it's just my opinion.'

You're a hypocrit, Claus.

Whatever gave you the idea that I was offering anything else than my opinion?

The argument isn't whether advertising can use art. Nobody has a problem with that. Stick to the scenario, Claus.

Stick to what I said, please. Do you not agree that advertising also is about making you feel something?

Yet seeing as you've avoided providing evidence

I never claimed I could.

:D

I think we're getting better, though. Once it would have taken to page 8 before it became obvious. Give it another few months and we'll have it down to 'by Claus' first post'. ;)

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Do you have any comments about the symbolism of Turner's painting, or the Mona Lisa?

Can you give an example of art that is not advertising?

[Piscivore]

Do you have any comments about the symbolism of Turner's painting?

I have a comment- well more of a question, really.
This: The Fighting Temeraire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fighting_Temeraire#Symbolism)
Where in that link do you think it explicates the behaviour you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'?

[CFLarsen]

I have a comment- well more of a question, really.

Where in that link do you think it explicates the behaviour you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'?

As always, whatever behavior is up to people themselves. You can't, as an artist, dictate what happens when people view your work.

The title itself gives a clear idea of what Turner himself wanted to express:

"The Fighting Temeraire, tugged to her Last Berth to be broken up"

As the sun rises, it will disappear from sight, symbolising the passing of an era.

It has also been described as:

Turner's quasi-heroic picture of the inglorious final hours of one of Lord Nelson's great fighting ships
...
Turner's victory did not surprise him, he added. "In some ways, that Constable is a more traditional image. There is a hint of nostalgia about a world that has gone from us.

"The Turner has those elements, but it is more interesting about the passing of an old world - the sail ship being towed by a steam tug to the knacker's yard - and the arrival of modernism. The Fighting Temeraire crosses the centuries."
...
Turner's 98-gun Temeraire, taken from the French word meaning rash or reckless, had a glorious Trafalgar and had become a symbol of naval heroism.

It was the second ship in the line in the battle and drew fire from Victory. Badly raked by fire, it later went to Victory's help and went on to capture two French ships.
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/06/nart06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/06/ixhome.html)

Description at the National Gallery's website (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG524)

That's the basic idea of Temeraire: A fin de siècle sentiment. End of an era.

[JFrankA]

Okay, I've kinda skimed through this thread so far, and I promise to go back and read it more carefully but I haven't seen this point brought up:

What about "art" that is turned into and "ad". Is the art still art?

For example, (and keeping this to visual art), if someone set up a billboard ad with a picture of the Mona Lisa (unaltered) on one side, then a picture of a cola drink on the other, and the copy reads "Two great classics, but only one will quench your thirst", does the Mona Lisa stop being art only in that instance? Or is the Mona Lisa now changed, permanently into "pop-art" or "advertising"? Or does the whole ad become art?

To go a little further, let's say that for whatever reason, it becomes a popular ad and now there's a running joke in which when someone mentions the Mona Lisa someone else would reply, "Oh great painting, but it doesn't quench my thirst", does this now invalidate the "art status", so to speak, of the painting?

Again, I hope this doesn't derail the thread, just seems to me that this is a point that needs to be questioned in this subject.

[CFLarsen]

Or, what about the other way around? Ad turning into art?

http://www.usarec.army.mil/1stbde/1kbn/Uncle%20Sam.jpe

That's an ad alright. But it's also art.

[calebprime]

...The artists that doesn't want to have some sort of effect on his audience is rare, yes?




As the old saying goes: if you don't like the art you see, maybe it's time to make your own.


What on earth has morals to do with art?


And? You seem to be revealing again and unstated expectaion that "art" be somehow "noble" or "good" or "embiggening". That's just not the case.




The only "mistake" you make here is in: "What on earth has morals to do with art?" Which deliberately misunderstood my point. The morality I was speaking of wasn't in the art, but in the whole context. And morality (in the broadest sense of the word) is always worth considering.

Not much time today. Gotta make some art.

I found making serviceable music for other people (12 year career, 1,608 cues for television) to be really depressing. I had to put myself in the heads of other people who cared much less about music, and heard much less well than I did.

Now, I'm mostly writing music for myself. It's really the only honest thing. As an artist, it's up to your artistic conscience, which is much stronger than anyone else's. No one will care. That's ok. You've got to get your supports (your basic Maslow pyramid, if you will) from somewhere else, and for the rest, live in your imagination.

And as for ennobling, no. Attending to art just has to be worth it. There's a huge amount of stuff to choose from, so why not choose the stuff that strikes you as the best, most satisfying? It's a matter of personal taste, but the bleakest, most nihilistic, most brutal stuff has the same effect as trying to get nutrition from hard liquor, energy from cocaine, profundity from acid. It gives a little thrill, but you feel ill.

(Anyone can win an abstract argument with CP, btw, he's incapable of abstract thought...)

[martu]

what doesn't make sense to you?
the value of the painting lies in the painting itself.
the value of a banana lies in the banana itself.
the value of water lies in water itself
etc..

all these things are valuable arrangements of matter/energy/information

when they come into contact with human consciousness what occurs is appreciation of that inherent value

This still makes no sense, value in this context is subjective not objective.

[martu]

Not more than a population graph is.

Why isn't it art then?

I studied at a college in London famous for art and producing artists (though I didn't do art myself) and the one thing I learnt about art while there is that anything and everything that people can and do produce is art as long as people agree it is art. But you're wrong to say art is always selling something.

[CFLarsen]

Why isn't it art then?

It isn't to me. To me, art should be something like the Reuben Abel quote volatile posted in #33.

But if you think it is art, fine with me.

I studied at a college in London famous for art and producing artists (though I didn't do art myself) and the one thing I learnt about art while there is that anything and everything that people can and do produce is art as long as people agree it is art. But you're wrong to say art is always selling something.

You may disagree with me - but you can't say I'm wrong. There is no objective way to determine it. You think it isn't, I think it is.

[Piscivore]

As always, whatever behavior is up to people themselves. You can't, as an artist, dictate what happens when people view your work.
Okay, but that still doesn't say what behaviour you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire' either.

The title itself gives a clear idea of what Turner himself wanted to express:

"The Fighting Temeraire, tugged to her Last Berth to be broken up"

It has also been described as:

Description at the National Gallery's website (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG524)

That's the basic idea of Temeraire: A fin de siècle sentiment. End of an era.

I didn't ask what Turner wanted to express, I asked where in the link you provided was the answer to the question "what behaviour do you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'?"

[Tricky]

You may disagree with me - but you can't say I'm wrong. There is no objective way to determine it. You think it isn't, I think it is.
No, one cannot say you're "wrong" so long as we accept a new meaning of "selling" to be "doing something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

Then you'd be right.

[CFLarsen]

Okay, but that still doesn't say what behaviour you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire' either.

I didn't ask what Turner wanted to express, I asked where in the link you provided was the answer to the question "what behaviour do you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'?"

I gave it. I happen to agree with the description.

No, one cannot say you're "wrong" so long as we accept a new meaning of "selling" to be "doing something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

Then you'd be right.

It isn't a question of the meaning of "selling". It's a question of whether art sells or not. That is a matter of opinion.

[Piscivore]

I gave it. I happen to agree with the description.
That's a "no", then.

[CFLarsen]

You gave a link, and that link does not, that I can see, say anything about the behaviour Turner wished to elict from his audience with the painting. Can you be more specific about where in the link is the answer?

Can you make up your mind about what you want?

First, you want to know what I think Turner meant with his painting. I gave you my opinion.

Now, you want to know what Turner meant. You'll have to ask him. I don't speak for him.

[CFLarsen]

That's a "no", then.

No, it's not a "no". You asked for my opinion, and I gave it.

[Piscivore]

First, you want to know what I think Turner meant with his painting. I gave you my opinion.

Now, you want to know what Turner meant. You'll have to ask him. I don't speak for him.

That's not what I asked you. Ever. You don't have an answer, I get it.

[CFLarsen]

That's not what I asked you. Ever.

Did I not quote you correctly in post #104?

That you change the content of your post while I am responding is not my problem.

You don't have an answer, I get it.

For what? I can't speak for Turner. I can give you what you first asked for, my opinion. And I did.

[Piscivore]

Did I not quote you correctly in post #104?
Yes, but you cannot understand it. "The behaviour Turner wished to elict " =/= "what Turner meant"

It's okay Claus, I don't want you to have one of your little episodes. Just forget it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hold that advertising has the goal of portraying a product favorably, usually for monetary, but sometimes for ego reasons. It may and usually does contain art, but that is not its purpose. Art needs no purpose.

This is an excellent analysis.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but you cannot understand it.

So, you lied when you said:

That's not what I asked you. Ever.

Thanks for acknowledging, once again, that you are a compulsory liar.

"The behaviour Turner wished to elict " =/= "what Turner meant"

It's okay Claus, I don't want you to have one of your little episodes. Just forget it.

How on Earth can you expect anyone to tell you what Turner really wished for?

You realized that you made a big blunder, so, yes, let's just "forget it".

Do not personalize the argument. If you cannot stick to the topic at hand please find another thread to post in.

[martu]

You may disagree with me - but you can't say I'm wrong. There is no objective way to determine it. You think it isn't, I think it is.

Sure I can, just did.

Two blokes sitting in a presentation case eating baked beans for two days with toothpicks. Considered art by my college, art by me too. What do you think they are selling?

[Tricky]

It isn't a question of the meaning of "selling". It's a question of whether art sells or not. That is a matter of opinion.
Art may or may not sell, for standard definitions of the word "sell".

To insist that all art sells requires that one use a very bizarre meaning of "sells", such as "does something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

But just so I don't make a strawman, why don't you give us your definition of the word "sells" as used in this context.

[Tricky]

Two blokes sitting in a presentation case eating baked beans for two days with toothpicks. Considered art by my college, art by me too. What do you think they are selling?
Rock and roll?
http://www.connollyco.com/discography/who/sellout_hi.jpg

[martu]

No, one cannot say you're "wrong" so long as we accept a new meaning of "selling" to be "doing something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

Then you'd be right.

But that would be dishonest.

[martu]

How on Earth can you expect anyone to tell you what Turner really wished for?


What do you think art historians do?

[martu]

Rock and roll?

Heh is nothing original?

[CFLarsen]

Do not personalize the argument. If you cannot stick to the topic at hand please find another thread to post in.

I did not personalize the argument. I stated a fact. That is not against the rules.

Sure I can, just did.

You think that there is an objective way to determine whether art is always selling something or not?

Two blokes sitting in a presentation case eating baked beans for two days with toothpicks. Considered art by my college, art by me too. What do you think they are selling?

I can't tell.

Art may or may not sell, for standard definitions of the word "sell".

To insist that all art sells requires that one use a very bizarre meaning of "sells", such as "does something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

But just so I don't make a strawman, why don't you give us your definition of the word "sells" as used in this context.

It is not bizarre at all. Propaganda is art too, and it certainly sells something: Ideas.

What do you think art historians do?

They give their opinion of what they think Turner meant.

What do you think they do?

[Tricky]

It is not bizarre at all. Propaganda is art too, and it certainly sells something: Ideas.
But some art is neither for monetary exchange, or propaganda. So thats why I'm asking (again) how you are defining the word "sell" in this context (that all art is "selling" something), because for the life of me I can't match it to any standard definition.

[martu]

You think that there is an objective way to determine whether art is always selling something or not?

That isn't what I said so no.


I can't tell.

How do you know they are selling something then?



They give their opinion of what they think Turner meant.

What do you think they do?

Just that.

I have re read your post regarding this and I see you're being very precise with the terms used. Like Piscivore I will also bow out of this, you can claim your victory based on semantics but you have missed Piscivore's point in my opinion.

[Piscivore]

Scott McCloud, in Understanding Comics, chapter Seven, offers his (admittedly broad) definition of Art:

Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn't grow out of either of our species' two basic instincs: survival and reproduction.

He subsequently makes a pretty interesting case for it too.

[CFLarsen]

But some art is neither for monetary exchange, or propaganda. So thats why I'm asking (again) how you are defining the word "sell" in this context (that all art is "selling" something), because for the life of me I can't match it to any standard definition.

Show me an example.

That isn't what I said so no.

What did you say, then?

How do you know they are selling something then?

It's impossible to say: I haven't seen the work.

Just that.

Then, we agree.

[SirPhilip]

I did not personalize the argument. I stated a fact. That is not against the rules. You've violated Lisa's rules, you mo[beeep] a[beep] s[beeep]head.

[martu]

What did you say, then?


I used an example of art where there is no selling, the random number picture. Which is my current Windows desktop, a use of art.

I think you're doing one of two things:

1) Define sell to mean what you want or
2) Define art to mean what you want.

I have no desire to carry on this discussion, I see no resolution I'm afraid. At least this time you didn't call me a troll, thank you.

[Tricky]

Show me an example.
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.

Okay, I have done as you asked (without having to be asked twice) and given you an example.

Now, asking for the third time, will you give us the definition you use for "selling" when you say "all art is selling something"?

[CFLarsen]

I used an example of art where there is no selling, the random number picture. Which is my current Windows desktop, a use of art.

I think you're doing one of two things:

1) Define sell to mean what you want or
2) Define art to mean what you want.

I have no desire to carry on this discussion, I see no resolution I'm afraid. At least this time you didn't call me a troll, thank you.

Just before you leave:

To you, what is not art?

[Tricky]

Just before you leave:

To you, what is not art?
In between politely entreating people for a response, why don't you reply to my politely entreated request, now politely entreated for the fourth time?

[Piscivore]

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.

There you go.

[athon]

Claus, if this is all simply a matter of pure opinion, why the discussion at all? You seem to feel that definitions for terms and their parameters are purely forms of opinion. You won't define terms such as 'advertise' with reference to something which shows it's not just your own invented version of the word, and resort to 'it's just my opinion', so why bother?

Athon

[Morrigan]

Of course art has a purpose. The purpose of art is for the artist to convey the message, "this is how I see the world." Advertising has the same purpose, "This is how we at the Widget Corporation see the world."

Both attempt to open the viewer's mind to a new way of thinking about the universe. There is no difference between the two.
Yes, there is. Widget Corporation wants to sell you their product via the ad. An artist's product IS the art, and s/he doesn't have to sell it, or even want to sell it, for it to be art. Advertising is purely a way to attract attention to a product. It might contain art, but as Tricky said, art doesn't require a purpose, while advertising does.

[CFLarsen]

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.

Do you think this study of Gericault's The Raft (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Gericault_-_study_for_Raft_of_the_Medusa.jpg/431px-Gericault_-_study_for_Raft_of_the_Medusa.jpg) is art?

If yes, then you have your answer.

Claus, if this is all simply a matter of pure opinion, why the discussion at all? You seem to feel that definitions for terms and their parameters are purely forms of opinion. You won't define terms such as 'advertise' with reference to something which shows it's not just your own invented version of the word, and resort to 'it's just my opinion', so why bother?

Athon

Don't you ever discuss something that is all simply a matter of pure opinion? Everything you discuss is solely about facts, figures, evidence? You must be a real catch as a dinner conversationalist.

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

[calebprime]

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.



I like this story very much. More Muse theory.

[Tricky]

Do you think this study of Gericault's The Raft (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Gericault_-_study_for_Raft_of_the_Medusa.jpg/431px-Gericault_-_study_for_Raft_of_the_Medusa.jpg) is art?

If yes, then you have your answer.
That is in no way an answer to the question "how are you defining 'sell' when you say 'all art sells something'?"

So I'll ask it politely for the fifth time.

ETA: Also, you asked for an example of art that wasn't selling anything. I provided it, but you made no comments. Do you agree that it is an example of art that is not selling anything?

[CFLarsen]

That is in no way an answer to the question "how are you defining 'sell' when you say 'all art sells something'?"

So I'll ask it politely for the fifth time.

See post #102. You know perfectly well that it was answered.

Do you think the study of Gericault's The Raft is art, yes or no?

[Tricky]

See post #102. You know perfectly well that it was answered.

No, Claus, that is what is commonly called "a lie". This is your reply in post #102:
It isn't a question of the meaning of "selling". It's a question of whether art sells or not. That is a matter of opinion.
You see, what you said in post #102 is that you wouldn't answer the question because you didn't feel you needed to. And, of course, you didn't answer the question. Now, just above, you say you did answer. It is just this sort of dishonesty that makes you one of the least respected posters on this forum.
Do you think the study of Gericault's The Raft is art, yes or no?
I'll answer when you do. I already provided you the example you asked for and you ignored it completely. Give me a reason why I should continue to politely answer your questions when you ignore not only my questions but my answers.

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus, that is what is commonly called "a lie". This is your reply in post #102:

You see, what you said in post #102 is that you wouldn't answer the question because you didn't feel you needed to. And, of course, you didn't answer the question. Now, just above, you say you did answer. It is just this sort of dishonesty that makes you one of the least respected posters on this forum.

I'll answer when you do. I already provided you the example you asked for and you ignored it completely. Give me a reason why I should continue to politely answer your questions when you ignore not only my questions but my answers.

No, it's not a lie, and here's why:

If you answer "yes", you will have to admit that even an exercise - such as your own - is selling: Not only did you leave a work behind, you also improved your skills. Just like Gericault.

If, on the other hand, you answer "no", then you will have to explain why Gericault's study is not art. And I don't think you want to go there.

But, rather than admit that I wasn't "wrong", you prefer to avoid my point and call me a liar instead. Why not simply admit that I wasn't "wrong"? You may disagree with the way I see art, but in your desire to see me "wrong", you certainly have placed yourself between a rock and a hard place.

Have a nice day. And learn that your perception of art is not the only one.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In between politely entreating people for a response, why don't you reply to my politely entreated request, now politely entreated for the fourth time?

Do you really expect an answer? :rolleyes:

If you do get a response, it will be to feign ignorance, or to point you to some post that has nothing to do with the question you asked.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Do you really expect an answer? :rolleyes:

If you do get a response, it will be to feign ignorance, or to point you to some post that has nothing to do with the question you asked.

See post #102. You know perfectly well that it was answered.

Do you think the study of Gericault's The Raft is art, yes or no?

Where is my million?

[CFLarsen]

Where is my million?

For a post-hoc "prediction"?

[Morrigan]

: Not only did you leave a work behind, you also improved your skills.
How is that selling anything?

[CFLarsen]

How is that selling anything?

It takes not only talent, but also skill to make your art worthwhile.

[NoZed Avenger]

Only 20 more pages to go.

[Piscivore]

Apropos of nothing at all, I was working on my book last night, and while I was considering the implications of a robot that could pass a Turing test, I was startled to realise that there are human beings that probably couldn't.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For a post-hoc "prediction"?

Nope. I made the prediction after reading Tricky's post. Then I read the rest of the thread.

I read threads from top to bottom. I assumed that is what everyone does.

[NoZed Avenger]

How is that selling anything?

It takes not only talent, but also skill to make your art worthwhile.


Objection: Nonresponsive.


How is that selling anything?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It takes not only talent, but also skill to make your art worthwhile.

It also takes a special kind of talent to answer questions that aren't asked.

[NoZed Avenger]

Apropos of nothing at all, I was working on my book last night, and while I was considering the implications of a robot that could pass a Turing test, I was startled to realise that there are human beings that probably couldn't.


That is so odd. I had that same thought reading some 50 page thread a while ago.

[CFLarsen]

Nope. I made the prediction after reading Tricky's post. Then I read the rest of the thread.

Sure you did.

I read threads from top to bottom. I assumed that is what everyone does.

You just contradicted yourself.

Better stop digging.

[NoZed Avenger]

See. This is a good example of trying to divert the topic when people think they are cornering you.

Whether he knows that his accusation is wrong, or not, the actual accusation is the important point: making a new allegation (like "you just contradicted yourself," for example) that might get people arguing about that point is a nice distraction from all of those "How is that selling anything?" questions that somehow get missed.

After 4-5 posts on the new topic -- if things get to be problematic again -- there will be a new wildly wrong accusation in the hopes that even more smoke can be blown.


The classical answer to this post would be to try the same argument : "He DID contradict himself." or "Explain how he didn't contradict himself." or even "You contend that he did't contradict himself? Then prove it."

Or, since I have just outlined the attack, ignore this post, too -- and try it on someone else.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sure you did.

So we agree.

You just contradicted yourself.

I can't wait to hear how I contradicted myself. I'm sure the explanation will be priceless.

Better stop digging.

Stick to the scenario.

[plumjam]

Only 20 more pages to go.

:D

Yeah, I think so far my prediction came true.
I have prediction down to a fine art, but I don't like to advertise it.
(except for just now)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

:D

Yeah, I think so far my prediction came true.
I have prediction down to a fine art, but I don't like to advertise it.
(except for just now)

What is your "fine art" selling?

:duck:

[plumjam]

What is your "fine art" selling?

:duck:

my-soul-to-da-bebil


btw: I like the Ion sentence in your sig.
Boy do I miss his deadpan putdowns. Should never have been banned.

[Tricky]

Nope. I made the prediction after reading Tricky's post. Then I read the rest of the thread.

I read threads from top to bottom. I assumed that is what everyone does.
Hey, I've got you beat. Post #49 made two days ago:
I predict we will reach the general agreement that not all art is advertising but that Claus will never concede this point.

[Tricky]

No, it's not a lie, and here's why:

If you answer "yes", you will have to admit that even an exercise - such as your own - is selling: Not only did you leave a work behind, you also improved your skills. Just like Gericault.
Yes, it was a lie, because you said you had answered my question, but the post you indicated as your "answer" had very obviously and demonstrably not answered the question. In fact, it said that it was not answering the question. Or maybe in the "Claus definition" world, saying you are not answering is the same as answering. So either it is a lie, or you are not speaking English, but some language you invented.

But let's try another tack. Is "improving your skills" the same thing as selling? Is it the same thing as advertising?

If, on the other hand, you answer "no", then you will have to explain why Gericault's study is not art. And I don't think you want to go there.
Yes, I knew you believed you were setting a trap. But I have avoided that trap by pointedly making my delivery of an answer conditional on yours. Unlike you, I do not claim I have answered. That would be a lie.

But, rather than admit that I wasn't "wrong", you prefer to avoid my point and call me a liar instead.
LOL. You completly avoided my point and my question, but now you say I am the one avoiding the point?

And I didn't call you a liar because I believe that word is misused. Everybody lies about certain things. What I said was that you had told a lie. I then showed the lie you had told. I then gave the opinion that your dishonesty makes you unrespected here on this forum. I believe I could support it with evidence if you asked me to and agreed to let it be the subject of a poll, but I am relatively certain that you won't agree to such a thing. So for now I will admit that it is only an opinion.

At least I didn't call you a murderer as you did me. But it's okay. I got a great sig out of it.

Why not simply admit that I wasn't "wrong"? You may disagree with the way I see art, but in your desire to see me "wrong", you certainly have placed yourself between a rock and a hard place.
I am inclined to agree with you. Or at least I would be if you were in any way right.

(See, Loss Leader? I told you I was stealing that line (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3576625#post3576625).)

Have a nice day. And learn that your perception of art is not the only one.
Thank you I shall. You too, and learn from your missteps that by avoiding making sweeping statements about "all art" as you did, you can avoid shooting yourself in the foot in the future.

[CFLarsen]

Hey, I've got you beat. Post #49 made two days ago:

What's to "concede"? It's a matter of opinion - not fact.

[Piscivore]

I then gave the opinion that your dishonesty makes you unrespected here on this forum.

It leads to him being perceived as an "untrustworthy obnoxious twerp", perhaps?

[Morrigan]

It takes not only talent, but also skill to make your art worthwhile.

That answered nothing.

How is improving one's art equal to selling it?

[Tricky]

What's to "concede"? It's a matter of opinion - not fact.
And it's an "opinion" that has been shown to be incorrect by numerous examples. Yes, Claus, opinions can be wrong. If a person says it is their opinion that the Bible is inerrant, is that opinion wrong? Or is it "just an opinion, therefore, neither right or wrong"?

Here are two situations:

Biblical literalist: God is good.
Skeptic: Here are some examples from the bible where God is not good.
Biblical literalist: That's because you dont' understand what "good" means for God.
Skeptic: What does "good" mean for God?
Biblical literalist: Read the bible. It's all there.

vs.

CFLarsen: All art is selling something.
Skeptic: Here are some examples of art that aren't selling anything.
CFLarsen: That is because you don't understand what is meant by "selling".
Skeptic: Would you explain what you mean by "selling"?
CFLarsen: I already answered that in post #102. I suggest you read that.

So what is to concede is that your opinion is wrong, based on evidence. Also based on experience with you, I do not expect you to do so. Surprise me.

[CFLarsen]

That answered nothing.

How is improving one's art equal to selling it?

And it's an "opinion" that has been shown to be incorrect by numerous examples. Yes, Claus, opinions can be wrong. If a person says it is their opinion that the Bible is inerrant, is that opinion wrong? Or is it "just an opinion, therefore, neither right or wrong"?

Here are two situations:

Biblical literalist: God is good.
Skeptic: Here are some examples from the bible where God is not good.
Biblical literalist: That's because you dont' understand what "good" means for God.
Skeptic: What does "good" mean for God?
Biblical literalist: Read the bible. It's all there.

vs.

CFLarsen: All art is selling something.
Skeptic: Here are some examples of art that aren't selling anything.
CFLarsen: That is because you don't understand what is meant by "selling".
Skeptic: Would you explain what you mean by "selling"?
CFLarsen: I already answered that in post #102. I suggest you read that.

So what is to concede is that your opinion is wrong, based on evidence. Also based on experience with you, I do not expect you to do so. Surprise me.

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.

Then, imagine you find a sketchbook of Picasso's. Or Leonardo's. Goodbye to your day job, hello sunny side life.

Now, we are talking about facts: It's a fact that even scribbles, doodles and studies will sell.

Will a doodle from an unknown artist sell? Maybe not now, but maybe in the future. For now, the sell is due to the practice itself. When you, Tricky, did your drawing, you not only did a work of art (at least in your own opinion), you also practiced: You added value to something, because you not only created it, you also got better. You acknowledged this, because you described it as a work that took a while: You improved on the work as you got more experienced. And when you add value to something - whatever that value is - it becomes more sellable.

If you say I am "wrong", then you are arguing three things:

1) Practice doesn't make you better.

2) People don't add value to their work.

3) Gericault's study of The Raft is not art.

The former two are demonstrably wrong. The latter is a matter of opinion.

[Prometheus]

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.

Then, imagine you find a sketchbook of Picasso's. Or Leonardo's. Goodbye to your day job, hello sunny side life.

Now, we are talking about facts: It's a fact that even scribbles, doodles and studies will sell.

Will a doodle from an unknown artist sell? Maybe not now, but maybe in the future. For now, the sell is due to the practice itself. When you, Tricky, did your drawing, you not only did a work of art (at least in your own opinion), you also practiced: You added value to something, because you not only created it, you also got better. You acknowledged this, because you described it as a work that took a while: You improved on the work as you got more experienced. And when you add value to something - whatever that value is - it becomes more sellable.

If you say I am "wrong", then you are arguing three things:

1) Practice doesn't make you better.

2) People don't add value to their work.

3) Gericault's study of The Raft is not art.

The former two are demonstrably wrong. The latter is a matter of opinion.

This argument commits the logical fallacy of low redefinition (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=35) 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.

[CFLarsen]

This argument commits the logical fallacy of low redefinition (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=35) 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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_Field_with_Crows)

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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_Field_with_Crows)
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.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

:duck:

[athon]

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

:duck:

Engagement rings? :D

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.

[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.

[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.

[Piscivore]

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?
Sounds like "significant" might be the right word.

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

I would love to discuss this further at TAM.
Well, you're not presenting much of an attractive invitation.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Bump, to provide Claus with another opportunity to answer Tricky's question about his definition of the word "sell".

[athon]

Bump, to provide Claus with another opportunity to answer Tricky's question about his definition of the word "sell".

Claus is too busy off bullying and hassling others to be bothered weasling his way out of his own fumbled claims. He seems satisfied with the fact that if he says it, it's just an opinion, while if a woo says it, it demands evidence.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Claus is too busy off bullying and hassling others to be bothered weasling his way out of his own fumbled claims. He seems satisfied with the fact that if he says it, it's just an opinion, while if a woo says it, it demands evidence.

Athon

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence?

[athon]

Ever get the feeling that Claus' brain is permanently playing the 'answer a question with a question' game?

It's not difficult, Claus - not all opinions are equal. You can claim 'it's just an opinion' until the cows come home, but when you state something, to have merit it must have evidence backing it up. The fact you seem to believe that all opinions have equal weight is a rather sad admission for such an uber-skeptic.

So, care to define 'sell', or want to ask another irrelevant question? Either way, I think your feet are so riddled with bullet holes you could probably use them both to strain vegetables.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Ever get the feeling that Claus' brain is permanently playing the 'answer a question with a question' game?

It's not difficult, Claus - not all opinions are equal.

Ah, but that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing evidential claims vs. opinions.

You can claim 'it's just an opinion' until the cows come home, but when you state something, to have merit it must have evidence backing it up. The fact you seem to believe that all opinions have equal weight is a rather sad admission for such an uber-skeptic.

So, care to define 'sell', or want to ask another irrelevant question? Either way, I think your feet are so riddled with bullet holes you could probably use them both to strain vegetables.

Athon

Speaking of which: I like broccoli.

What evidence can there possibly be of that opinion?

[athon]

Ah, but that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing evidential claims vs. opinions.

Sorry Claus. We're discussing whether in order for opinions to have weight, they should be justified with evidence. See post 198. Oh, and...stick to the scenario.

Once again, goalposts shift, Claus weasles and he turns the way of the woo.

I don't think anybody really expects you to substantiate your view on this, Claus. I'm not sure you can. But then why let you weasel out of it when you constantly bully others for not supporting their own views?

Speaking of which: I like broccoli.

What evidence can there possibly be of that opinion?That you've eaten broccoli. If the context you stated this in meant the statement seemed to contradict certain observations, then you'd be asked for such evidence.

If the statement reflected that you didn't seem to know what broccoli is, or you misused the word 'like' in contrast to how others use the word, you'd be asked to provide evidence supporting what you meant by 'broccoli' and the word 'like'.

I'd assume in such a situation you'd again move the goal posts, insinuate broccoli is really some small Asian mammal and how by 'like' you really imply 'has seen one on television in the company of Sir Richard Attenborough'.

Now; what do you mean by the word 'sell'?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Sorry Claus. We're discussing whether in order for opinions to have weight, they should be justified with evidence. See post 198. Oh, and...stick to the scenario.

Once again, goalposts shift, Claus weasles and he turns the way of the woo.

I don't think anybody really expects you to substantiate your view on this, Claus. I'm not sure you can. But then why let you weasel out of it when you constantly bully others for not supporting their own views?

Again, we see that mere disagreement about something inevitably means that someone is a "woo" - comparable to people David Icke, Sylvia Browne and Kenneth Trudeau.

It's a dangerous path you are travelling down, Athon. You're by far not the only one, but I'm sad to see you do it.

That you've eaten broccoli. If the context you stated this in meant the statement seemed to contradict certain observations, then you'd be asked for such evidence.

I have also eaten things that I didn't like. I've also looked at art I didn't like. I've also looked at something that I didn't think was art. Heck, I've even eaten things that isn't food.

How can that be evidence that I liked them?

If the statement reflected that you didn't seem to know what broccoli is, or you misused the word 'like' in contrast to how others use the word, you'd be asked to provide evidence supporting what you meant by 'broccoli' and the word 'like'.

I know what broccoli is, and I know what I like. So no need to imagine all vile things about me.

Do you think it is possible that "I like broccoli" is a mere opinion? That "evidence" has no meaning? It's just...an opinion?

I like Broccoli. I find grunge music akin to sounds that make frogs sterile from 200 meters away. I think art sells.

No? Your world is entirely made up of verifiable claims, and you insist that this goes for everyone else, too?

I disagree with your opinion.

[athon]

Again, we see that mere disagreement about something inevitably means that someone is a "woo" - comparable to people David Icke, Sylvia Browne and Kenneth Trudeau.

It's a dangerous path you are travelling down, Athon. You're by far not the only one, but I'm sad to see you do it.

That is always your personal out, Claus. Helps you sleep at night I assume. 'They're calling me a woo because they disagree'. Mind you, I might venture that most other people here fully understand that I describe your arguments as 'woo' as they reflect the same tactics as Icke, Browne and Trudeau. Avoidance of the harder questions, changing definitions to suit their statements, claims 'they are just opinions' thereby avoiding the demands for evidence etc.

I have also eaten things that I didn't like. I've also looked at art I didn't like. I've also looked at something that I didn't think was art. Heck, I've even eaten things that isn't food.

Christ, not the 'evidence' disagreement again. You've just got a whole other dictionary on your side of the fence, Claus, where language is malleable.

Do you think it is possible that "I like broccoli" is a mere opinion? That "evidence" has no meaning? It's just...an opinion?

Do you equate your statement that all art sells something with your taste for broccoli now?

Yes, it is an opinion. I never claimed otherwise. You keep inserting words like 'just' and 'mere' as if it will absolve the need for evidence. Proving you like broccoli would only be of necessity if the context demanded it. I couldn't care less of your tastes. But the claim could still be a lie, or a mistake, or just plain wrong. It's based on you knowing what broccoli is, that you've actually eaten it before and you're not lying.

Yes, it is an opinion. Now, answer this; are all opinions equal?

I know answering it destroys your argument, but having the question there unanswered is just pure poetry against your rambling, so I'll keep asking it.

No? Your world is entirely made up of verifiable claims, and you insist that this goes for everyone else, too?

Yes. The world is made of verifiable claims. It's just that most claims I couldn't give two hoots about whether they are true or not, especially if they are subjective. Opinions are still claims, even if they are claims of personal taste.

Yet in this situation, your opinion can't even claim to be about personal taste - it is a statement that says all art sells something.

So - are all opinions equal? And what do you mean by sell? Funny how you responded to everything else but that question (well, no...not funny. Sad that a man your age and with such pride in being a skeptic, who mercilessly badgers 'woos' when they refuse to answer questions feels he can avoid answering when it suits him).

Athon

[CFLarsen]

That is always your personal out, Claus. Helps you sleep at night I assume. 'They're calling me a woo because they disagree'. Mind you, I might venture that most other people here fully understand that I describe your arguments as 'woo' as they reflect the same tactics as Icke, Browne and Trudeau. Avoidance of the harder questions, changing definitions to suit their statements, claims 'they are just opinions' thereby avoiding the demands for evidence etc.

But I'm not claiming evidence. You say I am, but I'm not.

What is it we always say about woos? "Go with their claims - not what we think they claim".

But not in this case. Here, you insist that I have claimed something, even though I haven't.

Christ, not the 'evidence' disagreement again. You've just got a whole other dictionary on your side of the fence, Claus, where language is malleable.

Hey, I'm going with your criterion: It is evidence that I like broccoli because I have eaten it.

But I have also eaten something I didn't like. Is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?

Do you equate your statement that all art sells something with your taste for broccoli now?

I equate my opinion that all art sells something with my opinion that broccoli tastes good.

Yes, it is an opinion. I never claimed otherwise. You keep inserting words like 'just' and 'mere' as if it will absolve the need for evidence.

Please allow me to decide how I word things.

Proving you like broccoli would only be of necessity if the context demanded it. I couldn't care less of your tastes. But the claim could still be a lie, or a mistake, or just plain wrong. It's based on you knowing what broccoli is, that you've actually eaten it before and you're not lying.

But I know what broccoli is, I have eaten it before, and I'm not lying. It is still my opinion that broccoli tastes good.

How the heck can it be anything else? Are you arguing that there is an objective way to verify which foods taste better than others?

Yes, it is an opinion. Now, answer this; are all opinions equal?

Already answered, in post #195.

I know answering it destroys your argument, but having the question there unanswered is just pure poetry against your rambling, so I'll keep asking it.

Don't run around, crying "Claus didn't answer it! Claus didn't answer it!", when in fact I have.

Yes. The world is made of verifiable claims. It's just that most claims I couldn't give two hoots about whether they are true or not, especially if they are subjective. Opinions are still claims, even if they are claims of personal taste.

You are saying that there is an way to verify which foods taste better than others, then.

Let's see how far you want to go:

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?

If yes, which is better, expressionism or impressionism?

Is there an objective way to verify what is good music?

If yes, which is better, Bach or Beethoven?

Is there an objective way to verify what is good literature?

If yes, which is better, Voltaire or Tolstoy?

Is there an objective way to verify what is good architecture?

If yes, which is better, Utzon or Pei?

Is there an objective way to verify what is good theatre?

If yes, which is better, Shakespeare or Moliere?

Is there an objective way to verify what is a good color?

If yes, which is better, blue or red?

Is there an objective way to verify what is a good shape?

If yes, which is better, a square or a circle?

Is there an objective way to verify what is a good scent?

If yes, which is better, a rose scent or a curry scent?

Yet in this situation, your opinion can't even claim to be about personal taste - it is a statement that says all art sells something.

Not in your opinion, maybe. I disagree.

[athon]

But I'm not claiming evidence. You say I am, but I'm not.

No.. That's the point. You provide no evidence to support your opinion.

What is it we always say about woos? "Go with their claims - not what we think they claim".

But not in this case. Here, you insist that I have claimed something, even though I haven't.You claim all art sells something. It might be an opinion, but you're still claiming it.

Hey, I'm going with your criterion: It is evidence that I like broccoli because I have eaten it.

But I have also eaten something I didn't like. Is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?We've had the discussion on what evidence means before. You failed then. You're failing again. Why derail another thread with it?

But I know what broccoli is, I have eaten it before, and I'm not lying. It is still my opinion that broccoli tastes good.

How the heck can it be anything else? Are you arguing that there is an objective way to verify which foods taste better than others?First of all 'tastes better' is a subjective, contextual statement. 'All art sells something' isn't.

Second of all, the statement could still be correct or incorrect. Sure, you would know one way or another, but your stating the opinion is still a claim. Evidence still supports whether the statement is true or not.

Already answered, in post #195.I assume you mean:

Of course premises and opinions can be incorrect. I haven't said otherwise. They can be incorrect if they are based on falsehoods.What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Don't run around, crying "Claus didn't answer it! Claus didn't answer it!", when in fact I have.What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

You are saying that there is an way to verify which foods taste better than others, then.Irrelevant to the discussion. 'I like broccoli' is not the same as 'Broccoli tastes better than all other foods'. The former has a context, the latter does not. If you said 'I think to me broccoli tastes better than all other foods', I have no choice but to rely on your statement. It could still be a lie, or based on a misunderstanding, but there is currently no easy way (short of PET scanning you with some basic psychological assays) to check to see if that statement is true. However, the statement could still be a lie or based on a misunderstanding.

Let's see how far you want to go:

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?
*snip rest as it's more weasling, irrelevant rambling*

'Better' and 'good' demand context. If you said 'X is good', I'd ask you to clarify what you meant by 'good'. If you say 'Y is better', I'd ask 'better than what, and in what context'. Then you'd be asked to provide evidence that that is the case.

If you say 'I like X', I'd have to take your word for it.

However, this is not an 'I like X', but rather 'all X does Y', which can be supported by evidence.

So...what do you mean by 'sell'?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

No.. That's the point. You provide no evidence to support your opinion.

That is simply not correct.

I pointed out in a quote in the OP that patrons have, since time began, demanded that they be portrayed favorably. That's selling: E.g., their power, influence and wealth. I pointed to David's portrait of Napoleon and graffiti in post #19.

Now, you disagree that tagging is advertising, but that's fine with me. I don't think you'll want to argue that when facing the taggers. They can be pretty touchy about it.

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence?

You claim all art sells something. It might be an opinion, but you're still claiming it.

It is an opinion.

We've had the discussion on what evidence means before. You failed then. You're failing again. Why derail another thread with it?

Don't talk around the issue, please. You say it is evidence that I like broccoli, if I have eaten it.

Since I have also eaten something I didn't like, is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?

[QUOTE=athon;3638487]First of all 'tastes better' is a subjective, contextual statement. 'All art sells something' isn't.

Come again? "Tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not? How do you figure that?

Second of all, the statement could still be correct or incorrect. Sure, you would know one way or another, but your stating the opinion is still a claim. Evidence still supports whether the statement is true or not.

Well, the onus is on you to provide evidence that I like broccoli. It is my opinion that I do.

I assume you mean:

What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Again, don't talk around the issue: I answered the question earlier in this thread. Yes or no?

Irrelevant to the discussion. 'I like broccoli' is not the same as 'Broccoli tastes better than all other foods'. The former has a context, the latter does not.

The context of the latter is: To whom? To me, in this case. Did I say that everyone likes broccoli? No. That would have been a verifiable claim.

If you said 'I think to me broccoli tastes better than all other foods', I have no choice but to rely on your statement. It could still be a lie, or based on a misunderstanding, but there is currently no easy way (short of PET scanning you with some basic psychological assays) to check to see if that statement is true. However, the statement could still be a lie or based on a misunderstanding.

Where did I speak for all people when I said that all art sells something? I can't speak for everyone when it comes to art. I certainly haven't.

*snip rest as it's more weasling, irrelevant rambling*

'Better' and 'good' demand context. If you said 'X is good', I'd ask you to clarify what you meant by 'good'. If you say 'Y is better', I'd ask 'better than what, and in what context'. Then you'd be asked to provide evidence that that is the case.

It isn't up to me, but you. You are the one saying that the world is made of verifiable claims.

Start with this one:

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?

If yes, which is better, expressionism or impressionism?

If you say 'I like X', I'd have to take your word for it.

But you didn't. You claimed that "I like broccoli" is a verifiable claim.

However, this is not an 'I like X', but rather 'all X does Y', which can be supported by evidence.

Really?

If you said "All vegetables taste horribly", can that be supported by evidence?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence?

Maybe he's waiting for you to provide your definition of the word "sell", as in "All art is selling something".

Just a possibility.

[Tricky]

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?
Okay Claus, I asked you for your definitions, but you have directly said that your usage IS your definition. Very good. I shall use the definitions you have provided.


By your definition, "practice" is a synonym for "selling". I believe you are demonstrably wrong in this.
By your definition, "personal satisfaction" is a synonym for "selling". I believe you are demonstrably wrong in this.
By your definition, "increasing value" is a synonym for "selling". I believe you are demonstrably wrong in this.
It is not just an opinion that you are wrong, it is supported by legitimate dictionaries, i.e. evidence.

Now don't complain that I am making strawmen or choosing your arguments for you, because this is precisely what you told me to do. I asked you (politely) for a definition of "selling" and you said (as indicated in the above quoted post) that your answer was your usage. This is what your usage indicates.

If you disagree that these are your own definitions that are indicated by your usage, then feel free to provide your own, as I have asked you to do numerous times.

So either you are demonstrably incorrect in your definitions, or you lied when you said that you provided a definition.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I pointed out in a quote in the OP that patrons have, since time began, demanded that they be portrayed favorably. That's selling: E.g., their power, influence and wealth. I pointed to David's portrait of Napoleon and graffiti in post #19.

Not all art has patrons. Do you really not know that? Or are you moving the goalposts again? Just curious.

[athon]

That is simply not correct.

I pointed out in a quote in the OP that patrons have, since time began, demanded that they be portrayed favorably. That's selling: E.g., their power, influence and wealth. I pointed to David's portrait of Napoleon and graffiti in post #19.

Now, you disagree that tagging is advertising, but that's fine with me. I don't think you'll want to argue that when facing the taggers. They can be pretty touchy about it.

The closest we can get to your definition of 'advertising' is that it 'sells something', though. So, we're still chasing round this old stump. You keep using a term you refuse to define.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

Don't talk around the issue, please. You say it is evidence that I like broccoli, if I have eaten it.

Since I have also eaten something I didn't like, is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?

No. It is evidence that you like it. Obviously the conclusion is wrong, but it is still evidence for the case you like it. If you liked it, you'd eat it.

Now, let's abandon this line of the thread before you derail it further with your silliness. I've started a thread in science on the nature of evidence. Take it up there. I don't think you know what evidence means.

Come again? "Tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not? How do you figure that?

How do you get 'like' from the statement 'all art sells something'? You're not even being subtle in your weasling now - your bluntly bringing a backhoe onto the field, wrapping a chain around the goalposts mid-game and driving away with them.

Well, the onus is on you to provide evidence that I like broccoli. It is my opinion that I do.

Great. I couldn't care less. We're not supporting your taste in broccoli here, but asking what you mean by the word sell.

Stick to the scenario.

Again, don't talk around the issue: I answered the question earlier in this thread. Yes or no?

You answered that opinions can be incorrect. You didn't answer:

What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Care to?

Where did I speak for all people when I said that all art sells something? I can't speak for everyone when it comes to art. I certainly haven't.

WTF? This isn't a statement of personal taste, Claus. It is an objective statement that says 'all art sells something'. All of X does Y. That's a claim that all objects of one nature perform an action.

The really bizarre thing is that by avoiding providing your definition of 'sell', we know this is just more of your ducking and weaving. I take back what I said before - the game is over, the lights are out, the people have gone home, and here you are with your forklift moving goalposts.

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?

If yes, which is better, expressionism or impressionism?

What do you mean by 'good'? What do you mean by 'better'?

If you said "All vegetables taste horribly", can that be supported by evidence?

Yes. We could probably present you with a range of vegetables, hook you up to a PET scanner, watch how your brain reacts to eating each, and induce from that evidence contributing to your claim that to your tastes, all vegetables taste horrible.

What that has to do with the statement that 'all art sells', I have no idea.

So, Claus, stick to the scenario and tell us (for the nth time) 'what do you mean by sell'?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Okay Claus, I asked you for your definitions, but you have directly said that your usage IS your definition. Very good. I shall use the definitions you have provided.

You were wrong, then, when you said I hadn't provided definitions.

Thanks.

Not all art has patrons.

I didn't say it had.

The closest we can get to your definition of 'advertising' is that it 'sells something', though. So, we're still chasing round this old stump. You keep using a term you refuse to define.

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence?

Just yes or no, please.

No. It is evidence that you like it. Obviously the conclusion is wrong, but it is still evidence for the case you like it. If you liked it, you'd eat it.

It is not possible for me to eat something and not like it? I have to like everything I eat, simply because I eat it?

How idiotic an argument can you present??

Now, let's abandon this line of the thread before you derail it further with your silliness. I've started a thread in science on the nature of evidence. Take it up there. I don't think you know what evidence means.

Yes, I saw the thread. You have claimed I haven't shown evidence, and then you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

Do you see the irony here?

How do you get 'like' from the statement 'all art sells something'? You're not even being subtle in your weasling now - your bluntly bringing a backhoe onto the field, wrapping a chain around the goalposts mid-game and driving away with them.

You didn't answer the question: How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Great. I couldn't care less. We're not supporting your taste in broccoli here, but asking what you mean by the word sell.

Stick to the scenario.

You do not decide how I choose to present my argument.

You answered that opinions can be incorrect.

So, you were wrong, then. Thank you.

You didn't answer:

What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Care to?

That is not the case here. I have explained what I mean.

WTF? This isn't a statement of personal taste, Claus.

Yes, it is. Art, what it is, and what it does, is inherently down to opinion. Taste. Emotions. Sentiments.

You may think that a picture is art, you may think it is not. You may think it sells something - a product, an idea, whatever, you may think it doesn't.

It is an objective statement that says 'all art sells something'. All of X does Y. That's a claim that all objects of one nature perform an action.

The really bizarre thing is that by avoiding providing your definition of 'sell', we know this is just more of your ducking and weaving. I take back what I said before - the game is over, the lights are out, the people have gone home, and here you are with your forklift moving goalposts.

You don't think all art sells something. I'm fine with that.

What do you mean by 'good'? What do you mean by 'better'?

Precisely! Thank you for proving my point: It isn't objective - it's a matter of opinion. What you find good art, I may hate.

Hence, you were wrong when you said that the world is made of verifiable claims. You can't decide objectively if an opinion is a matter of personal taste.

Yes. We could probably present you with a range of vegetables, hook you up to a PET scanner, watch how your brain reacts to eating each, and induce from that evidence contributing to your claim that to your tastes, all vegetables taste horrible.

What that has to do with the statement that 'all art sells', I have no idea.

That would only be for one person. If you want to use the argument that "all art sells something" is the argument "all X does Y" that applies to all people, then you have to show that all people think that all vegetables taste horribly.

You can't do that, because people's tastes change. You may have hated tomatoes a year ago, but are now gobbling them up by the pound - or the other way around.

You simply can't use "all X does Y" here. It's not an objective statement.

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?

[athon]

So much babbling, and nothing that makes a single bit of sense. The most amazing thing about this is that the slow stepping away from the point only further shows how dishonest, weasley and lost you are on the matter.

So, I ask again, making it really simple so you can't make more detours and create more obfuscation; what do you mean by 'sell'? I know you won't answer it, but highlighting it shows all who read this thread you've painted yourself into a corner.

Athon

[Tricky]

You were wrong, then, when you said I hadn't provided definitions.

Thanks.
You're welcome. You know, I did ask you earlier about those definitions you now accept, and you didn't reply. However, I will admit now that you didn't lie. You were simply being evasive.

But those definitions you now accept are demonstrably wrong. Your contention that "all art is advertising" is thus shown to be incorrect. It has been shown that your opinion is incorrect. You have now admitted to us that you do not know the meanings of the words you use.

Thank you.

I think that settles this question.

[CFLarsen]

You're welcome. You know, I did ask you earlier about those definitions you now accept, and you didn't reply. However, I will admit now that you didn't lie. You were simply being evasive.

But those definitions you now accept are demonstrably wrong. Your contention that "all art is advertising" is thus shown to be incorrect. It has been shown that your opinion is incorrect. You have now admitted to us that you do not know the meanings of the words you use.

Thank you.

I think that settles this question.

I disagree.

So much babbling, and nothing that makes a single bit of sense. The most amazing thing about this is that the slow stepping away from the point only further shows how dishonest, weasley and lost you are on the matter.

So, I ask again, making it really simple so you can't make more detours and create more obfuscation; what do you mean by 'sell'? I know you won't answer it, but highlighting it shows all who read this thread you've painted yourself into a corner.

Athon

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence? Just yes or no, please.

Do you see the irony in you claiming I haven't shown evidence, after which you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?

[Tricky]

I disagree.
I was fairly certain you would. I predicted as much back in post #47.

[Giggywig]

I was fairly certain you would. I predicted as much back in post #47.
So are you Nozed's sockpuppet, or is he yours?

[quixotecoyote]

I was fairly certain you would. I predicted as much back in post #47.

Off by 2 Tricky, off by 2

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't say it had.

In yet another feeble attempt to avoid giving your definition of "sell" (as in All art is selling something), you attempted to shift the goal posts again by bringing art patrons into the discussion, which has nothing at all to do with it. This attempt did not work.

What is your definition of "sell" as you used in the sentence, "all art is selling something"?

[athon]

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence? Just yes or no, please.

Do you see the irony in you claiming I haven't shown evidence, after which you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?

Three questions you expect me to answer when you can't answer one? Just how bloody arrogant are you? (that question's rhetorical - no need to give an answer to that)

You answer mine first, and then we'll take it from there - in clear, non-obfuscating terms, what do you mean by 'sell'?

Athon

[athon]

I find it bizarre to the extreme that Claus finds it acceptable to pursue, badger, harass and bully people who won't answer his questions in plain speech, yet he feels obliged to avoid answering a simple question himself.

Do you even see what you're doing, Claus? That is why you have zero credibility here. That is why you're the forum joke.

Answer the damn question.

Athon

[Tricky]

Off by 2 Tricky, off by 2
Dammit, am I going to have to admit I was wrong a third time in this thread? Oh well. It's the honest thing to do. Mia culpa. Mia culpa. Mia tria culpa.

[CFLarsen]

In yet another feeble attempt to avoid giving your definition of "sell" (as in All art is selling something), you attempted to shift the goal posts again by bringing art patrons into the discussion, which has nothing at all to do with it. This attempt did not work.

What is your definition of "sell" as you used in the sentence, "all art is selling something"?

It can hardly be shifting goal posts, if you partly agree with me that patrons are one of the reasons why all art sells.

Three questions you expect me to answer when you can't answer one? Just how bloody arrogant are you? (that question's rhetorical - no need to give an answer to that)

You answer mine first, and then we'll take it from there - in clear, non-obfuscating terms, what do you mean by 'sell'?

I find it bizarre to the extreme that Claus finds it acceptable to pursue, badger, harass and bully people who won't answer his questions in plain speech, yet he feels obliged to avoid answering a simple question himself.

Do you even see what you're doing, Claus? That is why you have zero credibility here. That is why you're the forum joke.

Answer the damn question.

Athon

This is silly. Really silly.

If you don't think I have explained what I mean, how can you disagree with it?

If you don't agree with what I say, how can you say that you don't understand what I say?

Stop this silly charade and answer the questions:

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence? Just yes or no, please.

Do you see the irony in you claiming I haven't shown evidence, after which you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?

[athon]

This is silly. Really silly.

You've at last got something right. :)

If you don't think I have explained what I mean, how can you disagree with it?

We disagree that all art sells something, by how we understand the meaning of the term 'sell'. We also disagree that all art advertises something, but the closest you'll come to describing how you view the word 'advertise' is that it must sell something...which leaves us where we're at.

I can't see any definition of the word 'sell' which could make me agree with your view that all art does this.

The really, really absurd thing, typical of your game playing, is that you only need say 'Oh, by 'sell' I mean 'all art encourages a person to give something to the artist in exchange for something'. You will not do this, as obviously this is a ludicrous statement which cannot be supported. It's far safer for you to keep dancing about and avoiding the question.

Remember, if a woo did this, you'd be all over them like flies on dead meat.

So...let's keep trying. Just give a sentence that explains what you mean by the word 'sell'. The more responses you give which avoid doing this, the more pathetic you appear. I'm curious to know how long you can keep going for. I don't see why I should entertain your questions if you're incapable of answering this one.

Athon

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It can hardly be shifting goal posts, if you partly agree with me that patrons are one of the reasons why all art sells.

I don't agree at all. Hear those goal posts moving again?

But maybe we are starting to get a definition. You are saying art sells, one reason being the existance of patrons. So you are now defining "sell" as in selling for money. In which case your original claim that "all art sells something" is wrong.

So either you have attempted (and failed) to move the goalposts again, or your original claim is wrong. Which is it? I'll let you decide.

[athon]

I have a sneaking suspician this thread will go the way of the drumstick/snake eyelid one...he's off badgering others while ignoring the hard question here. Hypocrits don't come in brighter colours than this one.

*bumping anyway*

Athon

[CFLarsen]

We disagree that all art sells something, by how we understand the meaning of the term 'sell'.

No, no, no. You don't merely say that you don't understand what I mean by selling. You also disagree when I use "sell".

I can't see any definition of the word 'sell' which could make me agree with your view that all art does this.

In which case, you cannot possibly disagree with me, since you don't understand what I am saying.

The really, really absurd thing, typical of your game playing, is that you only need say 'Oh, by 'sell' I mean 'all art encourages a person to give something to the artist in exchange for something'. You will not do this, as obviously this is a ludicrous statement which cannot be supported. It's far safer for you to keep dancing about and avoiding the question.

No, it doesn't need to encourage a person to give something to the artist. Art can also sell an idea or a concept.

When you see this work of art (http://homepage.mac.com/voyager/images/leifeng.jpg), is the artist not trying to sell you the idea that communism is swell?

Remember, if a woo did this, you'd be all over them like flies on dead meat.

It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

I don't agree at all. Hear those goal posts moving again?

But maybe we are starting to get a definition. You are saying art sells, one reason being the existance of patrons. So you are now defining "sell" as in selling for money. In which case your original claim that "all art sells something" is wrong.

So either you have attempted (and failed) to move the goalposts again, or your original claim is wrong. Which is it? I'll let you decide.

I said one of the reasons.

[athon]

No, no, no. You don't merely say that you don't understand what I mean by selling. You also disagree when I use "sell".

I don't know what you mean by the word 'sell'. I know what I would mean by the word, and I know what the word means by the dictionary meaning. In both cases, 'sell' is an exchange of goods or services. Not all art does this...so you must have another meaning we're not aware of.

What is your meaning, Claus?

In which case, you cannot possibly disagree with me, since you don't understand what I am saying.

Hence why we're asking to clarify. You can't seriously be suggesting we agree because we can't understand you enough to disagree.

I've made this very simple - based on what we understand your words to mean, you are wrong. Not all art sells something.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

No, it doesn't need to encourage a person to give something to the artist. Art can also sell an idea or a concept.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

When you see this work of art (http://homepage.mac.com/voyager/images/leifeng.jpg), is the artist not trying to sell you the idea that communism is swell?

It depends. What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

You've already agreed opinions can be wrong.

You wouldn't let a woo get away with not answering a question. What do you mean by the word 'sell'? Or, if you prefer, answer this; why can't you answer that question with a simple definition?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Hence why we're asking to clarify. You can't seriously be suggesting we agree because we can't understand you enough to disagree.

I am pointing out that you cannot disagree if you don't understand what I say. "Not disagreeing" does not mean "agreeing". It can also simply mean "I don't know enough to either agree or disagree".

If you disagree with me, then you understand what I mean - you just disagree with it. But, since you don't understand what I mean, you cannot disagree with me.

As for "selling", I have made it as clear as I possibly can.

It depends. What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

I am asking what you think - with your meaning of "sell". Tell me what you think.

You've already agreed opinions can be wrong.

Sure, if the opinions are based on something demonstrably wrong. But the purpose of art is inherently a matter of opinion.

[athon]

I am pointing out that you cannot disagree if you don't understand what I say. "Not disagreeing" does not mean "agreeing". It can also simply mean "I don't know enough to either agree or disagree".

Don't be daft. I've made it clear, and you're intentionally skipping around it. I'll repeat it for you;

You made a statement. We disagree with your statement as we understand the words to mean. We're asking you now to clarify what you think you mean by your words, since you clearly mean something different to what we are saying.

If you disagree with me, then you understand what I mean - you just disagree with it. But, since you don't understand what I mean, you cannot disagree with me.Fine. Then we understand you to mean all art encourages an exchange of goods or services between two parties. Which is wrong. Your opinion is therefore wrong.

I anticipate you to argue against this, and therefore ask you to include in your argument a definition for what you mean by 'sell'.

Why can't you answer the question, Claus?

As for "selling", I have made it as clear as I possibly can.Damn, I should have put money on this predictable answer. It's your typical tactic - dance about for a dozen posts, ignoring a question, and the retaliate with 'but I've made it clear'. Next you'll lie and point out several posts without quoting precisely where you were clear.

So, we'll make it simple. No you haven't been clear. You haven't given a definition for 'sell'. What do you mean by the word?

I am asking what you think - with your meaning of "sell". Tell me what you think.I've done that already, Claus. Unlike you, I debate openly, clearly and honestly. Transparent as glass.

In both cases, 'sell' is an exchange of goods or services. Not all art does this...so you must have another meaning we're not aware of.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

Sure, if the opinions are based on something demonstrably wrong. But the purpose of art is inherently a matter of opinion.

Can I say 'all art drives cars' and still be correct? Can I say 'all art can be milked for beer' and still be correct?

No Claus. Once again your use of language has descended into the ridiculous. It's no different to your 'all legs are drumsticks', or 'people can be intending to be married and not engaged'. Once again, language is not malleable to your beliefs. That is no different to somebody saying there is such a thing as 'life energy', relying on a personal definition for 'energy'.

Now, why can't you give a clear definition for 'sell'?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Fine. Then we understand you to mean all art encourages an exchange of goods or services between two parties. Which is wrong. Your opinion is therefore wrong.

Public opinion now determines right or wrong? O...K.

Damn, I should have put money on this predictable answer. It's your typical tactic - dance about for a dozen posts, ignoring a question, and the retaliate with 'but I've made it clear'. Next you'll lie and point out several posts without quoting precisely where you were clear.

Ah, yes. If I don't point to where I explained it, I am evading. If I do, I'm lying.

I just can't win, can I?

I've done that already, Claus. Unlike you, I debate openly, clearly and honestly. Transparent as glass.

Let's see about that.

If you don't agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell, then you say that propaganda isn't selling ideas.

But that's an untenable position - isn't it? Because you know damn well what propaganda is, and how it works. It sells ideas, just as effectively as ads sell detergent - often even more effectively, since propaganda usually isn't bound by laws restricting what it can and can't do.

So, you will have to agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell.

And that means you will have to agree that at least some art can sell ideas.

Can all art sell ideas? Does art have to have an idea behind it? If it doesn't, isn't that an idea in itself?

You bet ideas both can and are sold. Art does it all the time.

Still don't agree?

More dishonesty, and the goal posts are now in another country.

How is that dishonest?? How is that moving goal posts??

Nobody is contending whether a specific art piece might be described as 'art'. We are contending whether once something is agreed to be art that it sells something.

See above.

[CFLarsen]

I see you retracted your accusation that I was dishonest and moving the goal posts. Thank you.

[athon]

Public opinion now determines right or wrong? O...K.

When it comes to the meaning of words, yes. Language relies on popular opinion.

Should the definitions of words rely upon individual opinion, Claus? How would we communicate then?

What do you mean by 'sell'? Why can't you answer that question?

Ah, yes. If I don't point to where I explained it, I am evading. If I do, I'm lying.

I just can't win, can I?

Probably not at this point. That happens when you paint yourself into a corner by lying and evading. People start to call you out on it.

Let's see about that.

If you don't agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell, then you say that propaganda isn't selling ideas.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

But that's an untenable position - isn't it? Because you know damn well what propaganda is, and how it works. It sells ideas, just as effectively as ads sell detergent - often even more effectively, since propaganda usually isn't bound by laws restricting what it can and can't do.

What do you mean by 'sell'? You can't escape that question by simply using the word more.

So, you will have to agree that the artist is selling the idea that Communism is swell.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

And that means you will have to agree that at least some art can sell ideas.

Can all art sell ideas? Does art have to have an idea behind it? If it doesn't, isn't that an idea in itself?

It depends on what you mean by 'sell'. If sell means 'an exchange of goods or services', then you are wrong. Not all art encourages an exchange of goods or services. I draw art all the time. It's part of my job. It does not sell anything at all - it requires nothing being given of the audience.

But you must have a definition of the word 'sell' which does not mean 'an exchange of goods or services'. What is it?

You bet ideas both can and are sold. Art does it all the time.

What do you mean by the word 'sold'? Why can't you answer the question? Why do you continue to use a word when we've asked you to provide your meaning for it?

How is that dishonest?? How is that moving goal posts??

You're making out this is an argument on what can be called art. Before we can have that discussion, we need to clarify your use of the term 'sell'. By avoiding that clarification with a simple definition, you are being dishonest in trying to disguise the argument.

Now, to understand what you think you mean by 'all art sells something' as a definition for 'art', what do you mean by 'sell'?

Can all art drive a car?

Can all art be milked for beer?

Why can't you answer those questions?

Athon

[athon]

I see you retracted your accusation that I was dishonest and moving the goal posts. Thank you.

No, you are dishonest. Goal posts have been moved. I simply felt I had a better way of articulating what I had to say. So, you can pull your head our of your arse, if you like.

Thank you.

Funny how you're quick to jump on those points, but struggle to answer the questions. The hilarious thing is every post you make which avoids it only further highlights how much of a hypocrite you are. So, please, continue.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

I see it makes absolutely no difference what I do.

When I explain, I'm lying, dishonest and moving the goal posts.

When I point to previous explanations, I am evading.

If you are not prepared to listen to your opponent, you are not interested in changing your mind.

You just want me to be wrong.

Oh, well.

[athon]

I see it makes absolutely no difference what I do.

A start might be by providing a definition for the word 'sell' rather than whinging about how unfair the world is.

When I explain, I'm lying, dishonest and moving the goal posts.

Let's get to 'explain' first, then we'll decide whether it's a lie, dishonesty or a moving of the goal posts. Explain what you mean by 'sell'.

Why can't you do that?

When I point to previous explanations, I am evading.

We wouldn't know. You have not explained the word 'sell'. You're accused of evading when you don't provide a simple definition.

Quite whinging, Claus. It's even more pathetic than all of your evasion, lies and dishonesty put together. Even most woos at least have the balls to provide some sort of response that's better than 'poor me'.

If you are not prepared to listen to your opponent, you are not interested in changing your mind.

I'm all ears - what do you mean by the word 'sell'? Right now you're sticking your fingers in your ears and crying that nobody is listening to you. Take your fingers out, give an answer to 'what do you mean by sell' and we'll have made at least some progress.

You just want me to be wrong.

Again, it must help you sleep at night. Try 'we just want you to understand how communication works'. Words aren't as malleable as you'd like, Claus. Legs aren't all drumsticks, engagement has an understood meaning, and not all art sells something.

I might be wrong. But to be wrong, the word 'sell' would have to mean something different to 'an exchange of goods or services'.

If the definition of art is malleable and down to personal opinion, can I say 'all art drives a car'?

Oh, well.

Well, you've walked away from threads which you've messed up before. We'll add it to your own growing 'Larsen List'. It'll still be around for a laugh later.

Athon

[volatile]

I think you're being accused of evading because when asked to answer the question "What do you mean by 'sell'?", you evade it.

Just sayin'

[CFLarsen]

I think you're being accused of evading because when asked to answer the question "What do you mean by 'sell'?", you evade it.

Just sayin'

Come, now. That's not correct.

When I explain what I mean, Athon disagrees with me. Then, he says I haven't explained what I mean.

Repeat, while noisily claiming that I am a liar, dishonest and moving the goal posts, hoping that it won't be noticed what he does.

[athon]

When I explain what I mean, Athon disagrees with me. Then, he says I haven't explained what I mean.

More lies. CS, Tricky and I have asked what you meant by 'sell', and you consistently avoid the question. You now insinuate you've explained what you mean. Nonsense. The thread is there for all to read and see you have no explained what you mean at all.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

Can all art be milked for beer?

Why haven't you answered these questions?

Athon

[volatile]

Come, now. That's not correct.

When I explain what I mean, Athon disagrees with me. Then, he says I haven't explained what I mean.

Repeat, while noisily claiming that I am a liar, dishonest and moving the goal posts, hoping that it won't be noticed what he does.

I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't recall such an explanation. I probably missed it. Care to point me to the post, or re-state your argument for the sake of clarification?

[athon]

I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't recall such an explanation. I probably missed it. Care to point me to the post, or re-state your argument for the sake of clarification?

Prediction 1) Claus will point out a post which does not contain such an explanation, and then claim it's there, clear as day, before playing the 'I've already explained' game for another two pages.

Prediction 2) Claus will simply state he's been as clear as he can be, and if we can't understand it he can't help us.

Claus has a big problem with understanding how language works. He plays the same game woos play with words, twisting them to mean what they want them to mean and then claim it's only an opinion. I'd have no problem if he admitted he was mistaken about the meaning of a word. His arrogance, and the fact he then stalks and badgers others for committing these same behaviours is where the true obscenity lies.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Prediction 1) Claus will point out a post which does not contain such an explanation, and then claim it's there, clear as day, before playing the 'I've already explained' game for another two pages.

Prediction 2) Claus will simply state he's been as clear as he can be, and if we can't understand it he can't help us.

Claus has a big problem with understanding how language works. He plays the same game woos play with words, twisting them to mean what they want them to mean and then claim it's only an opinion. I'd have no problem if he admitted he was mistaken about the meaning of a word. His arrogance, and the fact he then stalks and badgers others for committing these same behaviours is where the true obscenity lies.

Athon

Enough of this crap.

In post #8, I pointed out the function of patrons, as a means to sell their

In post #14, I explained that graffiti is some form of advertising, selling the information of who made it.

In post #19, I explained how lots of art intend to make you do something, and gave two examples, David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration), and religious art.

In post #76, I provided a link that showed how Turner advertised the idea of fin de siecle, as well as Mona Lisa, expressing not just the visual appearance of a person, but also (if successfully painted) give at least some clue as to how the person is like. The patron thingie again.

In post #76, I also pointed to the similarities of at least contemporary art and advertising. Exemplified in the Marlborough Man and Cover Girl.

In post #91, I pointed to propaganda as another way art sells: Ideas.

In post #93, I elaborated on the Turner example.

In post #95, I gave the example of how an ad turned into art, with the clear intention of selling a war.

In post #130 and #135, I pointed to Gericault and his study of The Raft as an example of how even practicing art is advertising - selling.

In post #140, I explained that it takes not only talent, but also skill to make your art worthwhile.

In post #159, I again pointed out why Gericault's study is worth something, even though it isn't even a finished piece. I also included Picasso and Leonardo.

In post #173, I use the quip about how to get to Carnegie Hall - practice, practice, practice. Each time you practice your art, it becomes more valuable.

In post #175, I pointed to van Gogh and his whole new way of painting. Today, his art sells for millions.

In post #175, I also point to Mutter, Stern and Zukerman as examples of how practice improves the value of of your art.


You may disagree with what I am saying.

But don't claim that I have evaded the question of how I define "sell". I have not only been elaborate, but also very consistent. So no moving of goal posts. No evading.

[volatile]

Posting examples of some art that sells things (maybe even "most"?) is not the same as explaining how all art sells things. I think Tricky pointed that out to you. No-one here disagrees that some art sells something (and indeed, I argued earlier on that whilst not all art is advertsing, the inverse propostion, that all advertsing is art, is true).

The only way you can make the case that all art sells something is with a very particular and peculiar definition of the word 'sell', which you still haven't provided, as far as I can see.

[CFLarsen]

Posting examples of some art that sells things (maybe even "most"?) is not the same as explaining how all art sells things. I think Tricky pointed that out to you. No-one here disagrees that some art sells something (and indeed, I argued earlier on that whilst not all art is advertsing, the inverse propostion, that all advertsing is art, is true).

The only way you can make the case that all art sells something is with a very particular and peculiar definition of the word 'sell', which you still haven't provided, as far as I can see.

Then, provide a work of art, and I'll tell you what it sells.

I'll even accept if you say it is art, even if I don't agree that it is. You'll have to explain why you think it is art, of course.

[volatile]

Then, provide a work of art, and I'll tell you what it sells.

I'll even accept if you say it is art, even if I don't agree that it is. You'll have to explain why you think it is art, of course.

OK... how about Manet's gifted portrait of Emile Zola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Edouard_Manet_049.jpg)? Uncontraversially, it's art. What is it "selling"? It was painted for Zola in gratitude for his support of Manet in the press, and given to him for free. There's no political motive, no commercial exchange, no attempt by the artist to increase his status, wealth or accomplishment. It has lots of interesting sections, sure (note the copy of Olympia in the background; note the unconentional framing; etc.), and lots of connotations, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to shoe-horn these into a usual definition of the word "sell". It presents Zola in a specific way, but not one of his own request, and not one intended by the artist to have any wider affect of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature.

In your reply, it'd be great if you could define your usage of the word "sell", for this very reason.