Hi Chaz, how’s it hanging?
chaz wyman wrote:
“A contrary view is disagreement.”
Not so Chaz, contrary views can sometimes be complimentary and need not be a disagreement at all.
“Your bucket of nonsense above leaves the word 'disagree' with no meaning. I am telling you that I disagree with your argument here too.”
Saying so does not make it so chaz. You’re breaking wind. It is not unusual for persons who hold the same premise to disagree. Indeed it is instances such as this that ideas are tested providing the opportunity to become informed. Persons such as you and I who hold different premises can never test ideas together. We will never agree and you know that else you would make an honest inquiry rather than resorting to sarcasm.
I disagree with your view. No I disagree that you are a valuable person.
But if you like we will play this silly game. I hold a contrary view. What next?
An excellent example of my point. If you truly hold it is a silly game why are you playing it? You reek of insincerity. My guess is that you are a little put out at my initial response to you as it provided no room for you to maneuver.
Nope I think you are an idiot.
“I do not recognise your criteria, not Carroll's thesis.”
D [T]o impose a set of criteria is cultural fascism.
Get a little excited did ya, chaz?
“There are no absolute and agreeable criteria.”
If what you say is true then there is no concept of art by definition.
I said exactly what I said, not what you want me to have said. If you can't deal with what I said then stop.
If there were then art would never have changed.
Perhaps you could demonstrate this argument. It does not logically follow.
I am telling you that if there were an absolute set of applicable criteria based on necessary and sufficient conditions that defined that which was and that which was no art then art would never have changed. It would be the same with each generation. THe Fountain would never have been considered art 100, 200 1000 years ago.
THe imposition of such cultural imperialism shoots itself in the foot.
The Fountain would never have been considered art 100 years ago, and there is no reason for everyone to accept that it is art now.
But it is accepted now and has been for nigh on fifty years.
You are stupid aren't you? It is not universally accepted in any event.
There can be no and are no necessary conditions for art , were that so, then there would not be disagreement.”
An oxymoron and another non sequitur.
If these conditions existed, as you claim, then how do you account for the fact that there is disagreement as to what constitutes art?
“Boohoo! Then you are wrong. I only need find one other person to agree with me and then we have a difference of opinion. Or is that a contrary view?”
If you get one other person to agree with you the most we can call you is a couple.
“Modern art lowers the standard of art.”
I thought you were arguing that there was no standard. My mistake. Which modern art are you talking about? I imagine you are not talking about Fountain for you don’t consider it art.
In attributing shit as art the tone of art is lowered. There is no contradiction here.
Now tell me what EXACTLY do you consider are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be called art?
Oh yes, your inclusions. They all seem to be photographs and as Photography is an art form they are presented as examples of art, however they all support a message which tends to usurp the subject matter which makes them lesser pieces of the form.
How does that relate to your 'conditions'?
Does that mean if I take a shit it is not art, but If I take a picture of it then it is art?
You are a funny man.
Messages are best sent by email.