Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Jonathan]

Er, we're discussing "objective" standards of art are we not? What it is, and what it might just not be.

"We"? No. I was objectively commenting on Kamhi's opinions on folding as a drawing method. I objectively identified the essential characteristics of "drawing."

You, on the other hand, did not objectively discuss the issue of "drawing," but emoted about your caricatures of elitists and hippy dudes. You apparently thought that your feelings about stereotypes was somehow relevant to the issue at hand, and so much so that you didn't actually have to address the issue that was actually being discussed.

Negation, mockery and innuendo isn't an argument.

Then stop using negation, mockery and innuendo! Address the issue rather than caricaturing people whom you know nothing about.

It should be clear by now I don't "whimsically agree" with anyone, I go by what I see and think.

Why would that be clear to anyone, when you actually do the opposite? Wait, I know the answer to my own question: It should be clear to people because you whimsically believe it to be true!

The whims are instead with those who declare any scrawl on paper to be art.

Try to stop emoting, Tony, and pay attention. The issue is not whether or not "any scrawl on paper" is art. The issue is whether or not lines on a piece of paper are a "drawing" if an uncommon method of creating the lines was used.

A secondary issue is why such a method of creating lines is so upsetting to "rational" and "objective" people.

J

[anthony]

"Dervaux ...did not hesitate to reply" - "Anything on paper!"

"They do make lines" says DeWitt. Right.

Paper can be folded into art (origami) -- but unfolded? A possibly pleasing, geometric pattern is art?

[anthony]

Bet also on their grant money and intellectual prestige being dependent on not rocking the art world's boat.

Grabbing the brass ring of government funding is a natural attractant to the dependent leftists who are willing to prostitute themselves to the "art world" in order to get it. It becomes a race to the bottom of the cesspool of depravity, as each "artist" tries to outdo the others by producing the most shocking outrageous ugly crap so as to get the most attention. It's by the blessing of shared values that they can only appeal to their own kind who deserve to be their prey.

Greg

Before the stage of "depravity" (and I think you are right) is arrived at, must be the stage of subjectivity, of anything goes for everybody, and then a stage of nihilism, of nothing means very much to anybody..

[Jonathan]

"They do make lines" says DeWitt. Right.

Right, indeed! In objective reality, folding and unfolding paper makes lines!

Paper can be folded into art (origami) -- but unfolded?

You're still not paying attention. Try harder to focus and to control your emotions. The issue is whether or not folded lines on paper are a "drawing."

A possibly pleasing, geometric pattern is art?

Why would it have to be "possibly pleasing"? Do you have "pleasing" as one of your whimsical, subjective requirements of art?

How about if the "possibly pleasing" geometric pattern is in the forms of architecture? Then it's art, right?

J

[Jonathan]

Bet also on their grant money and intellectual prestige being dependent on not rocking the art world's boat.

Grabbing the brass ring of government funding is a natural attractant to the dependent leftists who are willing to prostitute themselves to the "art world" in order to get it. It becomes a race to the bottom of the cesspool of depravity, as each "artist" tries to outdo the others by producing the most shocking outrageous ugly crap so as to get the most attention. It's by the blessing of shared values that they can only appeal to their own kind who deserve to be their prey.

Greg

Before the stage of "depravity" (and I think you are right) is arrived at, must be the stage of subjectivity, of anything goes for everybody, and then a stage of nihilism, of nothing means very much to anybody..

Wow, what a dark and horrific world you guys live in! Nihilism and depravity everywhere! There are things like war and starvation going on elsewhere in the world, and your notion of depravity and evil is that you are offended by shocking art!

Anyway, I just tried my hand at the folded-unfolded drawing method.

Is the world going to end if someone calls this a drawing? Now that I've indulged in such anything-goes nihilistic depravity, what's next for me? Cannibalism? Leftist feminism?

J

[anthony]

drawing: "art of representing by line, delineation without colour or with single colour". Concise Oxford.

So I concede the point, while it's a case of limiting a definition to the most non-commensical and simplistic, of no use but to the nit-pickers.

But then stretching it to architecture. A drawing plan of a building isn't art, any more than an outline of a novel is art. it's called a blueprint.

[Jonathan]

drawing: "art of representing by line, delineation without colour or with single colour". Concise Oxford.

So I concede the point, while it's a case of limiting a definition to the most non-commensical and simplistic, of no use but to the nit-pickers.

Ah, so you were wrong, but you're going to maintain your petulant little attitude? You were only objectively and merely technically wrong, but you shouldn't be considered wrong except by icky subjectivist nit-pickers?

But then stretching it to architecture. A drawing plan of a building isn't art, any more than an outline of a novel is art. it's called a blueprint.

Oops, you're not paying attention again, but subjectively, whimsically imagining things! No one said anything about a "drawing plan" of a building. I was talking about architecture -- buildings themselves -- containing geometric patterns.

Man, Tony, you must get a hell of a lot of exercise fighting all of the straw men that you chase down the wrong paths that no one pointed you to!

J

[anthony]

Bet also on their grant money and intellectual prestige being dependent on not rocking the art world's boat.

Grabbing the brass ring of government funding is a natural attractant to the dependent leftists who are willing to prostitute themselves to the "art world" in order to get it. It becomes a race to the bottom of the cesspool of depravity, as each "artist" tries to outdo the others by producing the most shocking outrageous ugly crap so as to get the most attention. It's by the blessing of shared values that they can only appeal to their own kind who deserve to be their prey.

Greg

Before the stage of "depravity" (and I think you are right) is arrived at, must be the stage of subjectivity, of anything goes for everybody, and then a stage of nihilism, of nothing means very much to anybody..

Wow, what a dark and horrific world you guys live in! Nihilism and depravity everywhere! There are things like war and starvation going on elsewhere in the world, and your notion of depravity and evil is that you are offended by shocking art!

Anyway, I just tried my hand at the folded-unfolded drawing method.

Is the world going to end if someone calls this a drawing? Now that I've indulged in such anything-goes nihilistic depravity, what's next for me? Cannibalism? Leftist feminism?

J

Blur definitions, you blur reality. If you consider "war and starvation" as accidental, they are not, they follow dishonest, 'politically correct' rhetoric, empty thinking and bad morality. All of the subjective hair-splitting and shape-shifting in art shows people how to go about doing it. As an artist and perhaps a conceptual thinker is this strange to you? You underestimate art's influence.

[anthony]

Oops, you're not paying attention again, but subjectively, whimsically imagining things! No one said anything about a "drawing plan" of a building. I was talking about architecture -- buildings themselves -- containing geometric patterns.

J

So what's the point of bringing up architecture?

The coincidence of both containing regular, rectangular blocks is meaningless in this context.

Do you infer that a building is suggested to one? So what? It suggests also a checker board, paving stones and my lounge rug.

[Jonathan]

Blur definitions, you blur reality.

No. You're just panicking. Reality doesn't blur. It stays the same even if someone blurs a definition.

But, anyway, why are you talking about blurring definitions? No one has blurred anything. Do you not remember that you've already conceded the point that folding and unfolding paper can create lines which result in a drawing? So no definitions have been blurred. The definition of "drawing" has simply been applied in a way that certain frantic Objectivish-types don't like, and they confuse their not liking things with being "objective."

J

[Jonathan]

So what's the point of bringing up architecture?

Think it through for yourself.

You're very upset about the idea of geometric shapes, patterns and relationships being considered art. But you're not upset about architecture being considered art. Now, think! What is architecture? Is it made up of shapes, patterns and relationships? Stay focused! Don't get distracted by your emotions. Just think!

J

[moralist]

Before the stage of "depravity" (and I think you are right) is arrived at, must be the stage of subjectivity, of anything goes for everybody

Since I believe that everyone is totally subjective who either agrees or disagrees with objective reality, I'd say the feminized left first arrives at the stage of moral relativism for that is a pillar of their secular political religion.

and then a stage of nihilism, of nothing means very much to anybody..

Yes.

Nihilism is the inevitable destination of moral relativism. And its universal expression is ugliness which is pimped by nihilist leftists as beauty...

...but it can only be perceived as such by their own kind... as no decent person would ever buy into it... literally or figuratively.

Greg

[moralist]

Wow, what a dark and horrific world you guys live in! Nihilism and depravity everywhere!

Sorry, Jonathan... I don't live in your world, because I don't share your leftist values.

There are things like war and starvation going on elsewhere in the world, and your notion of depravity and evil is that you are offended by shocking art!

Leftists live on being emotionally offended. That's why they are so hypersensitive to words they needed to create political correctness. But since I'm not a leftist I'm not personally offended by their ugliness because it remains in their own world along with their own kind.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Wow, what a dark and horrific world you guys live in! Nihilism and depravity everywhere!

Sorry, Jonathan... I don't live in your world, because I don't share your leftist values.

Yeah. I have "leftist values." I'm not shocked, offended and outraged by everything and everyone, and all of the alleged "nihilism" and "depravity" everywhere, so that makes me a "leftist."

There are things like war and starvation going on elsewhere in the world, and your notion of depravity and evil is that you are offended by shocking art!

Leftists live on being emotionally offended. That's why they are so hypersensitive to words they needed to create political correctness. But since I'm not a leftist I'm not personally offended by their ugliness because it remains in their own world along with their own kind.

So, all of the crying, squealing, pissing and moaning that you've been doing about art being "shocking outrageous ugly crap" and "cesspools of depravity" were not examples of you living to be emotionally offended? You're not being "hypersensitive" when, in post after post, you throw fits about mere works of art?

J

[moralist]

Yeah. I have "leftist values."

That's right, you do. They're the values of a libertine.

I'm not shocked, offended and outraged by everything and everyone, and all of the alleged "nihilism" and "depravity" everywhere, so that makes me a "leftist."

Yes, it does, Jonathan... but not for the reasons you gave.

Ugly depraved perverted nihilistic crap is "art" to you so that naturally doesn't offend you because those are your values. But what does offend you is when others don't see what you see in what you call "art". Many of your responses in this thread have been devoted to just that. Much of the rest of your input has been peddling what you call "art" to your own kind who share your leftist values... and I have no problem with that because that's how business works. People always deal with their own kind, and you deserve to deal with your own kind, just as I do with mine.

So, all of the crying, squealing, pissing and moaning that you've been doing about art being "shocking outrageous ugly crap" and "cesspools of depravity" were not examples of you living to be emotionally offended?

Not at all.

Because that's not my world. Its your world created by the leftist values that guide your own life. It's fitting that you deserve to live in it, because I don't.

The world within my own personal sphere of influence is the result of the values that guide my life. And I fully deserve to live in it because I set the moral tone. Each of the worlds we each live in are completely different because each is the result of the values by which we each live.

You're not being "hypersensitive" when, in post after post, you throw fits about mere works of art?

It's natural for you to perceive my opinions as such because you're looking through the lens of your own emotionalism. That's just how leftists are.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Did you miss Jonathan's sarcasm, Greg?

It's one thing to call something art, quite another to like or dislike it. Once you like or dislike it as a whole you can particularize and say it's bad art but great technique in the use of this or that or great art but in spite of lousy use of, say, perspective.

Some of the art you've put up reveals to me not your moral goodness or depravity but shallowness of consideration. It's like W.C. Field's comment about Mae West: "A plumber's idea of Venus de Milo."

A mechanic can work on an ugly car and make it run fine. We don't then say it reveals a rotten moral outlook or that he's a "leftist" in the service of "leftist values." A professional artist or esthetician can similarly evaluate a work of art without revealing their moral attitudes. They can be revealed but as soon as that happens they are no longer in their professional capacity.

Your continuing to dwell on such professional expressions as moral expressions are only ad hominem responses to arguments you do not wish to deal with or cannot. Overt ad hominem in your case is implicit argumentum ad hominem. When someone then replies, naturally enough, with the same--well, you started it. It's a game Francisco does not play with you. He ignores it. He does not ignore your positions, most of which he rips open--as does Jonathan--and you in turn ignore with protestations or exclamations about the world you live in and they don't. That you have right. Your error is in the assumption of your moral world bouncing off theirs, but yours is only bouncing, for theirs is not part of the conversation no matter how much you say otherwise. That said, you do make many valid points about moral comportment, living and values.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Ugly depraved perverted nihilistic crap is "art" to you so that naturally doesn't offend you because those are your values.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Your position is that naturally I'm not offended by "ugly depraved perverted nihilistic crap" because I value it. If I didn't value it, I would be offended by it. But when I ask if you're offended by it (see below) you say "Not at all." So, wouldn't that mean that you value it? I mean logically speaking. If you can be not offended by it despite not valuing it, then I could also not be offended by it despite not valuing it.

See what I'm saying? You've painted yourself into a corner again. Understand?

But what does offend you is when others don't see what you see in what you call "art". Many of your responses in this thread have been devoted to just that.

That's false. I've never been offended by people not being able to see what I see in art. What I've actually done is to simply reject their being offended at my reporting to see something in works of art that they don't. If someone doesn't experience in a work of art what I do, I'm fine with that. They are the ones who are not fine with it. They are offended.

Much of the rest of your input has been peddling what you call "art" to your own kind who share your leftist values...

I haven't been "peddling" anything. Rather, I've been challenging the logic and validity of the assertions that people make about art, and I've been rejecting their contradictions, double standards, and statements made without proof to back them up.

...and I have no problem with that because that's how business works.

If you had no problem with it, you wouldn't be incessantly whining about it like a poor victim leftist hippy. Instead, you're very emotionally worked up and offended by it! You keep on writing post after post about it.

People always deal with their own kind, and you deserve to deal with your own kind, just as I do with mine.

Yeah, we've heard it thousands of times before. Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker!

So, all of the crying, squealing, pissing and moaning that you've been doing about art being "shocking outrageous ugly crap" and "cesspools of depravity" were not examples of you living to be emotionally offended?

Not at all.

Because that's not my world.

See the problem with your "logic," Apey? Your position is that my not being offended by "ugly depraved perverted nihilistic crap" is proof that I value it, but your not being offended by it is proof that you don't value it.

J

[moralist]

A mechanic can work on an ugly car and make it run fine. We don't then say it reveals a rotten moral outlook or that he's a "leftest" in the service of "leftest values."

Leftists aren't auto mechanics, Brant!

Art is a feminine pursuit, and that's why holds so much appeal to leftists like Jonathan... because leftism is a feminized ideology.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Why is it a feminine pursuit? I thought that was babies, child support and all the community property possible.

--Brant

them Amazon warriors have men for lunch

[moralist]

Why is it a feminine pursuit?

The same way that mechanics is a masculine pursuit.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Why is it a feminine pursuit?

The same way that mechanics is a masculine pursuit.

Greg

Nice lateral pass. Let me toss it back. The goal line is just in front of you. When you cross it you can, if you can, answer the question.

--Brant

I don't think you'll make it--I think you're running on ignorance

[moralist]

if you can, answer the question.

The answer:

That is the way people are.

It's simple common sense that only a liberal government college education could dumb you out of!

In your subjective opinion, art is not a feminine pursuit and mechanics is not a masculine pursuit.

In my subjective opinion, they are.

This clearly defines our two different viewpoints.

One of our subjective opinions agrees with objective reality...

...and one of our subjective opinions does not agree with objective reality.

Greg

[moralist]

Okay, so let me get this straight....

You can't get it straight, Jonathan... because you have crooked values.

Greg

[Jonathan]

if you can, answer the question.

The answer:

That is the way people are.

It's simple common sense that only a liberal government college education could dumb you out of!

In your subjective opinion, art is not a feminine pursuit and mechanics is not a masculine pursuit.

In my subjective opinion, they are.

This clearly defines our two different viewpoints.

One of our subjective opinions agrees with objective reality...

...and one of our subjective opinions does not agree with objective reality.

Greg

Brant, I think what Apey is trying to say is:

"Apey, real man. Alpha male! All others, girly men. What Apey like, and what Apey good at, 'masculine.' What Apey not like, and not good at, 'feminine.' So, 'lectric and mechanical, 'masculine.' Art, logic, thinking, learning, 'feminine.'"

J

[moralist]

Minus Jonathan's emotional hyperbole, I'm simply saying that feminine pursuits generally appeal to feminized leftists... art, fashion design, interior decorating and the like.

I play piano. That is a feminine pursuit. I'm also into guns and motorcycles. Those are masculine pursuits.

Greg