Artsy-Fartsy

Originally posted by stellspalfie
it is undoubtedly art. in my personal opinion it is not very good art, but the technique takes a lot of skill and deserves respect.

No one has said it doesn't deserve respect nor that its not skillful or beautiful. The argument that its art because I say its art is rather weak to be honest for you could tell us that you are a retired world war two submarine commander and we would be expected to believe you on the same basis. Its a logical fallacy, an argument by assertion. I say its true therefore it must be true???? Suzzianne employs this type of argument almost habitually.

Originally posted by cashthetrash
Can you play a wind instrument?

I can play the sax, clarinet, and flute. I never played the tuba quite like I am today.
Yes, this is Art

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
I can play the sax, clarinet, and flute. I never played the tuba quite like I am today.
Yes, this is Art

Great you can be the drummer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one has said it doesn't deserve respect nor that its not skillful or beautiful. The argument that its art because I say its art is rather weak to be honest for you could tell us that you are a retired world war two submarine commander and we would be expected to believe you on the same basis. Its a logical fallacy, an argument by assertion. I s ...[text shortened]... ts true therefore it must be true???? Suzzianne employs this type of argument almost habitually.

The argument that its art because I say its art is rather weak

And yet we are supposed to believe it is not art because you say it is not art. Make up your mind. Is the argument weak or isn't it?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]The argument that its art because I say its art is rather weak

And yet we are supposed to believe it is not art because you say it is not art. Make up your mind. Is the argument weak or isn't it?[/b]

I am not entirely sure what you are slobbering about but I actually provided a reason why i did not consider it to be art. How you could have missed it is hard to say. Perhaps if you stopped trying to be a smart A$$ it may help your case, who can say?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not entirely sure what you are slobbering about but I actually provided a reason why i did not consider it to be art. How you could have missed it is hard to say. Perhaps if you stopped trying to be a smart A$$ it may help your case, who can say?

And I provided a reason why I did consider it art. So what's the difference?


see Rule of thumb #1, at The Fine Art of Effective Argumentation thread

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not entirely sure what you are slobbering about but I actually provided a reason why i did not consider it to be art. How you could have missed it is hard to say. Perhaps if you stopped trying to be a smart A$$ it may help your case, who can say?

Robbie I appreciate your humor but the only person I believe you have convinced is right is yourself. It is art. Art comes in many forms. But you are correct that it is also a skill. It is both, because in this case the artist is also very talented and skilled in the craft of creating art from sand and if you think it is skill only I challenge you to duplicate it. You can see the skill she uses. It's very simple pick up sand and move it here and there and draw lines with your fingers. Now go do that and get back to us and we can then judge if you have no skills or no artistic ability.

Originally posted by cashthetrash
Robbie I appreciate your humor but the only person I believe you have convinced is right is yourself. It is art. Art comes in many forms. But you are correct that it is also a skill. It is both, because in this case the artist is also very talented and skilled in the craft of creating art from sand and if you think it is skill only I challenge you to du ...[text shortened]... o do that and get back to us and we can then judge if you have no skills or no artistic ability.

You are making the mistake of attempting to reduce the argument to one of personalities, its nothing to do with me or you or the artist or anything else. My statement was and I ask you to consider the reason solely on its own merit without recourse to personality that it was not art because it contained no experimental elements. It was a routine, a skillful routine which relied upon precision rather than self expression.

If one may use the analogy of a classically trained musician, they are called upon to accurately portray with precision a readily defined piece of music. They are not called upon to create anything original, simply to convey what is in front of them with skill and dexterity. The Jazz musician by way of contrast who may also be classically trained is called upon to express himself through passages of improvisation, he experiments prior to performance to see what works and what may be rejected, every note is his own, he forges new musical truths through the application of his art and therein lies the difference. The former is a routine, a skill which hones itself through repetition (i know i used to date a classically trained flautist who used to practice endless scales, I tried to get her to improvise and she simply could not do it) the latter a mode of expression and originality borne from a process of experimentation. The former is a skill and the latter an art form on this basis.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And I provided a reason why I did consider it art. So what's the difference?


see Rule of thumb #1, at The Fine Art of Effective Argumentation thread

Its not about you, or me, its about the difference between a skill and an art.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one has said it doesn't deserve respect nor that its not skillful or beautiful. The argument that its art because I say its art is rather weak to be honest for you could tell us that you are a retired world war two submarine commander and we would be expected to believe you on the same basis. Its a logical fallacy, an argument by assertion. I s ...[text shortened]... ts true therefore it must be true???? Suzzianne employs this type of argument almost habitually.

It is art whether we say so or not. AND whether or not you say it's not.

I deny your version of "reality", twisted and self-centered as it is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not about you, or me, its about the difference between a skill and an art.

I know it's not about you or me, so please don't take any of this as a personal attack. This is the first time I've talked to you about anything, so I must necessarily reserve judgement as to your reasons and motivation.

But having said that, you clearly limited the definition of art to exclude any form or expression that does not fit your definition. I don't know if this was intentional (enabling you to launch your argument) or if it really is what you believe... because as I said, I don't know you well enough to make that determination.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are making the mistake of attempting to reduce the argument to one of personalities, its nothing to do with me or you or the artist or anything else. My statement was and I ask you to consider the reason solely on its own merit without recourse to personality that it was not art because it contained no experimental elements. It was a routine, a ...[text shortened]... m a process of experimentation. The former is a skill and the latter an art form on this basis.

Thank you robbie for pointing out that I made it personal with a challenge. I apologize but I just wanted to make you understand the difficulty in her skill. But I also thank you for stating that she was an artist in your post. You are almost there. But first let me make sure we truly understand each other. You are claiming that someone sitting in an orchestra playing a cello may not be considered an artist because they are simply reading sheet music and simply performing with little actual creativity of their own even if they have the ability to perform a song better than any other cellist that plays the same notes with slightly less perfection. Let's say I could give you that point for a moment. And give more of the credit to the composer instead.

Now so then we can jump from that and say that because Sir Paul McCartney plays a John Lennon song during one of his performances we can assume he is no longer a musical artist but just a skilled and crafted performer? And even if he performs one of his earlier crafted songs like "Yesterday" he is not an artist but simply a skilled performer who has practiced his skills over and over again? The only time it becomes art is the first time it was written and not heard? And even then we are asked not to consider how it touches our soul? Anyone should be able to write a song because it a learned and honed skill if that is all it is. Even if created at a very early age in their life? You see that is where I am having trouble with your stated claim.

You claim that the OP sand art isn't original or experimental. How do you know it's not Jazz, that the images we saw wasn't created by her for the very first time and never before? Were is that evidence. Are we to believe that simply because you say so? Only because in your mind it doesn't fit into a particular narrow window defined by you having pre set for us? And then evolving into whatever you latter want it to evolve to as you see fit?

I find it difficult not to make the argument personal because it seems to be only you that is making this ridiculous claim that it is not art. Art is simply in the eye of the beholder whether it is beautiful or ugly.

We could put it to a vote but this forum already has voted and you lose succa, before you ever even got started and long after you finnish. But you are still entitled to your own opinion even though I am correct and you ain't. ~Gots that~

Originally posted by Suzianne
It is art whether we say so or not. AND whether or not you say it's not.

I deny your version of "reality", twisted and self-centered as it is.

EPIC FAIL! and logical fallacy extraordinaire, just because you make a truth claim does not mean that the claim is valid on the basis that you have made it. Please clean up this slobbery drool you are messing up the forum floor.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I know it's not about you or me, so please don't take any of this as a personal attack. This is the first time I've talked to you about anything, so I must necessarily reserve judgement as to your reasons and motivation.

But having said that, you clearly limited the definition of art to exclude any form or expression that does not fit your defin ...[text shortened]... what you believe... because as I said, I don't know you well enough to make that determination.

Ok, but it appears to me that I have detailed the difference between a skill and an art form. A skill conforms to a set of standards, whether its building a kitchen or drawing with sand, for example the sand painter must make images which appear recognizable, castles and dragons etc so that people can relate to them in some way, an artist need not do so and may engage in any number of experimental procedures to test the efficacy or otherwise and his or her concept, thus what differentiates art from skill is this experimental element. How this can be construed as limiting a definition I cannot say, but it appears to me to be quite logical, reasonable and empirically established. Indeed when one is interviewed for an art school one of the most important parts of a portfolio is the workbooks which demonstrate development of an idea.

Originally posted by cashthetrash
Thank you robbie for pointing out that I made it personal with a challenge. I apologize but I just wanted to make you understand the difficulty in her skill. But I also thank you for stating that she was an artist in your post. You are almost there. But first let me make sure we truly understand each other. You are claiming that someone sitting in an or ...[text shortened]... t you are still entitled to your own opinion even though I am correct and you ain't. ~Gots that~

In the case of McCartney or anyone else doing a cover song, you may make a claim for art on the basis of interpretation, but only if it enhances or produces something significantly original (One may think of the Hendrix version of all along the watchtower by way of example), otherwise Karoke singers would also be considered as artists. Why is this art, because its the development of a concept, of a theme, in which something entirely new and original may be produced. The Karoke singer by way of contrast is naught but a mere imitator.

The Op appears to me to be like a party trick. How do I know it was not created for the first time because to make images like that takes practice, plain and simply. Are we seriously expected to believe that these images were improvised on national television for the first time? Call me cynical but i don't think so.

As to the truth claim that art is simply in the eye of the beholder, i don't think can be sustained, for then anyone is free to say, this is art or this is not art and provide nothing but an argument of assertion, in other words, its art because i behold that its art. Is that really what we have been reduced to?

I have one further criticism of the OP being termed art, in that it has no intellectual content whatsoever. Its purely decorative in nature and might as well be flowers on a set of curtains. Why do I mention this ? because museums are filled with 'art' that is nothing but an imitation of nature, but the human mind was able to conceive of something higher than mere imitation of nature and thus conceptual art was born. Art that had intellectual content as opposed to that which was purely decorative or a mere imitation of nature.

Opinion without substantiation is meaningless, I hope you understand.