There can be popular art, which is different from show business. In prehistoric times I wrote for tv series and there was a concept of a kind of public service among the makers - these things we are creating are about 'issues' and 'relationships' that next day the audience will talk about at the water-cooler. But we were in it for the money too, and the audience size and share; I don't think that as a partial motivation precludes art, which an earlier poster suggested. — mcdoodle

I don't think any of us are going to come to a firm conclusion of where the exact dividing line between art and non-art is, but I will say there is not much out there that I am absolutely confident in calling art. Maybe some people think Jim Carrey does art or pop art. I say no, despite his obvious comedic skill, but Andy Kaufman (RIP), yes. Both comedians, but Jim Carrey just makes you laugh. Kaufman does much more.

No, he wasn't saying that at all. Otherwise, he would be declaring urinals everywhere to be art if "someone" thought so. He was saying that the form of an artwork is less important than its context. A urinal is not aesthetically pleasing, but in the right context it can be used to make a statement about what art can be. There's a self-referential element to it. So, you can indeed make art out of TV shows and artists do, but (in general) the shows themselves in their regular context are no more art than your toilet or mine.

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, there's another aspect of art I hadn't touched on which is consistent with it being produced by Artificial Intelligence and not so much by American Idol as a whole--so, though I would not rule out a contestant in American Idol producing art, such as a beautiful poem as you mentioned, the overall context is also relevant. That aspect is the idea that art should transcend the social sphere and offer an external perspective on it so it may be challenged rather than be firmly embedded in it so that it reinforces it. American Idol is successful because it's popular and popular because it reflects what most people want and what most people want (in terms of symbolic content) is what they are trained to want culturally. It's something that people watch to feel relaxed and happy in their place rather than to imagine an alternative. So, the source is part of the experience there, whereas in the case of Artifical Intelligence, the source is backgrounded as irrelevant and / or unknown.

degenerating — Ciceronianus

Denegrating? I can think of no justification for putting even ten seconds of that in my head. So, I admit to some bias. I am generally media-phobic though, so it's that and almost everything else.

Does "content" like AI produce that "Sublime.?" — ENOAH

I think we have to admit that it might. Suppose I read a story presuming it to be written by a human and experience something similar to what I experienced with "Ghosts", I would classify it as art. I don't know how I'd justify retroactively nullifying my judgement on finding out it was written by an AI. What if I mistakenly thought it was written by an AI and then discovered it was indeed written by a human, would it become art again? Can something jump in and out of being art depending on a belief regarding its origin? Or are we saying its origin is a necessary condition of it being art? But then how do we tie that down? Can a human not create something "accidentally" or unconsciously and it be art? Does there have to be an intention there? Without knowing what we are saying specifically, it tends to reduce to having to be something that is a product of a living human body. Which doesn't seem to mean much. I think the important relationship is between the subject and the work itself.

For me, unashamedly, AI has triggered not one, but from time to time, all of those direct paths to real feeling (tears, laughter, rage, fear, drive, human bonding). And that is why it is high quality art. Art Extraordinaire. — ENOAH

That argument seems problematic. Were Hitler and Goebbels doing art? Are propaganda and advertising art? The more emotionally manipulative the better? Rhetoric is an art, but is it art? The ancient arts of discourse included rhetoric, but also grammar and logic, and we don't consider them art. Are we maybe confusing the art of putting a good show together with actual art--which is supposed to reveal insight and truth or have something of the sublime about it? I listened to a performance of Ibsen's play "Ghosts" recently and I was very moved, but also felt somehow improved as a person. I have watched very little reality TV since the original "Big Brother" and I enjoyed it, but never considered it more than entertainment and I never felt improved through watching it.

I appreciate that, even in order to be entertaining, any media has to be involving emotionally and there is an art to achieving that. That idea may be leveraged to dismiss criticisms of TV and popular entertainment as elitist (and they can be ill thought out) but if we pursue the distinction between the art of doing something other than art properly and art proper, we don't fall foul of elitism in my view and merely recognize a valid distinction.

Ah yes, of course! Many thanks, Professor Furaytoo!

Moose hat? No. — NOS4A2

Moose, no? Perhaps you're talking bull then? I fancy him an asshat. But I am too kind. :halo:

That was Joe in the moose hat? By Jove!

:lol:

If anyone else is confused, none of this is to say you can't criticize ideologies or religions.

@tim wood

Your feedback was deleted along with replies. It's not up for debate here not least because this is not feedback. Also, it's too obvious to be up for debate as far as I'm concerned, just as it would be if someone tried to speak of "Jewish bestiality" or "Black bestiality". There are no such things. And neither I nor any other mod is required to waste our time due to your inability to understand the very clear instructions you've been given or the rationale behind them. You will be banned if you repeat this kind of language. That will not change.

Of course, if you really feel the need to open a feedback thread, it's your right. My response will be to copy paste my previous instructions / explanation there so you can read it again.

7 Oct. 2023 simply made clear and explicit the bestiality of Arab intentions and practices. — tim wood

We've discussed this in the mod forum and we agree it is unacceptable and to put you on a ban warning. Goes for both sides. Everyone, please restrict your criticism to the organizations involved and not the ethnic groups they happen to be members of. Negative generalizations from events in this conflict to chracteristics of Jews or Arabs etc will not be tolerated.

How is this language, and the poster who posts it, even tolerated on the forum? — boethius

The language is not tolerated. The poster gets a chance to show he can restrain himself in future.

prurient — Jamal

Read it ten or more years ago. The only line I remember is when the guy says to the girl, "But no shit, ok."

Or maybe that was Cocaine Nights. * Shrug *

If some Houdini of a politician can join both leftist populist and right-wing populism, that's it. — ssu

Some Houdini would have to bridge the psychological divide between those spheres first. The cognitive linguist George Lakoff describes it in terms of use of metaphor. The dominant metaphor for liberals and leftists is authority as "nurturing parent" and for conservatives and rightists it's authority as "strict father" and social expectations from the micro to the macro get built up around that, so even when an obvious problem becomes a common source of antipathy the two generally can't get together because the frameworks differ so much.

We're basically in agreement except for the nomenclature I guess, but fwiw I see Bernie as a kind of extension of occupy, which was more clearly populist and I at least think it's worth recognising a spectrum of populism with what I call power populism and what you see as populism proper the most virulent form of the phenomenon.

I think it may be possible to distinguish between two basic types of populism: let's call them "cause populism" and "power populism". Cause populism gets behind an ostensibly moral cause, could be worker's rights, climate change, corporate reform, free speech, etc. Or it could be a combination of these. But essentially a cause populist should be driven by and be able to articulate an ideological goal that determines a coherent set of responsibilities that their leader is bound to carry out while in office (and be judged by his or her ability to do so). The social framework is situated in the idea of the building of a better society by removing special interests in the establishment that have heretofore prevented this from happening.

I think Bernie Sanders is a good example of a cause populist. I don't think cause populism leads to authoritarianism. The mandate of the leader is conditional not absolute and the conditions of success are pragmatically defined. You can ask a group of fellow cause populists about what policies they want implemented and get fairly consistent answers.

I see power populism on the other hand as resting on the promise of power without responsibility, of the resetting of power dynamics as an end in itself with the audience being those who believe that power has been wielded irresponsibly and unjustly against them. The social framework of the power populist is society not as a cooperative among interested parties but as an arena where one party must dominate (and whoever currently dominates is the elite). But the wish of the power populist is not really to rid society of elites, but to become their replacement (an elite by any other name). And the means are virtually irrelevant. Nor does the leader have any particular responsibilities except to wield power against those who his followers see as previously wielding it against them.

I think Trump is a good example of a power populist. His mandate is considered absolute and the conditions of his success are not clearly defined. In fact, they are almost anything he or his followers (but mostly him) decide them to be in the moment because the power is itself the success. People get confused why nothing Trump does dents his popularity. The solution to the conundrum lies in recognizing that he was always popular with those for whom he is an almost pure projection of a need for power. To criticize him would be an almost performative contradiction as long as he appears confident (powerful) in what he is doing. Which he does. It's obvious then how power populism is married to authoritarianism. And it's predictable that asking a group of power populists about policy matters and expecting consistent answers on substance (rather than e.g. slogans) is futile.

I'm glad you clarified actually. One less evil philosopher to be concerned with.

And on that note...

I prefer @Hanover's version.

I have a particular disgust for child beaters so I will never like Wittgenstein as a character (even though he may have reformed). Anyway, yes, not the place for this and we have already had the personal faults of Descartes and Heidegger (among others probably) dissected on the site.

He also beat up the little girls and boys in his classes as a school teacher (even to the point of knocking one of them unconscious).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident

I approve this message. :up:

I didn't think about the fact this would constitute solicitation. — Relativist

It was pretty clear from the context it didn't. However, we don't really need the link to get the point anyhow.

If there are certain principles we believe are inherently good and worth committing ourselves to in a way that is not dependent on their monetary value, convenience, practicality or other contingencies; if there are values we hold that transcend our social norms and practices, that it may not in a sense even "make sense" to hold; if there is discernible to us a certain magic in an act, a creation, a word, a look that can't be reproduced without the right spirit, that is sublime, inexplicable, and unnameable; and if we can't hold our heads up unless we have protected and cherished all of this, then what of what we call it?

i.e. What @un said. But I felt like writing something. :halo:

I don't think that there is a Valentine's day is the problem. It's that like other cultural days it's commercialized close to the point of meaninglessness. The message is not "On Valentine's day celebrate your bond with your lover", or take notice of it, or do something meaningful that reflects it, it's "buy some trash that pretends to do something meaningful so you don't have to."

My mistake. However, I do think javi's point about climate change is perspicacious and should not be overlooked. :nerd:

And some time make the time to drive out west
Into County Clare, along the Flaggy Shore, — Jamal

Nice, javi. And I know the drive he means. I did it last year. It's the burren coast where you're between the ocean and the rocky landscape he describes.

So, yes he was referring to The Troubles... — javi2541997

:up:

Honestly, I gave up long ago following every mad thing he says. The stupider and more offensive the better for him it seems. But, yes, judging on domestic policy, he probably would be a nightmare. On foreign policy, it's more polarised: he could be far better than Biden or he could do something absolutely crazy and start a world war.

I don’t like Biden, but Trump is still worse — Mikie

OK, well, I suppose I'm not going to continue to argue over which is better, shit or puke. But anyhow, your position is understandable from a practical point of view.

We had a similar disagreement the last time. Hopefully, you've realised by now that arguing with a crazy person is a waste of time. I know I have. :flower:

I said "at gunpoint" as a hypothetical to make a point. As things stand, were I American, I would vote for neither. If that's your definition of insanity, then, yes, I am insane.

And I don't think that Trump will ever top the level of opportunism, cynicism, and moral emptiness of Biden, who paid for Israel to do what it is doing and refused to support a ceasefire so he could help counteract his image as a weak president, and only now, realising the deep unpopularity of this war among important sectors of his potential voters, is loudly criticising the Israeli response as "over the top". You gave them 17 Billion to do it, Joe. You don't get to walk away with clean hands now, mate. Own it.

If I had to, at gunpoint, vote, I would choose the guy who probably would have done the same thing but actually didn't over the guy who actually did. That would be Trump.

It's a hard choice - between a narcissist con man and a supporter and facilitator of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I think I prefer the nut-job myself, but it's your call, America. — unenlightened

:up:

You've convinced me. It's Jack Melon I really like. Always have. Never even heard of Bob Dope.

Muchísimas gracias chicos. — javi2541997

:cheer:

Fuck Bob Hope though. — Hanover

I'm not letting you, or @Jamal, away with this.

Why I like Bob Hope

I like Bob Hope because he has a big chin. Who wouldn’t like that? I like Bob Hope because, well, look at that cheeky smile! After all, he entertained the troops. I like Bob Hope because his relation to vegetative matter was always pure and innocent.

Bob Hope smells of trees and waterfalls.

Did you know that Bob Hope retained the majority of his hair follicles until middle age? That’s hard to criticize. I like Bob Hope’s taste. Nothing tastes like Bob Hope. Don’t knock it until you try it! I mean, have you ever sat through a full Bob Hope movie? Ha! I knew it!

Many people confuse Bob Hope with Jack Melon and even Gary Lewis. This is possibly the reason for irrational animosity towards Bob Hope. After all, he entertained the troops! Did Mr. Melon step up to such plates? Walter Mathews? Ha!

Bob Hope’s chin is two standard deviations larger than the average man’s chin. What’s not to like? Bob Hope never had sex with anything apart from a human being. Bob Hope was almost certainly a human being. I was once within touching distance of Bob Hope’s shoe. I was too young to appreciate it. I have many faults.

Some people dislike Bob Hope for purely subjective reasons. A division of Bob Hope into his respective elements could eliminate such problems. There is no logical reason not to like Bob Hope. Did you know he entertained the troops?!

I hope you will change your mind about Bob Hope. I once met someone who touched Bob Hope’s hat. He told me it was a religious experience. That man is now a priest. Bob Hope’s chin is just… I never said Bob Hope was God. Or Jesus. Or the Buddha. Or the best combination of all of the above! …The man ENTERTAINED THE TROOPS! ...SING IT!

There are many people who are incapable of appreciation. Such people should not be entertained. A chin that big is a sight to behold. I don’t know anything about Bob Hope. But really… Are you saying you don’t like Bob Hope??? :brow:

*

I like @javi2541997 too.

I think people think of me as the Bob Hope of the forum. Which is great, as everyone loves Bob.

Instead of listening to the OP's attempts to clarify, you all keep focusing on the Ubermensch bit and taking the mickey. I'm closing this.

Why is this not in the lounge? — Banno

Because I just now saw it.

This discussion was merged into Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)