I am. Having a hard time understanding the purpose of the thread. Everything requires skill. What is the point? — Jackson

The question right now is whether it requires some kind of skill to be an artist, or if there is no criterion to what constitutes and artist.

I agree with you, most things require a skill of some type, including art. The problem is that nonartists are ignorant of what artistic skills actually are, and think anything can be art. I might concede...maybe it can be art, but definitely not good or skilled art.

I’m not sure. Can’t one’s intention be to seem unskilled? Something like intentionally playing out of rhythm, or all dissonant notes/chords? — Pinprick

Absolutely. Picasso was classically trained but chose the explore expressive art, and his classic training had an obvious influence in that endeavor.

I don't think either of these is true. — T Clark

Are you an artist?

One problem here is that realism does in fact require the existence of "mistakes", whereas cubism (and countless other art forms across mediums) do not. Again, this ties in to my concept of intention; there are no rules in art, except, arguably in realism. So this posits a problem for realism inherently. Intention is not tied to anything in particular except within realism. That's its weakness. Questions of what does or does not require more skill as you're implicitly defining it here don't even factor in within my provisional concept as outlined. Hope I'm making sense and not being a dick. — Noble Dust

True, there are no rules in art. As the master vilppu said there are no rules, only tools. Yet there are rules for the tools, and these relate directly to intention and skill. Take linear perspective, an essential tool for creating the illusion of space, and a very difficult skill to acquire. Now if you want to draw a car, it is certainly possible without the use of perspective, but it will never take on the likeness a car as it would in perspective. If you saw an expressive or abstract painting of a car, it may be an amazing work (I guarantee its visual appeal could be traced directly to how skillfully fundamental design principles have been applied), but because it does not employ specific tools like perspective, errors like perspective mistakes would be irrelevant, making it very difficult to determine the intention of the artist. Perhaps the artist is not interested in mastering skills, but wants to get rich, or get a pat on the ass.

Mistakes are an interesting thing in art. Very advanced artists are capable of breaking rules of the tools while still pulling off amazing shit. Whereas when a less skilled artist trangresses the rules of the tools, it is an error and almost always looks like shit. Experts can bend and manipulate the rules of perspective to create amazing effects. See MC Escher's work.

And don't worry, your are cool. It's all a thought experiment, just exploring ideas, and in that spirit we should always challenge each other when the opportunity arises.

Some are focal points, rhythm, readability, proportion and balance. — Noble Dust

And what are concrete examples of how these principles are found in all great works of art?

It's hard to put into words, easier to show. But let me try.

Take focal points. These are areas that the eye is supposed to rest on. The eye is attracted by areas of high contrast, so the eye can be led around the canvas by playing with areas of high contrast, for primary/secondary/tertiary reads.

The areas between focal points are practically invisible and contain minimal detail in relation to focal points, although they play a very important role in controlling the eye of the viewer. Focal points are the only areas that include any substantial detail. And a primary focal point will include much more detail, up to fourth and fifth level details, whereas a secondary FP will probably need no greater than third level details.

I do not have an adequate music vocabulary, but absolutely. — Merkwurdichliebe

I do, and I don't see it. Didn't mean it as a "gotcha", but was wondering.

I am pretty ignorant when it comes to music. I always thought there were fundamental music principles, many which were popularized in classical and jazz. All music is simply manipulating sound to create an appealing illusion for the ears, just like art is manipulating shapes and values to create an appealing illusion for the eyes. I imagine that there are universal principles that are common to all good music like in art. But I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy.

Unless something is screwy, an artist's primary audience is not other artists. — T Clark

Very true. However, when it comes to judging an artist's skill, the opinion of nonartist matters little to none.

If you need some sort of special education to appreciate a work of art, it's useless. — T Clark

You do not need a special education to appreciate art, but you do need one to truly appreciate the skill it takes to produce a high quality artwork.

"Lucrative" and "elite" are certainly the right buzzwords, but they say nothing about what I'm provisionally, at the moment, referring to as "intention"; see above. — Noble Dust

Intention is directly related to skill level in my opinion. It is much easier for a nonartist to judge the intention of a realist work, versus a cubist work. This is becuase the margin of error in realism is much smaller, so mistakes are much more obvious in realism. To avoid mistakes in realism then requires a greater skillset.

there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style) — Merkwurdichliebe


What are concrete examples? — Noble Dust

Some are focal points, rhythm, readability, proportion and balance.

Is there an analog in non-representational art forms like music?

I do not have an adequate music vocabulary, but absolutely.

The most lucrative industry for artists is the entertainment industry, mainly video games and movies. The most elite art schools in the world are all geared towards producing artists for this industry. They are all based in classical training, which has its main emphasis in realism and design. Only the most skilled artists in the world make it through this program.

Regarding varying genres and styles, there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style), so we do indeed have a criterion upon which we can judge genres against each other. Of course, realism, in comparison to other genres, holds the potential to include the greatest variety of design techniques in a single work, which is why I believe it is the genre requiring the greatest skill.

Well, what is skill? Has anyone defined that term yet? — Pinprick

I would define it as a highly developed ability for craftmanship - to apply particular techniques with more or less virtuosity. It is something conditioned and developed through practice, in contrast to talent, which is the raw/natural ability to apply particular techniques that don't involve any intentional craftmanship.

For artists, one of the primary goals is to be recognized for their skill by their artistic peers. I would venture to say that art is something quite different for the artist than it is for nonartists.

Was there a specific comment or thread that broke the camels back to get him kicked out? — schopenhauer1

I bet it was his discussion with @180 Proof @baker and @Tate in the roe v wade thread

Oooo. That hurts. As much as anyone streelight represented what is best in the forum. — T Clark

I am going to miss Streetlight's posts because he is extremely knowledgeable in politics. — Paths

honestly, street would express anger I just didn't feel like expressing cuz I've become milder over time. But I generally agree with his comments, even when correct and angry -- people didn't like that, of course — Moliere

What a shame. The forum is lesser now. — praxis

clearly we've lost a good contributor here. — Manuel

For better or worse, banning him is definitely a loss to this community. — 180 Proof

Banning Streetlight is bullshit — Maw

Yeah— it’s unfortunate. Personally I found most of it funny, even at my own expense. Pretty predictable. — Xtrix

he had some good information sometimes.. and when focused on a source text, could lead some constructive debates... — schopenhauer1

Agreed. Let's bring back Street!

The VR-generated you puts the VR-generated cup back in the VR-generated cupboard; what's the problem? — Janus

The Matrix will surely allow it

A thing can persist as itself , and external to another thing, for so many milliseconds, for instance. — Joshs

I've dicked around with that notion myself

Just two different ways of talking as I see it, neither of which get to the heart of the question as to what the cup is "in itself". — Janus

I noticed you mentioned that the notion of time is generally overlooked. The best solution Ive seen to this is the peripatetic idea of instantiation. There is the possibility of a cup in many things, but a possible a cup only becomes an actual cup when it become necessary for it to be a cup. It is only in these instances of necessity that it is possible to percieve a cup. Outside of the actuality (which relates to perception) it is possibility (independent of knowledge) which keeps the form of the cup alive. Raw existence is wrought with myriad possibilities (independent of mind) capable of interpenetrating all configurations of existence, ultimately becoming actual instances of whatever when they are perceived. I know I just said nothing, but it was fun.

Add: some things are harder to percieve, like justice. Until you see a horse thief hanged. :monkey:

I suppose it says "in god we trust" because they can't trust each other? — Banno

Absolutely

to be fair. Football is a decidedly Catholic sport, with the hail mary's, music city miracle and immaculate reception. To remove prayer from football would be like taking baseball out of sex, it would alter its fundamental structure.

A mind left too open soon fills with garbage. — Banno

What else is there to fill it with? The Big Mind ensures that only the recyclable materials are passed into the future, all else is relinquished to the "slaughter bench" of history.

You did not present an argument, you made up a story. There is nothing to reply to. — Banno

It was an allegory. Arguments come in many forms, you should open your mind to meaning beyond the obvious.

no argument? I suppose you are softening up to the notion of "Big Mind". You'll quit that monist nonsense soon enough.

Well, go on then; if it is such a\ good argument, present it. — Banno

Big mind awoke in caveman. Caveman mind evolve to glorious man of present day. Voila, indirect evidence of immanent Big Mind.

I think the immanence of "Big Mind" is sufficient to make it worth addressing. We have historical data that corroborates the likelihood of an immanent, "Big Mind". Why so hung up on the "Big Mind's" transcendence?

Monism is dualism gone astray, and that is saying a lot.

You know this a priori?

'cause it don't seem right to me. — Banno

No, aposteriori. It's an informed opinion. So make an argument for either position, and I almost guarantee there is some way to refute it.

That, I couldn't say. — Janus

I can't either. Its a difficult question.

Commonality of experience shows that the gestalts or meaningful wholes do not arise arbitrarily, not merely on account of the individual perceiver, taken in isolation. So the possibilities are that either real existents, including the objects perceived, the environmental conditions and the constitutions of the perceives all work together to determine the forms of perceptions. or else there is a universal or collective mind which determines the perceptions and their commonality.

How could we possibly know the answer to that question? Which seems more plausible? How do we choose between them? Does it not come down to personal presupposition and/ or preference? If so, then what could be the point in arguing over the question? — Janus

Absolutely. It comes down to personal preference, just like ethics. Each perspective is as rationally coherent as the other, making "consequence" the best criteria for choosing one over the other. What is the longterm result for a race which directly apprehends reality, versus a race that filters raw existence into reality as it appears?

A lot of small time police departments are substantially funded by drug related property seizures. I wonder how that pans out when marijuana becomes legal. — Tate

There are plenty of other illegal drugs to keep them funded. It will definitely prevent the courts and jails from being bogged down with small time marijuana cases.

How was the court able to overturn Roe VS Wade? Can they do it unilaterally without a new case reaching the court to make the decision based upon?

@TiredThinker

There was a case: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

It will probably be like marijuana. Little by little states will legalize it except for a few hold outs. — Tate

I highly doubt that. The abortion issue has much deeper ethical implications than recreational Marijuana. Not to mention, criminalizing Marijuana puts a much greater burden on the justice system in comparison to criminalizing abortion.

Well, this looks like a (known) method of avoiding to talk about the essence of what the other person says. — Alkis Piskas

What the hell are you talking about?

One may bring up an authority for debating purposes, but it is not OK to do that as a substitute of one's own position, ideas, etc. — Alkis Piskas

Where did I write "substitute"?

"Essential", became now "a good idea" ... — Alkis Piskas

Did it? You are obviously confused. Let me dumb it down for you. If you wish to have a sound philosophy, it is a good idea to include what is essential to one.

And, since when TPF members are authotities?? — Alkis Piskas

Since never.

It seems impossible to have a productive conversation while simultaneously pointing to the source of every original idea — MonfortS26

Authority is one of the essential criteria for a sound philosophy. If the speaker himself has no authority (such as every member of TPF), then it is a very good idea to cite one who does. It is perfectly fine to limit yourself to invoking the authority of historically famous philosophers in order to reinforce your ideas and give yourself philosophical credibility.

My position is that ... the grounding is nothing more than ... ground. — Relativist

You make quite a tautology here.

Sure, we can say ethics is based on ethical ideas, but it begs the question: what's the basis of the ethical ideas? — Relativist

A creature capable of abstract reasoning.

Moral imperatives aren't merely arbitrary propositions stored in the memory bank. No one needs to instruct you to behave in ways that contribute to self-preservation, nor apply this vicariously. These are grounded in feelings, not in words.

Conceptions of good and evil are quite arbitrary, which would make their corresponding moral imperatives arbitrary at their core because they are grounded in a knowledge of good and evil, and a conviction in that knowledge. Any feelings involved with moral imperatives are intuitive rather than emotive.

And, there you go, randomly bringing up "self-preservation", which has nothing to do with morality, unless you assign it an ethical value.

Ha yeah I like the part where he rattles the wall of his cage like a prisoner. — Bird-Up

It was pretty funny. How can you not love monkey business :blush:

Isn't jealousy an inherently ethical notion? How can you feel that you are getting less than you deserve, without first having ideas about what is deserved?

Seems to be about exactly when the monkey gets angry, and the extent of how quickly the anger escalates. Strikes me as more than dissatisfaction with cucumber — Bird-Up

Perhaps jealousy is an ethically based idea. Whatever the case, it can only have significance as an ethical term for the ethical creature.

All of our interpretation of the monkey behaving on some moral knowledge or intuition is merely us projecting our ethical nature upon them.

As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with the appetitive nature of the monkey. Perhaps it is acting selfishly, something we determine to be wrong as ethical creatures. For a nonethical creature, selfish behavior is a percieved means to acquire its want.

To deny/reject is a bigger deal than to indulge in it. — Agent Smith

But that, it could be argued, is just another form of self-overcoming. What do you think?

that was hilarious when the dumb monkey threw the blasted cucumber at the scientist

Seems like an ethical situation when the monkey starts thinking about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done. And if such thoughts aren't passing through its head, then what do you think is the source of its anger? — Bird-Up

I did not catch the part when the monkey was thinking (about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done). Those thoughts never came close to occurring to me. I think the source of its anger was that it wanted to eat grapes over cucumber. I agree with the monkey. Grapes are tastier than cucumbers.

Any animal that interacts socially will have its own unique brand of morality. But as humans, we can only relate to human morality. That's the only morality that matters to us. Part of human morality is judging the morals of others. We will always judge animals to have something which falls short of the human standard. — Bird-Up

That's the best argument yet for animal morality. But it falls victim to the phenomenological dilemma, that we can never access morality in itself (noumenal), we are confined to morality as it seems to us (phenomenological)

I wouldn't say they're my favorites too, but my general ignorance doesn't permit me to abandon their use. — Agent Smith

If I were to give philosophical advice, I would say: lean into it... embrace your ignorance and cultivate the use of such sophisticated terminologies.

Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states? — magritte

Of course, dummy . :kiss: Just kidding, you're not dumb.

But I agree, values are less transient than feelings. They are the elements of moral conviction, the ideas that bind the moral agent to his knowledge of good and evil.