A good size faction of the country is programmed to dislike “big govament”, but don’t think much beyond lower taxes, letting the industries they’re employed by do whatever the fuck they want, and disliking any other governmental restrictions that effect them personally.

3. There is no question that more evidence will be forthcoming that will corroborate allegations. — 3017amen

This could be costly for some Republican senator’s in their elections.

The idea that the government can be relied upon to cure all or even most societal ills is liberalism at its worst. — Hanover

Conversely, the idea that those with power will not abuse it is conservatism at its worst.

I'm thankful for a Constitution that keeps this angry group of Democrats from undoing the will of the people. — Hanover

Perhaps you should be thankful for the Republican senators who betray their oaths of impartial justice and choose loyalty to their party over loyalty to the American people.

5" x 7" plein-air

I’m actually related to the Fraser clan.

• The Aesthetics of Meaning and Thought, Mark Johnson — 180 Proof

At a glance it looks like this book is highly rated. You like?

That’s the problem I have with Van Gogh, slavishly painting away day after day, the same thing over and over and over, like a moth at a window. What’s his intention, what does he expect? Seemingly nothing. That’s who he is, that’s his whole history.
What’s the point of all that compared to a Picasso who tears art apart, dissects it like a frog, then puts it back together again. He does that over and over and over. Van Gogh never did it once. — Brett

Van Gogh had a very distinctive style/aesthetic. We could give him credit for that vision. But anyway, I notice that you use the phrase “over and over and over” for both artists. It seems they were both bound to their respective niches.

Is that what sets it apart from what we’re calling art? — Brett

I’m not saying that. I thought I made it clear in my previous post that I think commercial art is still art, just with the very intuitive distinction that it’s commercial. It may not always be apparent how commercial artworks are, and marketers may deliberately attempt to deceive buyers in this regard.

Personally I don’t like advertising. But should it be regarded as the lesser of the two because of its objectives. If it’s money’s that separates it from “art” then should a big price on a painting remove it from the field? — Brett

In my opinion, it's not necessarily money itself that defines commercial art but the intent or purpose with which it's created. A clever entrepreneur could effectively brand and use advertising to market an artist, like Milli Vanilli for instance. Something like this might be even easier with a painter because there doesn't need to be live performances, and abstract art doesn't necessarily even require good technique. It could be full-on 'emperor with no clothes'. It would still be art, however, in my opinion, just not good art, unless it somehow induced an aesthetic experience and/or expressed a meaningful concept.

I understand that another problem is simply that the wealthy, with their privileged position, are good at sheltering their money from taxation, so it's very difficult if not impossible to do.

I feel that a lot of art done today is created by what I’d call art directors more than artists, Damien Hearst being an example. Art Directors in the sense that they’re very good at pulling together contemporary symbols, ideas and attitudes, just like Art Directors in advertising pull together contemporary elements and trendy ideas to produce commercials. — Brett

I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money.

ну да.

I’ll still be here defending you from the snakes, even if you lay with them. — NOS4A2

You appear to spend the vast majority of your time here in the thankless job of defending Trump.

And that’s bad?
— praxis

Bias is not bad? What do you think? Eh, you've already shown that when you show bias, it's good, according to yourself. — god must be atheist

What's so bad about being in favor of something like stoicism, or disfavor of someone who doesn't share your values? It's true that I may be prone to confirmation errors and the like, but in your case, I'm not in any position of power whereby you might be treated unfairly. In any case, I'm just being honest. We all have biases. If we can acknowledge and be mindful of them they are less likely to be maladaptively expressed.

I hate to think of you living in a childish fantasy where no bias exists.

Can you point out the mockery? — god must be atheist

The version of Pigliucci‘s work you describe in the OP of this topic (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7163/stoicism-is-an-attractive-life-philosophy-but-can-it-be-taught/p1) is absurd, a parody designed to make it look ridiculous. In the end, you even acknowledge its absurdity, asking things like "where did I make an assumptional error in creating a premise to my arguments," and flaunt your mockery.

Your bias for Stoicism is unfounded, because you are not Stoic. ... — god must be atheist

More of your clownish drivel.

Your argument that purportedly supports your belief in the law of attraction is very weak. It is infinitesimally weak. It is so weak a five-year-old could point it out to you. So please don't insult my intelligence by asking me to show it to you how weak it is. — god must be atheist

I would never insult the intelligence of someone who couldn't argue as well as a five-year-old.

You are bitter because I put in straightforward, irrefutable arguments about the relationship between man and man's believed god. — god must be atheist

Huh?

your bias for your favourite philosophical trends and your bias against me is clear here — god must be atheist

And that’s bad?

mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism
— praxis

You are not very Stoic about my valid criticism of Stoicism; you are not Stoic about it at all. — god must be atheist

Some of your criticism may have been valid but nevertheless accompanied by mockery.

The problem here lies in the law of attraction
— praxis

No serious thinker believes in the law of attraction. You do — god must be atheist

Well, this topic that you’ve started shows your favorable interest in Bartrix, and it actually did cross my mind prior to reading this topic that you might be the same person, so I might be becoming a believer.

Another full day of Democrat sophistry lined up. — NOS4A2

Is Pro-Trump sophistry somehow exempt of hysteria?

You see I am working within a genre local to me in which there is a lot of plein air painting done of landscapes and a tradition of painting hares for example. This work is done quickly with the overall decorative effect being primary. — Punshhh

Other than the ‘California Impressionists’ I don’t know how plein-air painting could be considered a local genre, at least not since the time of the California Impressionists. I imagine painting bunnies could be, although a bunny would be an odd choice of subject matter for plein-air painting.

In regard to plein-air painting, of which I done a good amount, I would say that an impressionistic effect is primary rather than a decorative one.

Bartricks' job is to generate conversation, retain membership, and keep members active. — god must be atheist

The problem here lies in the law of attraction or like attracts like, as the saying goes. Bartricks will attract and encourage a Bartricks-like membership and discourage a membership with, how should I say, different qualities.

For example, remember the guest speaker discussion you started and mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism? I suspect that may have discouraged him from participating.

If House Democrats failed to follow the correct procedures it’s not indicative of a witch-hunt, as NOS4A2 claims. If a criminal wins a legal case because of a procedural error by the prosecution that doesn’t mean they’re innocent or wrongly accused, for example.

Imagine a racist doing the monkey chant where clearly both the subject, racism, and the method of expression, the monkey chant, are ugly; nobody will every say that the racist was in the act of creating art. — TheMadFool

True. On the other hand, if this scenario were framed as art in some way it could be aesthetically perceived. You might ask what value could this possibly have and the answer would be transcendence.

I couldn’t answer the question because there’s nothing that lifts it above the work of an amateur. It’s actually the background that lets it down. You should be able to see that. — Brett

I have to agree with this. The aspect of painting technique typically referred to as ‘edge’ (skill in controlling the sharpness/softness of a compositions edges) is remarkably clumsy is the bunny painting.

On a positive note, in the foreground the photorealism is impressive. :up:

I think that I remember him saying that he’s not an expert. His tactics are indeed tedious though.

What does that mean: “erotically”? — Brett

Your private parts start to feel funny.

I was looking for a frame the other day and noticed a framed Van Gogh print. I think it was a placeholder to show off the frame. Anyway, it occurred to me to try looking at the picture as though I didn’t know who painted it. It did look much more pedestrian when viewing it this way, I must say. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always loved his work and think it’s brilliant. It’s just that we should probably acknowledge that the value we place on art is often fictional, like money or rare gems (that aren’t actually so rare).

I thought he was you, mostly because for both of you truth doesn’t appear to be high on you list of values.

Can you explain why you prefer Picasso over Van Gogh?

I’m not saying that it’s not about beauty, I’m saying it’s about experiencing beauty beyond our conventional sense of it. An artist is skilled in inducing an aesthetic experience, simply put, if only their own. The subject matter may not be what we typically regard as beautiful.

What if you believe there is no god? Then would this directive not lose its punch? — god must be atheist

Even if it were possible to test, I don’t anyone would actually want to prove that God exists, basically because the only meaningful God is a human God or some sort of ‘sky father’ figure that is relatable. An incomprehensible God is meaningless and the most essential ingredient of religion is meaning.

Someone with credentials would or would at least know what to do to test whether we've got the real-deal on our hands. — Bartricks

And Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'"

Matthew 4:7

You are saying you regard yourself as emptiness.

That's actually right on the dot. — god must be atheist

Well, no, I tend to regard everything as empty.

The object or performance or whatever in question must in some way be changed by the artist in order to move it from the category of "aesthetic object" to "art object." — Artemis

An artist, or anyone, can frame anything as art and essentially invite others to view it aesthetically, and thereby change it from an ordinary object to an "aesthetic object," if they are successful. I believe there is great value in viewing the world aesthetically.

of art, but in an art world in which in theory, anything was art provided an artist said it was Art.
— Punshhh

Well, my only slight alteration would be that the artist can't just point and call something art. S/he has to engage in some act of creation. — Artemis

Just pointing can make an otherwise ordinary object art. That sounds pretty creative to me. Anything can be viewed aesthetically.

You’re still taking about beauty rather than aesthetics. I believe Artemis tried to point out that aesthetics can transcend beauty, or rather, our conventional sense of it.

The "true" self is as used by you, praxis and by me, are not the same concepts. — god must be atheist

True.

You equated "your true self" as "how you really are" — god must be atheist

False. I tend to regard it as emptiness.

I equate "your true self" more in a literary sense (not literally, but figuratively) to "do what your impulses dictate you to do without holding back". — god must be atheist

And this is why you fit the role of the forum clown so well.

He's jerking your chain... — creativesoul

If he does it long enough he may begin to believe his own crap.

You wouldn't know a good critical thinker from a bad one. — Bartricks

I didn’t claim that you were a good or bad critical thinker. I said that something you wrote demonstrated poor critical thinking. Logical fallacies, for that matter, demonstrate poor critical thinking. But it could be that you realize your fallacies and are doing it intentionally for some reason. I can’t imagine a good reason but you may have one nevertheless.

Do you have any expertise in psychology? Or are you once again talking about things you know nothing about? — Bartricks

Expert or know-nothing. This doesn’t demonstrate good critical thinking.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books.
— praxis
I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma? — Pantagruel

It certainly could become dogmatic, and cease speculation.

but I’m no expert.
— praxis

Exactly. Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. — Bartricks

I don’t have the background or enough information to accurately determine the level of your insecurity. I speculated, as I said. Your amount of ad homs is remarkably high. There is some explanation for why you rely so heavily on logical fallacies. But I could care less. I’d rather you acknowledge that speculation isn’t authoritative or address the point in some way.

Speculation isn’t authoritative. For example, I speculate that the amount of ad homs coming from you have a direct correlation to your level of insecurity, but I’m no expert.