Upload
Login or register

checks

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 36
Date Signed Up:8/03/2009
Last Login:7/02/2012
Location:poop
Stats
Comment Thumbs: 1911 total,  2439 ,  528
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 11% (11/100)
Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:677
FJ Points:1170

latest user's comments

#177 - my boyfriend said not to, it would tickle his nuts.  [+] (9 replies) 07/02/2011 on Beard Advice COMIC +56
#207 - awesomeguitar has deleted their comment.
#197 - greywulf has deleted their comment.
#209 - jcubdabeast has deleted their comment.
#188 - chawlsBITCH (07/02/2011) [-]
User avatar
#183 - ianclimber (07/02/2011) [-]
says op
#184 - ianclimber has deleted their comment.
#193 - webfeet (07/02/2011) [-]
kinda gettin old
User avatar
#195 - ianclimber (07/02/2011) [-]
sorry just found it cute/funny il delete it
#178 - corruptedman has deleted their comment.
#1535 - no. aesthetics would be something like slash's tophat while hi…  [+] (3 replies) 07/02/2011 on Queen is better 0
User avatar
#1540 - gamnq (07/03/2011) [-]
Aethetics - a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty

Art is aesthetics, or rather a part of it.
User avatar
#1541 - checks (07/04/2011) [-]
that is an unsatisfactory definition and therefore argument. i dont plan on continuing this.
User avatar
#1543 - gamnq (07/04/2011) [-]
Well since you're finished, let's sum up our stuff.

I say that rap is art and also that anything that is aesthetically pleasing to the creator and/or other people is also art. Unless built with another specific purpose
EG: I think a ship of the line looks really beautiful, but none of it was intended to be beautiful, it's only a side effect of it being a powerful weapon.

You say that rap is not art, because most of it isn't created with the use of artistic talent(s).


Here's why I think I'm right: my system of classifying art encompasses all things created by man to be aesthetically pleasing After that we make the distinction of "high" art and "low" art, with "high" being fine tuned and generally hard to make (needs use of artistic talent, vocal/drawing/architectural skill). While "low" art would not require any sort of talent or skill to create, thus resulting, most of the time, in the low quality of the final product.

The system you propose works with talents and skills ONLY, while most skills are measurable to a degree, talents are not. This results in a classification by opinion. EG: I really like Van Gogh's paintings, they are art. I really hate Picasso's paintings, they are not art. Then, I could use a ridiculously huge amount of accusations to "prove" myself right, I could state that Picasso has no talent, and NOBODY would be able to prove me wrong. Because everyone has his own opinion on what falls into "talent" and what falls into "skill"

Your system works from opinions and thus are flawed from the start.
My system works with facts, and THEN applies public opinion to classify the arts within the broad term "art"
#60 - Comment deleted 07/01/2011 on Life +33