I just read it in general about heels not specifically where they came from

after I wrote that I googled it to make sure, and it was for both.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-heeled_footwear#Ancient_Egypt

"high heels also served a practical purpose for Egyptian butchers who wore them in order to walk over the bloodied bodies of animal carcasses."

okay, well...
the origins of the modern high heels are definitely not in ancient Egypt.
nonetheless, I had not known about Egyptian high heels so thank you for teaching me

I just read it in general about heels not specifically where they came from

I do like some of the better feminist art. Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party or Sherman's Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face are nice.

Doesn't seem to be the product of a skill.

I think I used the wrong word. When I said "senses", I didn't only refer to hearing, sight, smell, sound and touch. There's the sense of accomplishment (stimulated by RPGs for example), there's sense of community, stimulation of various emotions etc.

Those are all senses, and that's what I meant.

Art has to appeal to one or more senses, and be the product (of a skill) that doesn't affect the functionality of the object - that's my definition.

All in all, "has a deeper meaning" doesn't seem like a necessary criteria, "is entertaining" and "is appealing to the senses" is the same thing, and "two out of four" I'd wager doesn't exist in any definition of any word in any language besides the given example. On topic of word definitions, this just seems redundant.

a lot of feminist art (which usually involves shit, piss, vaginal fluids, screaming, farting and slam poetry) gives them a sense of community, of accomplishment and probably stimulates their emotions
would you call that art, then?

I do like some of the better feminist art. Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party or Sherman's Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face are nice.

Doesn't seem to be the product of a skill.

entertainment is appeal to a sense that is neither seeing nor hearing.
having a deeper meaning seems redundant.

Music doesn't have to have a deeper meaning if the sounds and the patterns are appealing. Neither do videogames, which are also forms of art. They're just pleasing.

All in all, I disagree with your suggestion.

I don't think you understand. I said it needs to check at least 2 of the criteria.
Music might be entertaining and pleasing to the ear, but it might not have a deeper meaning.
A painting might require skill to make, have a deeper meaning and look good, but not be very entertaining.
A book might be entertaining and have a deeper meaning but is probably not very pretty to look at.

I think I used the wrong word. When I said "senses", I didn't only refer to hearing, sight, smell, sound and touch. There's the sense of accomplishment (stimulated by RPGs for example), there's sense of community, stimulation of various emotions etc.

Those are all senses, and that's what I meant.

Art has to appeal to one or more senses, and be the product (of a skill) that doesn't affect the functionality of the object - that's my definition.

All in all, "has a deeper meaning" doesn't seem like a necessary criteria, "is entertaining" and "is appealing to the senses" is the same thing, and "two out of four" I'd wager doesn't exist in any definition of any word in any language besides the given example. On topic of word definitions, this just seems redundant.

a lot of feminist art (which usually involves shit, piss, vaginal fluids, screaming, farting and slam poetry) gives them a sense of community, of accomplishment and probably stimulates their emotions
would you call that art, then?

I do like some of the better feminist art. Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party or Sherman's Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face are nice.

Doesn't seem to be the product of a skill.

Werent they made for butchers to not step in blood on the floor of their workplace?

never heard of that, but it's wrong.
they were specifically made for European nobility, and ONLY for men

after I wrote that I googled it to make sure, and it was for both.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-heeled_footwear#Ancient_Egypt

"high heels also served a practical purpose for Egyptian butchers who wore them in order to walk over the bloodied bodies of animal carcasses."

okay, well...
the origins of the modern high heels are definitely not in ancient Egypt.
nonetheless, I had not known about Egyptian high heels so thank you for teaching me

I just read it in general about heels not specifically where they came from

The thing is, even Picasso's shit and Dadaism fall under the same category as spraying fecal matter across public areas.

There is literally no way you can prove that something isn't art since there are no criteria to be met to match the definition.

To me, art is the products of the perfection of a skill that only appeals to senses.

I can carve an image of a viking onto a door, and it won't improve anything about the door. On the other hand, it will make the person owning the door appreciated it more as it appeals to his senses. Same goes for music, video game development, statue carving, you name it. Besides, carving can be rather difficult to make something truly appealing.

I'm still trying to figure out a decent definition to this day, and quite frankly I like this one.

personally, I think for something to be recognised as true art, it should require at least 2 of the following things:

-is appealing for the senses, especially seeing and hearing
-takes a lot of skill and/or practice to produce
-has a deeper meaning or message
-is entertaining

entertainment is appeal to a sense that is neither seeing nor hearing.
having a deeper meaning seems redundant.

Music doesn't have to have a deeper meaning if the sounds and the patterns are appealing. Neither do videogames, which are also forms of art. They're just pleasing.

All in all, I disagree with your suggestion.

I don't think you understand. I said it needs to check at least 2 of the criteria.
Music might be entertaining and pleasing to the ear, but it might not have a deeper meaning.
A painting might require skill to make, have a deeper meaning and look good, but not be very entertaining.
A book might be entertaining and have a deeper meaning but is probably not very pretty to look at.

I think I used the wrong word. When I said "senses", I didn't only refer to hearing, sight, smell, sound and touch. There's the sense of accomplishment (stimulated by RPGs for example), there's sense of community, stimulation of various emotions etc.

Those are all senses, and that's what I meant.

Art has to appeal to one or more senses, and be the product (of a skill) that doesn't affect the functionality of the object - that's my definition.

All in all, "has a deeper meaning" doesn't seem like a necessary criteria, "is entertaining" and "is appealing to the senses" is the same thing, and "two out of four" I'd wager doesn't exist in any definition of any word in any language besides the given example. On topic of word definitions, this just seems redundant.

a lot of feminist art (which usually involves shit, piss, vaginal fluids, screaming, farting and slam poetry) gives them a sense of community, of accomplishment and probably stimulates their emotions
would you call that art, then?

I do like some of the better feminist art. Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party or Sherman's Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face are nice.

Doesn't seem to be the product of a skill.