Why should I challenge anything as "not art"? If it is art or not depends mainly on
context or detail.
And the context and detail of the picture of the dumpster I posted is apparent, no?!
No. I did not agree to your idea that 'primary function defines the classification'. I merely pointed out that even if it did, a motor car could still be art.
Well if that isn't a contradiction extraordinaire I don't know what is!
As for "Debbie Does Dallas" - I have no way of knowing what the primary goal of director was. My primary goal in watching it was to learn about the history of pornography (and to listen to the spiffy funk riffs). So where do we get the primary function of porn, which would be provoking arousal?
So "primary function" fails to classify but "primary goal" does? Interesting subtlety.
Well, actually, I do have a definition for art. And as I've stated before, that definition covers both pornography and the car in question. But that's not the problem here. The problem is that you don't have a definition for art. In other words, you have no idea what art is, yet you insist that you can always know what it isn't. No one believes you, though.
I have no definition for "art", ergo I don't know what art is?
Your definition, however, includes everything (seemingly), so you
do know what art is. Interesting analysis.
Yes, you do. But that definition doesn't exclude art. It can't, since that would requiring having a definition of 'art'. So even though you can classify things as 'porn', you can't classify them as 'not art'. Which is really the whole point.
Without knowing the definition of "zebra" one would know that it excludes elephants, otherwise zebra and elephants would be one and the same. And before you go pointing out that something can have more than one classification don't forget "per se"!
To me it is.
Now, I suggest that before you rush to type something like "Aaahhh so to you it is! Well, then is art what Ron considers art?" that you trace back to the origin of the concept of art, and how and who decides what art is and the fact that what used to be considered art isn't anymore and vice-versa.
Nice try - pointing out your own flaws as grounds to disregard them. Sorry.
Because that's what I asked for. If you cannot do it, just say so.
Hey, ever tried scratching your right elbow with your right hand? If you can't do it just say so. The point?
I am unaware of ever claiming that. If I did, please point it out.
You implied it, and your argument depends on such implication. That's good enough for me.
Not that specific word, but you have repeatedly used a synonym.
That would be "per se", right, or just "just"?!
I won't be responding to your nonsensical request.
I see. If it's too hard it's nonsensical. Since when were "too hard" and "nonsensical" synonyms?! Maybe I'll adopt daSkeptic's tactic: If you cannot do it just say so.
But no definition of "art per se", which would be neccesary to classify whether porn is or is not it.
So you
have seen one of these before, then:
Moreover, you actually have a definition for it!
Your analogy involved putting an unknown object inside or outside a category (elephant). The actual situation is you trying to put porn inside or outside a category (art per se). However, without being able to say what that category is, your attempts at classification will always fail.
We know what porn is, per se. We know that art, per se (however one defines it), is not porn, per se, otherwise they'd be one and the same, always. Hence porn cannot be art, per se.
