It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help Me Settle This Argument

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Ok sorry I got you so mad. Peace.




posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Actually, he or she was. They were claiming an attack on taste as an attack on character. This implies that people with bad taste are people of bad character. They were trying to refute my accusation of bad taste, and thus, presumably, rehabilitate their reputation for good character.


Perhaps you're not familiar with the nuances in the definition of character. I find this highly suspect coming from a writer..

So let me reiterate:

the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality.

You're probably thinking of moral character, it's unfortunate that you don't seem to be aware of this distinction.

And no, I didn't say one was better than the other but please prove this by quoting me directly. That paragraph following your claim that I did say that has nothing at all to do with any such claims.

And again: if you're gonna refute someone's claims you need to justify your position, so far you haven't done anything even close to that. I have..



originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

it's not semantics or relativism

I's not about labor, quantity or detail. Simple or complex depends on what you do see, what you're able to see and what you're willing to see

What you need to see and what you want to see is taste. Knowledge and experience can change your tastes

Aesthetics is a fascinating subject

Simple is not less sophisticated. Simple can require more skill and knowledge to pull off than complex and detailed


That whole response is an exercise in relativism and semantics. "Simple or complex depends on what you do see". It doesn't get more relativistic than that. Perhaps this is true in some cases where clear distinctions aren't as obvious but in the case of Japanese art vs renaissance art it's demonstrably false. Just as false as claiming that two lines drawn on a paper is as sophisticated as the Mona Lisa.

But lets look at the definiton of sophisticated in the capacity that I have been using it: "highly developed and complex". Since this definition is obviously the one that I have been using I think it's pretty safe to say that simple actually is less sophisticated, after all this is the very definition of simple: the very opposite of highly developed and complex.

I don't doubt that you could turn this on its head in that fuzzy mind of yours though, I don't doubt that at all actually..



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

If you insist on playing the dictionary game:

Full Definition of sophisticated

1 : deprived of native or original simplicity: asa : highly complicated or developed : complex b : having a refined knowledge of the ways of the world cultivated especially through wide experience

2 : devoid of grossness: asa : finely experienced and aware b : intellectually appealing


I don't doubt that you could turn this on its head in that fuzzy mind of yours though, I don't doubt that at all actually..


... the act of denaturing or simplifying. Sophistication is in direct conflict with nature. Modern definitions include quality of refinement — displaying good taste, wisdom and subtlety rather than crudeness, stupidity and vulgarity.[1] In the perception of social class, sophistication can link with concepts such as status, privilege and superiority.[2]

Doesn't need to be turned on it's head

Why do you not want to answer a simple question?


...but in the case of Japanese art vs renaissance art it's demonstrably false. Just as false as claiming that two lines drawn on a paper is as sophisticated as the Mona Lisa.


I disagree

:-)

Your inability to explain why you think that detail is the same thing as sophistication is funny


edit on 7/25/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod


Perhaps you're not familiar with the nuances in the definition of character. I find this highly suspect coming from a writer.

Do you suspect me of pretending not to know the definition or of pretending to be a writer? Or do you just find me generally suspicious?

One way or another, that was a character attack in the classic courtroom sense. But fire away all you like, it’s fun to watch your misguided missiles sputter and fizz.


the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality.

Quite possibly. But personality is not character. You can’t attack personality; you can only criticize it.


I didn't say one was better than the other but please prove this by quoting me directly.

You seem to think I’m arguing with you. I’m not, you know.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I found a nice sophisticated picture for the OP.


The Big Picture


edit on 25/7/16 by Astyanax because: of the big picture.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Quite possibly. But personality is not character. You can’t attack personality; you can only criticize it.


Well that is one of the definitions, you're looking at the text saying character is a synonym of someone's personality going: yes but that's not personality. It is, I've quoted the definition directly now a number of times so you're clearly wrong.



You seem to think I’m arguing with you. I’m not, you know.


No I have noticed that, you're wholly incapable of backing up this questionable narrative of yours. The only dubious claim of mine is the gross overgeneralisation that postmodern art is terrible.

It's a great tactic to feign aloof superiority and disinterest when everything you've said have been demonstrated to be false. I take it as a sign of how utterly wrong you are.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You would have to ignore what I actually say to make your post credible.



But lets look at the definiton of sophisticated in the capacity that I have been using it: "highly developed and complex". Since this definition is obviously the one that I have been using I think it's pretty safe to say that simple actually is less sophisticated


So you know, either you're being disingenuous or your not conscious enough of this very important distinction. Either way you're wrong.

No, your inability to understanding simple differences is funny. Going by your relativistic line of reasoning I could argue that this smiley at the end of this sentence is the very height of sophistication.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Oh jeese you replying to me makes it personal... I dont want to be personal with you, just stated my educated opinion having studied art in college and produce it... an opinion same as everyone else has no biggie. It wasnt and wont ever be directed at you nor anyone it's a like it or not becomes no importance to the individual not oneself same as art itself... it doesn't matter eye of the beholder.

If I cared about peoples opinions I could never be an artist... 6.5 billion people 6.5 billion different opinions possible... it's either constantly self defeating and debasing or ego trip... the balance is like taking a sh-t you just get it out of your system, what anyone thinks about the act of your sh-tting is not your concern. Sure convention says try and make it in the bowl... but visit enough public toilets and you'll learn theres no guarantees.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Usually taking it personally means being offended in some sense:

"to interpret a remark as if it were mean or critical about oneself. "

That's not how I interpreted your remark.. I interpreted it as someone that missed out on certain parts of the OP or otherwise somehow misinterpreted my stance.

Why would you be surprised about me commenting on a post by someone that completely mischaracterised my position and based their response on this misunderstanding? I'm not taking it personally.. I could've ignored it but I didn't, I'm just setting the record straight. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an indictment of you.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

You're off topic... as said opinions are unimportant. If you're attached to mine or anyone else then everyone now knows your strings. Because you believe opinions hold meaning, when there's no way a singular point of view can ever hold them all as that takes experiencing each and every single point of view meaning you must lose your own and become ego-less then start experiencing everything again as it arises in each moment that it does with zero attachment... but by then there is no limited ego of attachment that makes the insignificant outside of whatever is arising as significant ever again meaning all of that differentiation of ideas and opinions are dividing lines and moot to any actual experience as it limits, stalls, and controls oneself, and then seeks to do the same with others.

How's that for psychological evaluations?

As said no interest in opinion.

Unbind



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

The OP will never forgive you for this:


You can compare art not of the same style at all...of course anyone with a background in art or education in such are going to think you're an idiot

He or she is trying to prove they have good taste because I said, in another thread, that their taste was poor.

He or she is so sensitive to criticism of their taste that they felt compelled to start a whole new thread in the hope that people would justify it for them. And there you go pointing out that they can't tell the difference between apples and oranges. No use hoping for understanding and forgiveness now!



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Awww, you're taking your ball and going home now? You sure you don't want to continue?

I don't really need to justify my taste.. but I thought it would be fun to see if you could justify your baseless claims or if your substance is nothing more than superficial condescending arrogance. You haven't been able to and that last post of yours with the picture perfectly illustrates your inability to comprehend even the most simple matter. It's sophisticated as in complex? And it's atrocious? Ok, you've managed to completely miss the point even though its been repeated numerous times. Good job, you're a writer lacking reading comprehension. Clearly this arrogance of yours is about as warranted as your description as a writer.

It's apparent you've realised you can't justify your claims though, so taking your ball and going home like this is probably your best bet. You pretend to be this rational voice of reason but you've repeatedly shown this to be a laughable farce.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Ironically your post is pretty off-topic and doesn't really have anything at all to do with my reply.

You misunderstood my OP, I corrected you. That's all, your vague philosophising has nothing to do with that. I wouldn't call it a psychological evaluation as much as I would call it a pseudo-intellectual psychobabble rant with New Age flavour. If I wanted to hear that kind of stuff I would use the New Age bull# generator.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




The OP will never forgive you for this:


Ahhh.. once again you lack judgement. That quote of yours was a reply to the assertion that one art style was superior to another. But please be even more wrong..



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Not interested in being an actor in your drama nor anyone elses.

Take care.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

In that case writing: "Oh, I didn't really notice that in the OP.. Sorry for the misunderstanding" would have served you better than telling me I'm taking something personally simply because I clarify the intent of the OP.

Ok, take care..

Bind...



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   


Modern art is.. fake..

Many art appreciaters are fake plastic people. All about image for these shallow pretentious people.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join