[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

if you have a non abstract definitive art definition then fire away...

I don't. There is no definition. That's ... the point. Why don't you answer the questions in my post like a good man. What's wrong, reverting to something else again?

Why isn't that picture Arista posted art in your eyes?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

I don't. There is no definition. That's ... the point. Why don't you answer the questions in my post like a good man. What's wrong, reverting to something else again?

Why isn't that picture Arista posted art in your eyes?

The art referred to in post one is art that costs money. Arista's pics are free just like a child's drawing on a fridge or graffiti. and the good man thing is not a good look for one trying to look cool.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The art referred to in post one is art that costs money. Arista's pics are free just like a child's drawing on a fridge or graffiti. and the good man thing is not a good look for one trying to look cool.

So art can be defined based on it being free or not?

Your having a laugh, right?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

So art can be defined based on it being free or not?

Your having a laugh, right?

if you read the first post rather than jump in midway thinking that you are Tibbs's answer to the Milky Bar Kid you will see that I am not defining art i am suggesting that 99% of it (and dont forget poetry) is crap.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

if you read the first post rather than jump in midway thinking that you are Tibbs's answer to the Milky Bar Kid you will see that I am not defining art i am suggesting that 99% of it (and dont forget poetry) is crap.

Nice try.

You said Arista's picture is not art. I wondered why. You stated eventually, after I had to beat it out of you, that it is not art because it is free. It is this notion which I am currently questioning. This notion which you are again avoiding by trying to alter the subject.

So the painting of the yellow lines on the wall is not art because it is free? What a fascinating concept.

Would a painting you consider to be fine art suddenly loose it's artistic merit if it was devalued and given to you for free?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

Nice try.

You said Arista's picture is not art. I wondered why. You stated eventually, after I had to beat it out of you, that it is not art because it is free. It is this notion which I am currently questioning. This notion which you are again avoiding by trying to alter the subject.

So the painting of the yellow lines on the wall is not art because it is free? What a fascinating concept.

Would a painting you consider to be fine art suddenly loose it's artistic merit if it was devalued and given to you for free?

Arista's painting is not art in the sense of this thread it is a cleaver picture on a wall in the street. had the thread been what is art then yes you have a point but it is not.

99% of Modern Art and Poetry is crap
or would you put the percentage higher?

so higher or lower?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Arista's painting is not art in the sense of this thread it is a cleaver picture on a wall in the street. had the thread been what is art then yes you have a point but it is not.

99% of Modern Art and Poetry is crap
or would you put the percentage higher?

so higher or lower?

Art in the sense of this thread? Stop dodging the point. You outright said the picture was not art. You then went on to explain how it is not art because it is free. You have now backed yourself into a corner and only now are you starting to mention how none of this is, in fact, within the context of the thread.

If this thread is not about what is art, then you should not have said the picture is not art in the first place.