-->
@Castin
Okay now I can't look at it without wanting to laugh.
Me neither, we've turned what Bully meant for an assault into a laugh, I like that.
Art as Proof
Posts
Total:
48
Where are her eyebrows? Did the paint erode? Did a bird carry them away? Did the thief who stole the painting just never give them back?
Plot twist: she didn't have eyebrows at the time she was painted. Twas caused by a freak accident involving a goat 🤔
On a more serious note, i can kinda see Drafters point. To say there is a painting does not necessarily mean there is a painter involved. Whether or not something is a "painting" comes down to the person observing.
For example I'd have a hard time classifying someone who accidentally spilled paint on a canvas as a "painter" because painting to me implies the intent to create a piece of art with paint. There is a message of some sort, or emotion(technically a message too, no?), basically, something is intentionally trying to be conveyed.
Without that intent, fmpov you have what could potentially be considered a painting, without an actual "painter". Being honest though, this isn't a topic ive given much deep thought on, so my perspective is likely erroneous to a certain degree
-->
@Castin
-->
@Buddamoose
I doubt many people have looked up 'painting' in a dictionary yet we are all happy to identify certain objects as 'paintings'.
Because we have learned the meaining of 'painting' through an informal process (I can't remember learning what the term 'a painting' refered to) chances are we may slightly disagree what is and what is not a painting, especially in marginal cases.
I suspect that many people's 'informal definition' of 'a painting' implies something consciously and skillfully produced by a 'painter' or 'painters'. In that case the existence of a painting implies a painter by virtue of the implicit definition of 'painting' in use.
But someone could have the informal definition of 'a painting' as 'any arrangement of paint on a surface', in which case an accidental paint spill would count as 'a painting'.
I suspect that many people's 'informal definition' of 'a painting' implies something consciously and skillfully produced by a 'painter' or 'painters'. In that case the existence of a painting implies a painter by virtue of the implicit definition of 'painting' in use.But someone could have the informal definition of 'a painting' as 'any arrangement of paint on a surface', in which case an accidental paint spill would count as 'a painting'.
This seems accurate, so generally "thats a painting and someone painted it" would be a tautology, but whether or not it is one depends upon how "painting" is defined 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Exactly. There is no single definition of what 'a painting' includes and excludes and it is up to dictionary writers what they put in their books. The precise wording can make all the difference for new and unusual cases that turn up, such a Jackson Pollock opus.
I'm not a Pollock fan, so while I might concede he was a 'painter' who did 'paintings' I do so begrudgingly!
We can focus on the things(painter/painting), or the ideas.
For example, once we decide on what is a painting, we can immediately get bogged down "on what is a painter?" Must he be human? Sentient? Deliberate?
The idea behind the simple statement is that paint placed on a surface in such a way that elicits ideas of the real world in viewers implies a deliberate act by a conscious person.
Questions about the definition of a painting are retreats to semantics. I visited MOMA in 2012 and nowhere did they have or need a definition of a painting.
The statement is referring to the relationship between a painter and a painting, not the painting or painter themselves. This relationship transcends the physical things, so that it works for mother/child, design/designer, creation/creator, or even more abstract relationships as, sound/sound maker.
To debate what constitutes a sound when you hear footsteps at 3 am in a house in which you're supposed to be alone, is to miss the implication completely.
To debate what constitutes a sound when you hear footsteps at 3 am in a house in which you're supposed to be alone, is to miss the implication completely.
I think the debate would be whether you heard a sound at all(as its possible to hear a sound, without any sound actually being produced), as the question of painting/painter would be, "is it even a painting?"
If yes, there is probably a painter
If no, there probably isn't one
Was there a sound?
If yes, there is a sound maker
If no, there isnt.
But the former is "probably" the latter is a concrete is/isnt. To say "this is a painting and therefore there is a painter" requires direct knowledge of whether or not said painting was deliberately and intentionally created. But, what if it wasnt? What if say, some of Pollock's pieces were him just throwing paint on a canvas, asking someone to look at it and tell them what comes to mind, and going, "yeah, lets go with that interpretation" 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
You are right, but that doesn't invalidate the principle see? The principle remains valid even when we don't know if it really is a painting or not.
-->
@Buddamoose
We could try to settle is this is this a "painting" and if Pollock is a "painter".
"Pollock dripped black enamel paint onto the surface..."
You could be tempted to call it a 'dripping' and Pollock a "dripper".
Pollock dripped black enamel paint onto the surface..."
Sure, its not the dripping of paint, its the intent of that dripping 🤔
The principle remains valid even when we don't know if it really is a painting or not.
True, probability would have one assume, unless knowledge otherwise indicates, that a "painting" has a "painter". The pursuit of knowledge is often not a matter of conclusive truth, but rather, likely truth that you operate as if it's true, so as to not be plagued by uncertainty that tends to be conducive to a lack of action.
Occams Razor is exemplary imho in illustrating the aspect of probability in the pursuit of truth 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Sure, its not the dripping of paint, its the intent of that dripping 🤔
The intent? To hide the fact he couldn't draw for toffee, I should think.
-->
@keithprosser
Uh, no, Budda covered this, it was a goat related freak accident.
251 days later
REEEEE
REEEEE
120 days later
No