False equivalency.
Communicating “art” is different today.
Next.
How is it a false equivalency? And what do you mean by the following?
4 Likes
Much like how I moved on when I was given a zero in my old Orthodox community–for insisting that the world was older than 5752 years old.
I moved on, and moved out, and am much happier now, having learned that lesson.
21 Likes
I don’t think you can compare Norman Rockwell’s selfies, or Rembrandt’s selfies to today’s ubiquitous pursed-lips-look-with-genitals…
“Art” was transmitted by donkey back then, while today, we send pics of dicks as art via packets on glass, hell, my cyber-pic is ‘art’ I made once and uploaded to the intarwebs. You did too.
Rembrandt uploaded shit. Rockwell sold magazine covers. False equivalency, look it up.
Art is different today.
I just made some, and so did you…
1 Like
Life isn’t a zero sum game.
1 Like
I am familiar with the concept of a false equivalency, but as i am not saying that every selfie is art i am not setting up a false equivalency. I am not claiming equivalence at all. To do so would be to claim that all selfies are art (and perhaps even to claim all art is selfies). I did not do this.
You claimed (or implied, actually) that if a thing can be classified as a selfie, then it cannot be classified as art. I gave you several examples of artists having made art that can be reasonably classified as selfies. One that can be so classified even if we consider questions such as medium or purpose as intrinsic to the concept of “selfie”. So the set consisting of all things that are art* and the set consisting of all selfies have, i claim, non-empty intersection. Id est, there are selfies that are art.
It’s worth noting where, societally, much of the selfie-hate seems to come from. In order to answer this, answer for yourselves the question: Which groups are the primary users of the trend?
Finally, art is different everyday. So what?
* and, to avoid paradox, are not sets defined in terms of this set
10 Likes
I’m not sure her motivations for attending BYU are relevant. It sounds a lot like victim blaming.
5 Likes
Duly noted and admired.
P.S. Everyone is art waiting to happen.
I know. It’s possible to drag ourselves upwards, despite those that look back down and see a Golden Age in the past.
5 Likes
Up being a matter of perspective and presentism is as much a mind trap as said “golden age” thinking.
Mormon porn is actually a thing now. Not that the models are Mormon or anything (I imagine), but I read somewhere (maybe on BB) that there’s a whole slew of pornsites with names like “hotmormongirls.whatever-domain-you-use-to-advertise-hot-mormon-girls”
4 Likes
“up” is a universally understood state of being human, and perspective is a matter of ambulation, not being.
1 Like
Uh, you forgot to drop the mic after that.
3 Likes
That’s my line…
P.S. All my shit gets stolen. The price of being ‘it’…
Thank you kindly.
3 Likes
I know. But when I see people being hypocritical in pining for a golden age of Yiddishkeit that never existed outside of musicals, while at the same time taking full advantage of the material benefits of the present day… I gotta call it for what I see it.
And I did.
And then I had to leave.
11 Likes
I hipe thats sarcasm. Because I don’t think she is a victim of anything other than what she should have expected. Its BYU, one of the most conservative and religious institutions of higher eduction.
BYU: To underwear.
1 Like
Not at all. We have no knowledge of the circumstances that led her to attend BYU. Should this professor be immune from having his conservatism mocked because he teaches at BYU? It’s one thing to be conservative, it is fully another to be intolerant of artwork that would be considered anodyne at virtually every other university in the country. Could she reasonably expect that “dress codes” would be applied to her artwork?
6 Likes
