Norma Desmond Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p><<<<em>My argument was that the artist has the right to say, "This is my art!"</em>>>></p> <p>This is not an argument. It's self evident. And it's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying not just that the artist has a right to say this (which we all agree on) but that saying it makes the person who says it an artist.</p> <p>If, as you now claim (changing your tune in the best Mitt Romney tradition), you are merely saying that "I am an artist" is covered under our notions of free speech, that would be so utterly pointless and banal that it would be mind boggling.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_stephens Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>m - seriously? Is this some puerile game of "gotcha" on semantics or minor points?</p> </blockquote> <p>Ha ha. It's not a minor point John. It's a reversal of the entire argument. In the first case, my argument is for "sovereignty of self." Sovereignty. In your case, the artist is an authoritarian who demands control of the thoughts and opinions of others. I'd call that a "reversal" of my position. You call that a game of gotcha? Well, that's a defense mechanism isn't it? Semantics? That's not even remotely the meaning of semantics. Minor points? No, it's not a minor point, it's more or less the entire point! Switching the action of the character from "individualist" to "tyrant" is not a minor point. </p> <p>I have to make this observation. I have often said, "It isn't that hard to understand folks." And I was mocked by Fred for being condescending and suggesting people were "stupid" in Fred's words. And yet, here were are with the most authoritative voices completely unable to see the difference between sovereignty and tyranny. I'm flabbergasted. (I wondered for years if I would ever find a use for my grandfather's favorite expression of shock.)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p><<<<em>My argument was that the artist has the right to say, "This is my art!"</em>>>><br> This is not an argument. It's self evident. And it's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying not just that the artist has a right to say this (which we all agree on) but that saying it makes the person who says it an artist.<br> If, as you now claim (changing your tune in the best Mitt Romney tradition), you are merely saying that "I am an artist" is covered under our notions of free speech, that would be so utterly pointless and banal that it would be mind boggling.</p> </blockquote> <p>THAT was your argument now? LOL - there is not one person here who has said that someone has no right to say that! Say whatever you want, claim to be whatever you want (artist, astronaut, tree frog, remember?) - no-one has said that there is anything wrong with that!</p> <p>Just because someone states they're an artist I don't necessarily have to consider them to be one. Give me the same rights to my opinion as I give him and we're done. I demand nothing of anybody - claim what you want, believe what you want and if I think you're full of crap then who cares? You have totally misrepresented this whole discussion as you simply don't read what others write and are so intent on trying to score points that you can't see the forest for the trees. You need to sit back, take a deep breath, try to stop attacking every benign comment out of some knee jerk reaction and pull your head out of your ass... LOL that may have been an attack, but seriously, dude... get over yourself.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_stephens Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p><<<<em>My argument was that the artist has the right to say, "This is my art!"</em>>>><br> This is not an argument. It's self evident. And it's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying not just that the artist has a right to say this (which we all agree on) but that saying it makes the person who says it an artist.<br> If, as you now claim (changing your tune in the best Mitt Romney tradition), you are merely saying that "I am an artist" is covered under our notions of free speech, that would be so utterly pointless and banal that it would be mind boggling.</p> </blockquote> <p>Of course it makes him an artist. Just like "This is bread!" makes the maker a baker. The person who arts (verb) is an art<em>ist</em>. The person who bakes is a baker and so on. I think last night you attempted an elaborate linguistic exercise to make all this go away into some loss of rights, and undermining of product and so on. That was knocked flat, and you are back with a new variation here?</p> <p>I will admit, I don't repeat my entire argument A to Z in every rebuttal to every post. I have made the assumption - obviously being overly optimistic - that people would retain the argument when Saturday turns to Sunday. Please advise - do I need to repeat the whole argument at the beginning or end of each post I make, Fred? Would that be helpful to you? I don't mind.</p> <p>Once more, you are following that unsuccessful path of looking first for the opportunity to insult, and in distant second is the logic of the argument.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Of course it makes him an artist.</p> </blockquote> <p>And there you go... this is the crux of it. You state your opinion as fact. I don't.</p> <p>I accept his right to state that, I accept your right to believe that he is an artist just because he declares it.</p> <p>I happen to have my own opinion about what an artist is and what constitutes art. Why is that a problem for you? As I said, there are different interpretations and definitions about this very subjective subject.</p> <p>Live and let live - I'm not forcing my opinion on you and am not stating my opinion as some universal truth. Why do you not just accept that it's your perfectly valid opinion that he's an artist but that others might disagree with you and that's their right?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_stephens Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>there is not one person here who has said that someone has no right to say that!</p> </blockquote> <p>Careless again. <br> "<em>What all this is about is that artists are not artists just because they say they are.</em>" - Q.G. de Bakker - Oct 25, 2012; 03:48 p.m.<br> No, I won't go back and get the many other examples. One is sufficient here to show you error. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p>m - where does he say that they have no right to say that? He just disagrees (as I do) with the proposition. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p>John: <em>"there is not one person here who has said that someone has no right to say that!"</em></p> <p>M: quoting QG <em>"What all this is about is that artists are not artists just because they say they are."</em></p> <p>M, you just lied, as you've done throughout the thread. Implying QG said someone didn't have a right to say they were an artist. That's a bald-faced lie (hyperbole intended). He did not say or imply that. He said that saying something doesn't make it so. He never questioned anyone's right to speak. Pants on fire!</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p>This is why I suspect trolling. First, after days of arguing one thing, a troll will often try to make it sound as if she's arguing something else, often to get confused about what exactly was being argued to begin with because the argument is secondary to inflaming the group. Second, a troll will continue trying to inflame, and blatantly lying about what someone in the room said, whose words can obviously be read for themselves to correct the lie, obviously accomplishes more inflammation. No knowledge. Just a guess. Freedom of speech.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_stephens Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>You need to sit back, take a deep breath, try to stop attacking every benign comment out of some knee jerk reaction and <strong>pull your head out of your ass.</strong>.. LOL that may have been an attack, but seriously, dude... get over yourself.</p> </blockquote> <p>And to think, just a few minutes ago you were concerned that an exercise in reason was "puerile." What's next? Are you going to tell me to go f*ck myself, John? Where's your bottom line John? Are you going to tell me my mother must have been a whore? What part of the sewer line do you stop at? You've got the manhole cover off, you are half way down the ladder, you can see Fred down there swimming it it, why not just jump in with him and go for it all? I think that veneer of respectability is peeling here, isn't it? I am quite sure you've no interest in my advice, but it's a one way trip John. You don't regain your mature status as a credible witness on anything once you get in the sewer. That stench follows wherever you go. It's one thing to issue imperious dictates, it can even be humorous, but slinging feces with Fred? Your credibility falls to zero.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p>Now, in terms of solipsism and lack of empathy, this is kind of funny.</p> <p><<<<em>You left once exclaiming you could not ever waste time on such twaddle (At least I think that was you. There have been so many people leaving in a huff, only to come back and huff some more, that it is hard to track the revolving door.)</em>>>></p> <p>All because of you, M!</p> <p>But the solipsism/lack of empathy/don't have a clue part is this. Not that long ago, M declared he would no longer respond to me and no longer respond to Jeff, and it didn't pertain just to that thread. You see how well he stuck to that, much like the rest of us. I don't have the inclination to go find the quote. So it turns out M is just one of the guys (and gals, or as Allen likes to jest, queens, sweetheart that he is). An autocratic solipsist's worst nightmare. There is an external agency out there and YOU are part of it. Key the <em>Twilight Zone</em> music.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p><<<<em>Are you going to tell me to go f*ck myself, John?</em>>>></p> <p>LOL. Spoken like a true solipsist. :-)</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>You need to sit back, take a deep breath, try to stop attacking every benign comment out of some knee jerk reaction and <strong>pull your head out of your ass.</strong>.. LOL that may have been an attack, but seriously, dude... get over yourself.</p> </blockquote> <p>Said with a smile m - I totally stand by it LOL. You're being ridiculous, you have changed your position endlessly, been proven wrong time and again, misrepresented everyone's positions and it's just silly at this point. Game, set and match.</p> <p>Just accept that everyone has the right to their opinion, that your opinion does not represent some universal truth and we're done!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_stephens Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Said with a smile m - I totally stand by it LOL. You're being ridiculous, you have changed your position endlessly, been proven wrong time and again, misrepresented everyone's positions and it's just silly at this point. Game, set and match.<br> Just accept that everyone has the right to their opinion, that your opinion does not represent some universal truth and we're done!</p> </blockquote> <p>Progress. You've stepped back from the brink of jumping into the sewer with Fred, and I think that is a wise move. The rest of your post is a straw man. I've never argued that people can't have their own opinions, I have simply argued with those who argued with me. That's pretty much what these threads are. Post, counter-post, rinse, repeat. If you don't enjoy the process, stop doing it. I don't write the rebutting posts - - the other posters do. Maybe you are making the old argument that you have some special right to the last word? Is that what this new complaint is?</p> <p>Does my position represent a universal truth? Yes, of course I think it does. If I posit that something is a universal truth, it doesn't mean I am insisting others adopt it. I am expressing it, people can accept or reject it at their choice. What mostly is happening is that not only are they not accepting it, they want to argue with me about it. When they do, I have chosen to argue back. So what</p> <p>Here again, this is an old worn out dynamic. When a party can't come up with a reasonable argument in the case at hand, they shift gears up to a meta argument <em>about the argument</em>, and make the case that a poster had no right or no business making such an argument, that was after all, "<em>only an opinion</em>" (I also love that one.)</p> <p>If it's "only an opinion", and you don't like doing what you are doing, can't you just stop doing it?</p> <p>P.S. Either way, you really do look much better without all the raw sewage hanging off you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_stephens Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p><strong>Misused Word of the Day:</strong> <em>Solopsist</em></p> <p><strong>Yesterdays Big Pretentious Failure</strong>: <em>Indexical</em></p> <p><strong>Big Failed Idea Before Yesterday:</strong> Go read all these philosophy books before talking to me about dichotomy!</p> <p>Go ahead Fred, explain how "solopsist" fits into the discussion here. Show your <em>jazzy</em> philosopher chops like you did with "indexical" and "dichotomy."</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p>"Progress"? Spare me the condescension. Where have I said I don't like what I'm doing? What on earth are you talking about?</p> <p>By the way, there is no "raw sewage" hanging off anyone here that I can see - not me, not Fred, no-one. You are the one who likes to decide what is and what is not acceptable, in forums as in art.... seriously, lighten up.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_stephens Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>But the solipsism/lack of empathy/don't have a clue part is this. Not that long ago, M declared he would no longer respond to me and no longer respond to Jeff, and it didn't pertain just to that thread. You see how well he stuck to that, much like the rest of us. I don't have the inclination to go find the quote. So it turns out M is just one of the guys (and gals, or as Allen likes to jest, queens, sweetheart that he is). An autocratic solipsist's worst nightmare. There is an external agency out there and YOU are part of it. Key the <em>Twilight Zone</em> music.</p> </blockquote> <p>I want to thank you for this reminder. I think it was several months back - maybe in the spring? I found that you, and I guess it was "Jeff" (not sure) - maybe even a few others - were hostile unrepentant feces slingers, And I did in fact, refrain from paying any attention to you at all. I am afraid after being absent for a few months I did get suckered back in to answering you. I guess it was my passion for the subject that got the better of me. I really ought to stiffen my resolve, as it has only gotten worse since then.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 <p>Folks,</p> <p>This is an interesting discussion spoiled by a bunch of personal attacks, insults and childish whining. </p> <p>I'm sure the topic will come up again, it's a pretty common one over the years. But for now, this one is done.</p> <p>Please, if you can't argue without resorting to personal attacks, then don't argue. Or don't argue here on photo.net. 4chan loves that sort of thing, head over there.</p> <p>Thread closed. I'm going fishing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now