One good turn... (300KB+ JPG)

[BloodtypeG4+]

I don't flame, i point out the illogical, thankyou.

Yes, and there is a big number of other useless things - plastic garden gnomes for example. They are purely decorative, but not art.

Says you, and i agree on gnomes, but i won't go there.
Aside from what constitutes art, you missed my point. There's nothing that says a poster, or anything else must be useful.

Posters can be useful. That depends on what is on the poster. And although I don't find this poster to be particularly hideous, I cannot find a use for it - something like an art substitute for the poor.

Wha? It's not useful so it's an art substitute? Art itself is not useful, or i should say 'utilitarian'. My point was that decorative things aren't required to be useful beyond being decorative.

If so, why not state as much?!

Because throwing one's money away on something useless is IMNSHO dumb.

You talk (write) in bewildering circles. I ask why you don't just say what you mean, and as an answer you say because.... and then say what you originally meant! Aggravating. It doesn't answer my question, but at least finally, you did say what you really should have said in the first place which would have made sense and i would not have questioned it.

You think spending money on useless things is dumb.

Fine. I only got into this because the way you originally stated it, you essentially said it as if in your opinion it's some kind of scientific fact.

You like darwinia, someone else might like used toilet paper. Just tell me, what for is it useful? Exept watching at - the only thing you can't see is radiation and gases.

There's another one of those silly statements like you began with. First it's misstated because you're really asking what toilet paper is usefull for, and that's pretty obvious. I believe you meant to ask, what is the darwinia [poster] useful for? I can only say again that nothing says a poster must be useful so no answer is required.

Is there some great cosmic force or law of physics in your universe which dictates that a poster must be useful?

Anything money can be made on, will be used. Made. Created. Sold.

Um. Very likely. That doesn't answer my question at all.

Art can decorate. A piece of paper, copied a milion of times is no art...

Whoooo!
There you go again. It's strictly an opinion, and you're stating it like fact. Virtually all of the art world and a fair number of the rest would disagree with you when artwork is obviously what is copied onto that paper. I think the millions of people who buy "art prints", from posters to signed and numbered lithographs, generally consider themselves to be buying art. If what you said is the case, then only an original work is art.

That contradicts your professed ideas about only useful things having worth, How is an original painting more useful than lithographed copy #1085 out of a run of 4000?


I know. It's all beating a dead horse at this point, but i find it interesting seeing how people's minds work... or why they don't.

I don't suppose English is not your native language, by any chance?
No offense intended. I just ask because you sometimes don't seem to be writing quite what you intend.



-------------------------------
Hmm. Another post.

If IV would get money on selling used toilet paper, they would be doing that.

Quite unlikely. It's not their line.

Since they can get money on posters, they will make them. I cannot order IV to stop producing posters (yes, I know they are produced in a factory somewhere).

That goes without saying except for one part. You're contradicting yourself on the usefulness issue yet again. They choose to print posters because that's what will satisfy customers and promote their product. That is their use.

I'm happy in a cynical sort of way that my predicition has come true, in one week.

Do you even know why the poster has disappeared?

I don't.
But it's being gone as per your prediction doesn't validate your assumption as to why it is gone. I find it interesting how many people are prone to believe broad unsubstantiated assumptions. Michael Moore-on's success relies upon it.

The Darwinia pic could be gone because the run was short on account of the company being small. Maybe they wanted to start with a small investment and see if it was popular. Maybe capitol for a larger run wasn't available. Perhaps it was very popular and sold out rapidly. Perhaps they made a limited number, knowing that they would have better screenshots to use for posters down the line. There could be any number of reasons.

But here you are with your statement that the poster is useless junk (which is no more true for this poster than jillions of others); and when the poster goes away, you are assuming your prediction based on your opinion is indeed the reason it is no longer around.

I find that kind of irational thinking very peculiar. {of course, if you've some actual information the poster was unpopular, that's quite another matter, that being the ONLY case where your assumptions would be born out.

BTW, you made another broad assumption which doesn't fly without additional evidence. The short amount of time between your making the prediction, and when it came true, does nothing to prove that your reasons for making the prediction were correct. That would only be the case if you had also predicted the time frame. I can even go so far as to predict the sun will die sooner or later. Those 3 words make the success of my prediction a virtual certainty.


-- The preceding compulsively lengthy post was not a flame. It was a part of a debate and investigation. (for me anyway) --

If i become a beta tester for Mac Darwinia, i'll have much less time and more important things to gripe about here.

[chemman]

Well maybe I'll suprise you, but I'm too tired to write a decent reply. Maybe later.

And one request - don't write kilometer long essays, will you? Try to put a few arguments in a limited amount of space, but a few good arguments, not a truckload of watered down copies of the same. Not that your post was that bad - that was an example.


I wrote:

those posters are utterly useless, worthless junk.

Bloodtypesomething wrote:

Wha? It's not useful so it's an art substitute? Art itself is not useful, or i should say 'utilitarian'. My point was that decorative things aren't required to be useful beyond being decorative.

And that's it. All I wanted to say that the poster is useless, and in the end, you agree to that. I, personally, don't consider this art. And since it is neither art, which has no function, nor something useful, which has a function, this is junk. There is no reason for me to buy junk.

Thank you.

[NeoThermic]

I, personally, don't consider this art. And since it is neither art, which has no function, nor something useful, which has a function, this is junk.

The first half is an opinion. The latter part is you foring your opinion about. Art, quite like beauty and quailty is all subjective to the user. YOU might not see it as art, but to someone else it is.

Its like quality... you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But that's self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There's nothing to talk about.... But for all practical purposes it really does exist.... Obviously some things are better than others -- but what's the ``betterness''? So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it? **

Just please remember how to give your opinion. Don't tout it like fact.

NeoThermic

(** The questions asked in this paragraph are rethorical. They have no answer and need no answer)

[chemman]

Sure, I simply don't like saying "but that's only my opinion, it might be untrue or different from yours" every sentence; at least that's my opinion, it might be untrue or different from yours.

Or so I think, but nevertheless, it is only my standpoint.

I'm too lazy to write that. But thanks for pointing it out.

Quality is a degree or grade of excellence or worth, I suppose. =]

[BloodtypeG4+]

Sure, I simply don't like saying "but that's only my opinion, it might be untrue or different from yours" every sentence;

Beeeeeeautiful! Now you answer my original complaint and thank someone else for pointing it out.

My original objection to your statement was that you were stating your opinion like fact. Along the way i even covered the fact that you didn't need to specifically say everything was your opinion.

I suggested you just say what you mean and do it clearly.

---

[Iwudacus]

Sheesh....


Anyhoo, Slayer, I hope you get that poster back, and get it back up where it belongs. Swift retribution to the oppressors who removed it (unless it did get stolen by someone who really liked it, because then it would be a good thing in a way. You would have touched someone deeply enough to nab it)

[BloodtypeG4+]

And one request - don't write kilometer long essays, will you? yada yada

I can only honor the request if you keep your posts sensible, i'm afraid. How can i stay on topic and be concise when you keep adding screwy statements to the mix where you contradict yourself and missinterpret me. If i'm repetitive, it's because you repeatedly miss my point.

---

And that's it. All I wanted to say that the poster is useless, and in the end, you agree to that.

WHAT?!
Are you delusional?
In NO way whatsoever did i agree in the end that the poster is either useless or junk.

Have you ever taken a reading comprehension test?

And what's with putting your original question deceptively followed by my response to something entirely different!
You work for Michael Moore or something?

I, personally, don't consider this art. And since it is neither art, which has no function, nor something useful, which has a function, this is junk. There is no reason for me to buy junk.

A miracle? He makes a coherent, clear, unambiguous set of statements!

But i think you'd have a tough time finding somebody in the art-world who would agree that it doesn't qualify as art.

It's something creative for display. What else is required?

And there's a slight puzzlement left. You now admit art has no function, and in a context where you indicate that it would make it a valid purchase, yet you said buying useless things was dumb.


Well, that concludes this flap. I'm ready to do some beta testing.
And there's only 4274 others in the running.

[chemman]

The conclusion is:

There is no anwser to that. To one person, it might be junk, to another, art. That is purely subjective, and as an old motto said, gusta non discusta.

I'm satisfied with such an anwser. Hope you are as well.