"
Judging the attractiveness of peacock feathers to other peacocks is outside the possible range of my experience, and since I can't tell if they're artful or not, I personally don't call them art.
you could do a test where a few male peacocks without tail feathers and one male peacock with feathers are put near a female peacock and observe which peacock she is attracted to.
|
Posted bypandasplayingon May 22, 2016, 3:14:16 PM
|
"
"
Judging the attractiveness of peacock feathers to other peacocks is outside the possible range of my experience, and since I can't tell if they're artful or not, I personally don't call them art.
you could do a test where a few male peacocks without tail feathers and one male peacock with feathers are put near a female peacock and observe which peacock she is attracted to.
That wouldn't prove that the feathers are art, merely that they are attractive. No one is saying peacock feathers aren't beautiful, we're saying that they aren't art.
Beauty =\= Art
Art can be beautiful, but not all beautiful things are art.
"I like this thing, therefor it is art." Is a ridiculous statement because eventually everything becomes art... And then what's the goddamn point of having the word at all?
Peacocks have no design process. They attractiveness is a function of instinct and biology. They are not artists.
Art is a purely human creation.
|
Posted byscale_eon May 24, 2016, 7:19:24 PM
|
"
"
"
Judging the attractiveness of peacock feathers to other peacocks is outside the possible range of my experience, and since I can't tell if they're artful or not, I personally don't call them art.
you could do a test where a few male peacocks without tail feathers and one male peacock with feathers are put near a female peacock and observe which peacock she is attracted to.
That wouldn't prove that the feathers are art, merely that they are attractive. No one is saying peacock feathers aren't beautiful, we're saying that they aren't art.
Beauty =\= Art
Art can be beautiful, but not all beautiful things are art.
"I like this thing, therefor it is art." Is a ridiculous statement because eventually everything becomes art... And then what's the goddamn point of having the word at all?
Peacocks have no design process. They attractiveness is a function of instinct and biology. They are not artists.
Art is a purely human creation.
you said art communicates. peacock tail feathers communicate.
peacock feathers are designed by their dna. can you completely prove anything you look like or do isn't the result of your dna? if not then why shouldn't the artistic work of a peacocks dna be called art like the artistic work of a humans dna is called art?
|
Posted bypandasplayingon May 26, 2016, 2:16:00 PM
|
"
"
Judging the attractiveness of peacock feathers to other peacocks is outside the possible range of my experience, and since I can't tell if they're artful or not, I personally don't call them art.
you could do a test where a few male peacocks without tail feathers and one male peacock with feathers are put near a female peacock and observe which peacock she is attracted to.
Yes, but that would be the female peacock's opinion, not mine. Do you think art has to do with one's own experience, or is it something one can just hear about? By that I mean, is it enough for you to hear that Cezanne is the best painter of the last hundred-odd years, or do you have to see his works for yourself to judge that?
builds: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1663570/
|
Posted byThatsSoGoodmanon May 26, 2016, 5:46:18 PM
|
"
"
"
Judging the attractiveness of peacock feathers to other peacocks is outside the possible range of my experience, and since I can't tell if they're artful or not, I personally don't call them art.
you could do a test where a few male peacocks without tail feathers and one male peacock with feathers are put near a female peacock and observe which peacock she is attracted to.
Yes, but that would be the female peacock's opinion, not mine. Do you think art has to do with one's own experience, or is it something one can just hear about? By that I mean, is it enough for you to hear that Cezanne is the best painter of the last hundred-odd years, or do you have to see his works for yourself to judge that?
if a female peacock considers a male peacocks feather's to be art then why don't you? why can't you accept calling a peacock feather art?
i would accept Cezanne as the best painter of the last hundred years if it was a widely accepted truth even if i never saw his work. i could have the opinion my art is the best of the last hundred years but nobody else would agree, so it wouldn't be true.
|
Posted bypandasplayingon May 27, 2016, 6:47:06 PM
|
