4 ms·

Later in the article, he says one of the hallmarks of art is that it is a celebration of the ineffable. Your objection seems to be that his definition of art is

Later in the article, he says one of the hallmarks of art is that it is a celebration of the ineffable. Your objection seems to be that his definition of art is not sufficiently mathematical to be sensible to you. This tells me that you are more interested in reasoning about art than appreciating it. Well, ... I'm glad you enjoy math more than art. But I don't think that art needs to bow down to math by confining itself to a definition that fits your criteria.

ouid 10y ago
my objection is that his definition of art appears in no part of this essay. I don't need it to be "mathematical", I just need it to exist. As for the claim that I am more interested in reasoning about art than appreciating it. Do you actually think priorities are exclusive like that? May I not both reason and appreciate? Is this not an essay which itself attempts to reason about art, should I not appeal to that in a response to the article? The argument you make against my response to the article could be equally applied to the article itself, yet you take the author's side, which seems dishonest to me.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Various definitions for types of art follow in the latter half of the article. Discussions on kitsch, sublime, great, etc. Which is essential to be able to put the whole thing into context, seems to be what you want. It's right there.
- fusiongyro 10y ago
  > my objection is that his definition of art appears in no part of this essay. I don't need it to be "mathematical", I just need it to exist. Yes, you need everything you read to be structured like a mathematical argument, so you can pick it apart. So you need a definition followed by proofs. You're annoyed that every article doesn't have this structure, especially argumentative articles like this one. You are acting as a natural language proof checker, not a person. > Do you actually think priorities are exclusive like that? May I not both reason and appreciate? I think if you bail out after a few minutes on an article for failing to supply you with the structure you demand, then yes, your priorities are basically exclusive. Now, I don't have a proof in hand for that, which I'm sure you'll fixate on. > The argument you make against my response to the article could be equally applied to the article itself, yet you take the author's side, which seems dishonest to me. I value articles over comments, especially obnoxious, entitled comments. I am not here to merely compile text and type check it. The accusation of "dishonesty" only reinforces that you are more interested in the structure of what is being said than what the words are saying. The accusation itself, what a preposterous idea, that there are some rigid rules about what I read and how I choose to respond to it which you can apply to me and constrain me with. Do you think you could berate me into agreeing with you?
  - ouid 10y ago
    Is anger the only thing of substance that you have to contribute?

ouid 10y ago

my objection is that his definition of art appears in no part of this essay. I don't need it to be "mathematical", I just need it to exist. As for the claim that I am more interested in reasoning about art than appreciating it. Do you actually think priorities are exclusive like that? May I not both reason and appreciate? Is this not an essay which itself attempts to reason about art, should I not appeal to that in a response to the article? The argument you make against my response to the article could be equally applied to the article itself, yet you take the author's side, which seems dishonest to me.

Jtsummers 10y ago
Various definitions for types of art follow in the latter half of the article. Discussions on kitsch, sublime, great, etc. Which is essential to be able to put the whole thing into context, seems to be what you want. It's right there.
fusiongyro 10y ago
> my objection is that his definition of art appears in no part of this essay. I don't need it to be "mathematical", I just need it to exist. Yes, you need everything you read to be structured like a mathematical argument, so you can pick it apart. So you need a definition followed by proofs. You're annoyed that every article doesn't have this structure, especially argumentative articles like this one. You are acting as a natural language proof checker, not a person. > Do you actually think priorities are exclusive like that? May I not both reason and appreciate? I think if you bail out after a few minutes on an article for failing to supply you with the structure you demand, then yes, your priorities are basically exclusive. Now, I don't have a proof in hand for that, which I'm sure you'll fixate on. > The argument you make against my response to the article could be equally applied to the article itself, yet you take the author's side, which seems dishonest to me. I value articles over comments, especially obnoxious, entitled comments. I am not here to merely compile text and type check it. The accusation of "dishonesty" only reinforces that you are more interested in the structure of what is being said than what the words are saying. The accusation itself, what a preposterous idea, that there are some rigid rules about what I read and how I choose to respond to it which you can apply to me and constrain me with. Do you think you could berate me into agreeing with you?
- ouid 10y ago
  Is anger the only thing of substance that you have to contribute?