puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 7971 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
No no, bullshit, a lot of bullshit. There is a limited difference.
Voto:
<<<to an infinite set of numbers you can remove as many numbers as you want: it always remains infinite>>> The fact that it is "an infinite set of numbers" was decided entirely by you; you keep reasoning and explaining the examples that should clarify the concept, resulting in explaining the examples, but you haven’t really explained the concept. The point is, as I said above, just one: are you truly convinced that art is not those things? And if so, why?
Voto:
No no, I really can’t stand the fact that you claim to apply discussions about the cardinality of numbers to art. I detest this phrase: <<< Art does not marry either with banality, or with fanaticism, or with the inappropriate use of grammar. >>> Because those words carry the presumption of attempting to canonize and box up what cannot be canonized and should never be, since closing off certain avenues would mean making it die. Then you can twist my words and apply them to any examples you want, but it’s just changing the subject; the real point is: do you really believe what you wrote above? If the answer is yes, I think you're seriously mistaken; if the answer is "no, I was just messing around," then that’s completely normal and understandable.
Voto:
Alright, let's go word by word: "Infinite except..." means nothing. Art is "everything," not "everything except" as you say. By adding an except, you’ve limited it. You were right when you said, "how can one limit the infinite?" Exactly, you can't, it’s impossible, and you really went overboard with that one.
Voto:
But there is no change, the discussion was only about the restricted canons of art that Aeneas wants to impose on us, which I don't consider real. That he doesn't like the review or the record is certainly neither a problem nor a reason for discussion to me.
Voto:
And then, you keep wanting to define your concepts about an abstract idea like art using physically contextualizable and limitable examples like the moon, QOTSA, punk. We’re not talking about how good a band is; just a moment ago, you had the audacity to impose fixed standards on art. You really went overboard; it's not your usual "Bennato is worth 4," today you really shot for the stars.
Voto:
What? Come on, don't talk absolute nonsense. Just above, by saying what it isn't, you have automatically limited art by stating what it cannot be, and those are limits. You have also automatically defined what it is, since by adding that it is infinite things, it follows from your ramblings that it is "infinite things except for banality, fanaticism, the inappropriate use of grammar." So you have defined, limited, boxed it in, and I reiterate that in my opinion you’re in pretty bad shape.
Voto:
Indeed, by not deciding what art is, you just did the exact opposite a moment ago, saying what art is not, which amounts to saying by exclusion what art is. So don't say indeed, given that you did the exact contrary just a few lines above. Don't talk nonsense, come on, the ugly thing is that you really believe it.
Voto:
<<< In denying that art can have certain standards, I do not limit it. >>> Yes, you limit it, you box it up and set certain points. The moon can be physically contextualized, art cannot. You cannot decide how art is, neither can anyone else. Setting fixed points means delimiting or limiting. There are no physical limits on which to base your grandmother's theories of truth, only unbound limitations in which to roam... if one has the faculties, of course. Those who do not: box it up, delimit it, pile it up.
Voto:
I haven’t shifted any examples, nor have I pretended to do so; I used an example to express my disappointment stemming from your axioms about art that you so cheerfully bestowed upon us, which is quite sad since confining art to axioms is truly unfortunate. To put something uncontainable into an axiomatic box fashioned in the likeness of Aeneas is anything but keeping your feet on the ground. Theoretically, it would be to float, but you don’t float because you don’t grasp the healing sense of it, so you’re delusional. Yet that is still a form of art in itself; indeed, I must say I prefer you in a delirious state.