Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou have simply chosen what points in my argument to answer with your claims, instead of taking it on as a whole.
Sorry, but based on your post, it's pretty evident that you've yet to develop an understanding of "art".
for starters:
- one can understand art well enough to judge who's "better", just as one can with any other discipline.
- not everyone who picks up clarinet or uses markers is making art.
- not all "originality" is worthy of praise.
- ...[text shortened]... developed.
- the trained "eye" can most certainly pick out "blunders" in art.
Your first statement does not answer my question from the statement you chose to answer from, I'll leave it to you to read my post more carefully.
Second, so a young child who plays, say, chopsticks on the piano is not art simply because he's not a professional? Then what's the dividing line between who CAN make art and who "can't"? I think a lot of people would disagree with you there.
True not all originality is worthy or praise, but no originality in true art can be criticized either, it is only a matter of the creator's own tastes. Meanwhile, originality in chess can be refuted.
You fourth statement. Being able to enjoy music, for instance, is natural, or else music wouldn't have been invented in the first place.
Finally, I don't think a realist painter can go up to a abstract painter and tell him his art is "full of blunders" just because it doesn't resemble anything in the real world, so there are no "blunders" in art. Meanwhile, blundering into a mate in two (which I did today by the way, and my opponent failed to see it), is a definite mistake in chess.
Originally posted by chessisvanityNo...chess is definitely a game, we can all agree on that. Therefore, it's doesn't belong to only one category of chess, and can be expanded into other categories such as "entertainment", "profession", etc.
why can't we just say it's Chess? why do we need to catagorize it?
it can't be put in a catagory....Chess is it's own catagory.
Chess is Chess. not art ...not science....not a sport....it's Chess.
3 edits
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7If you're going to pick out something to compare to chess, you might want to know something about it. It's evident from your posts that you don't even have a basic understanding of art. Based on your posts, I'd guess your level of understanding of art to be comparable to that of an 800 chess player.
You have simply chosen what points in my argument to answer with your claims, instead of taking it on as a whole.
Your first statement does not answer my question from the statement you chose to answer from, I'll leave it to you to read my post more carefully.
Second, so a young child who plays, say, chopsticks on the piano is not art simply becaus day by the way, and my opponent failed to see it), is a definite mistake in chess.
- sorry but I can't understand what your second sentence is saying, so I won't respond to it.
- the dividing line is when one can demonstrate a deep understanding of the medium. Until then, they are merely attempting to develop such an understanding.
- much "originality" in art can and should be criticized. It's not just "a matter of the creator's own tastes."
- just because one can derive pleasure from something doesn't in any way make them qualified to judge it. A lot of people seem to enjoy the food at McDonald's, but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find a chef who would agree with their assessment.
- there definitely can be "blunders" in abstract art. The ones best able to judge are the ones who've developed the deepest understanding of abstract art. Here's a quote attributed to the composer Igor Stravinsky that seems appropriate:
"I remember being handed a score composed by Mozart at the age of eleven. What could I say? I felt like de Kooning, who was asked to comment on a certain abstract painting, and answered in the negative. He was then told it was the work of a celebrated monkey. 'That's different. For a monkey, it's terrific.' "
Your profile says you're going to college. Try investigating the arts while you're there. If you keep an open mind and are sincere in your attempts to understand them, I'm sure you'll be able to get a much deeper appreciation for it.
By the way, I'd have to agree with incandenza's assessment of Rothko.
