Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wrecan" data-source="post: 5646933" data-attributes="member: 64825">No, he has taken &quot;art&quot; and further divided it into &quot;art&quot; and &quot;craft&quot;.You didn't have to do that the first time.&nbsp; I don't have a problem with &quot;intent&quot; being a part of the definition of art, but rather &quot;intent to create art&quot;.Nothing you quoted requires the intention to be to create art. It merely requires that the act that results in art be intentionally taken.&nbsp; D&amp;D is a sries of intentional acts and thus fulfills the requirement of &quot;intent&quot;.&nbsp; You keep adding an additional requirement -- that it be an &quot;intent to create art&quot;, which you never substantiate.No, you're not supplying any &quot;out there&quot;.&nbsp; None of the websites you cited -- except for the one by a blogger who admits she's not educated in art -- require an &quot;intent to create art&quot;.&nbsp; Consider: intent is part of the crime murder. You can commit a homicide without it being murder.&nbsp; What is the level of intent?&nbsp; The intent to do grievous harm or kill a human.&nbsp; So, the crime of murder is...the killing of a human with the intent to grievously harm or kill a human.</blockquote>Murder is specifically defined that way.&nbsp; Moreover, the intent of muirder is not &quot;the intent to commit murder&quot;, but &quot;the intent to harm or kill&quot;.&nbsp; So the definition of murder, unlike your proposed definition of art, is not circular.&nbsp; If your definition of art was &quot;creating something with the intent to create something that resonates emotionally with the audience&quot;, we'd have a working definitiong.&nbsp; If your definition of &quot;art&quot; was 'creatiing something with the intent to create something emotionally resonant with the artist&quot;, we'd have a non-circular definition.&nbsp; If your definition of &quot;art&quot; was &quot;creating something that a significant number of art critics accept as art&quot; we'd have a non-circular definition. But &quot;art&quot; defined as &quot;that which is created with the intent to create art&quot; is inherently circular.&nbsp; There's no way to know what, if anything, meets or does not meet this definition without going outside the definition for a meaning of &quot;art&quot;.If you're teachers felt that way they mysteriously neglected to put it down in any citable means, since the stuff you keep citing do not say that.No.&nbsp; i am saying that you haven't established that anybody other than you and the uninformed blogger believe that &quot;an intent to create art&quot; is a definition of art, and I'm saying that defining art as something created with &quot;an intent to create art&quot; is inherently circular and useless as a definition.As I already said, if D&amp;D is art, then intending to play D&amp;D is intending to create art.&nbsp; If D&amp;D is not art then intending to play D&amp;D is not intending to create art.&nbsp; Whether D&amp;D constitutes art under your definition depends on how you define &quot;art&quot;, which say cannot be defined.&nbsp; Which means you cannot say D&amp;D is or is not art.&nbsp; And yet you keep saying that you have seen D&amp;D that is not art.&nbsp; Even if your denial is conditioned on the fact that maybe one day you'll see D&amp;D that is art, your denial is inconsistent with your stated definition.I will stop... as soon as you actually supply a definition for &quot;art&quot; that includes &quot;an intent to make art&quot; within it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="wrecan, post: 5646933, member: 64825"] No, he has taken "art" and further divided it into "art" and "craft". You didn't have to do that the first time. I don't have a problem with "intent" being a part of the definition of art, but rather "intent [B]to create art[/B]". Nothing you quoted requires the intention to be to create art. It merely requires that the act that results in art be intentionally taken. D&D is a sries of intentional acts and thus fulfills the requirement of "intent". You keep adding an additional requirement -- that it be an "intent to create art", which you never substantiate. No, you're not supplying any "out there". None of the websites you cited -- except for the one by a blogger who admits she's not educated in art -- require an "intent to create art". Consider: intent is part of the crime [B]murder[/B]. You can commit a homicide without it being murder. What is the level of intent? The intent to do grievous harm or kill a human. So, the crime of murder is...the killing of a human with the intent to grievously harm or kill a human.[/quote] Murder is specifically defined that way. Moreover, the intent of muirder is not "the intent to commit murder", but "the intent to harm or kill". So the definition of murder, unlike your proposed definition of art, is not circular. If your definition of art was "creating something with the intent to create something that resonates emotionally with the audience", we'd have a working definitiong. If your definition of "art" was 'creatiing something with the intent to create something emotionally resonant with the artist", we'd have a non-circular definition. If your definition of "art" was "creating something that a significant number of art critics accept as art" we'd have a non-circular definition. But "art" defined as "that which is created with the intent to create art" is inherently circular. There's no way to know what, if anything, meets or does not meet this definition without going outside the definition for a meaning of "art". If you're teachers felt that way they mysteriously neglected to put it down in any citable means, since the stuff you keep citing do not say that. No. i am saying that you haven't established that anybody other than you and the uninformed blogger believe that "an intent to create art" is a definition of art, and I'm saying that defining art as something created with "an intent to create art" is inherently circular and useless as a definition. As I already said, if D&D is art, then intending to play D&D is intending to create art. If D&D is not art then intending to play D&D is not intending to create art. Whether D&D constitutes art under your definition depends on how you define "art", which say cannot be defined. Which means you cannot say D&D is or is not art. And yet you keep saying that you have seen D&D that is not art. Even if your denial is conditioned on the fact that maybe one day you'll see D&D that is art, your denial is inconsistent with your stated definition. I will stop... as soon as you actually supply a definition for "art" that includes "an intent to make art" within it. [/QUOTE]

Verification