it was.... it made no sense.... it had nothing to do with what you think art is, nor with what you define aestethics to be. if you did explain in that post, please point it out to me as i then missed it.

My position is: if you're going to claim that something is art and therefore should be exempt from restrictions/censorship, you need to present some sort of an argument based on aesthetics, because in this world censorship is the rule, not the exception.

Personally, I'd be happy to do away with censorship altogether and let communities decide for themselves how to live life, but that's not the world we currently live in.

lol!

I mean; HEY! Somebody censor that comment!

if this was true, how does art by people like Hirst or Nitsch even get to tbe shown? and how does this even start explainng what "art" or "aestetichs" is?

if you have problem with this being "art", then surely you would know what "art" is?

again, a very obfuse non-answer.

What do you think it says about a society when that is what passes for art?

I think it says we're dying.

again - you are not answerin the question

It may be that your comprehension is lacking, because my answers do indeed speak to what I think art isn't, which is very much related to what art *is*.

Good day.

in that case - what isn't art?

so far you have only mentioned examples, (this is not art, that is not art), and even then very vaguely, you have never described what art isn't (or what it is....). You can not define what is / is not "art" by just stating so in relation to just a few examples, to make the distinctions you need the have clear criteria. if not then the whole thing is moot and pointles and only based on subjective values.

and if it is based on nothing but subjective values, then everything is / is not "art" based on the person valuing it. and then yes, if that is what you mean, then Martha is Dead is or is not "art" based on your own personal values. both viewpoints then are just as valid as each other, and the developers and fans can therefore clearly state that this game is "art".

and the act of describing what art is not, you are by default describing what art is. Unless you manage to do so, then the two paragrpahs above stands.

Good evening.

Why has it not occurred to you that that is *precisely* why I made reference to aesthetics, eh?

Imagine if you'd invested some of the energy you've expended whipping up these ever-so-artful word salads, into familiarizing yourself with that interesting branch of philosophy, why, you might have something valuable to convey -- instead of incessantly pestering me to tell you that which you are perfectly capable of discovering for yourself.

Again, if everything is art, nothing is art, and "art" is merely another worthless and empty distinction.

that's fine, and we now have a starting point: what is "art" is defined be aesthetics. OK.

though off course saying this is meaningless unless we can answer the yet unanswered set of questions:

1 - what is "aesthetics"?
2 - how does aesthetics define what is or what is not "art"?

edit - just out of interest, do you follow any particular philosopher regarding aesthetics? for example Kant or Hume? and how do you think "taste" fits into it?

edit 2 - nobody is forcing you to reply. so if you feel that I am "incessantly pestering me to tell you", just don't reply. if you do not want to participate, the only reason to reply is the need to have the last word. by the way, you have not told me anything so far.