@highlanderdurp Or maybe about the scientific estimates of the age of the earth which have changed so many times. That's pretty funny. Or perhaps the guesses from science as to how the universe began. Hilarious.
@hdregmore The estimates are in the billions not the thousands smart one. And just because science hasnt figured out all the answers does NOT mean that religion has.
@wildbloodydragon Wrote more nonsense about Unwin's formula Deleted George Hammond (physicist)- 05 Jul 2004 - "the method is statistically sound, and given his credentials as a physicist and as a risk analyst the result has wrinkled a lot of foreheads in the scientific community." Fact is, Stephen Unwin's statement that statistical analysis of currently existing evidence shows that the probability that there is a God is "66.7%", IS IN FACT A WORK OF GENIUS.
@LARiots1992 Thank you for making the most intelligent comment so far. The inclusion of Pestilence in the four horsemen is apocryphal However it is commonly used in popular culture. Maybe people liked the name and and sent him in off the bench. Why not?
@wildbloodydragon Trivializing the probability of God by portraying it in comparison to having an expensive car does not work. In fact in the history of mankind there is no item that can adequately used to compare with God. Except perhaps on a lower level, yourself. So if you write "I am alive. disprove it" your comment might make some sense.
So unfortunately your suggestion is equivalent to aerated flatulence from a naive and unrefined mind.
@hdregmore You're right, they don't compare. I'm not just assuming Ferraris exist. I can see, hear, touch, sit in and drive a Ferrari.
I don't have any of these verifications for existence of your mythical God. Only your words, nothing else. You're the one making this enormous claim, then ask me to either disprove it or take your word for it.
Perhaps this is more equivalent: I claim your God does not exist. Disprove that.
@wildbloodydragon Why such aggression? Are you shaky in your disbelief? Please do not refer to God as "mythical".That is disrespectful.
Since the probability of God's existence according to Unwin's calculations is 67%, this MUST make the default position that God does exist. This is further validated by the fact that throughout the history of mankind there has NEVER been a period where the basic premise was not present. This makes it evolutionary inherent
@hdregmore It's like I'm back in Iran again. Anything slightly against religion and God is immediately censored and deleted, and whoever says anything against religion is prosecuted, and accused of being offensive.
You can delete the comment, but you can't delete the idea. I now know about Unwin's calculation, and know that it can't be used to support the Christian God.
You do too, and it discomforts you. Otherwise why would you delete my comment.
@wildbloodydragon You are just another disingenuous atheist who has another account ready to answer people when you get blocked for abusive behaviour.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Iran or censorship. It was because you acted like a foul mouthed idiot and I blocked you and deleted your obscenities.
You do you or your brethren no justice by acting so foolish and disrespectfully.
@hdregmore No, I'm not an atheist. I do believe in a God. Spinoza's God to be specific. Albert Einstein believed in the same God.
You made this idiotic, very offensive video about atheism and expect me to treat you with respect? I've showed you far more respect than you could possibly deserve, despite having absolutely no respect whatsoever for you.
But I pity you, I honestly do. You are miserable.
Also I'm flagging your video, anyone can see how pointless and insulting this is.
@wildbloodydragon Do as you like. It is a harmless video offending no-one. That will be clearly decided.
The rest of your little rant is emotive rubbish which stems from the fact that your feeling have been hurt because I removed your comments that were disrespectful toward religion.
Save your pity for yourself. Your need is greater.
@hdregmore lol Offending no one huh? Is that why your rating bar is almost entirely red? lmfao
Of course I pity you, why shouldn't I. You so proudly started giving me this moronic probability formula with such high hopes and even dared me to disprove it. Which I did, then you got so mad you deleted my comment. since you can't use your brain and support your point. It's so pathetic it's both sad and funny at the same time.
Anyway. Unwin's theory makes christian God probable: disproved.
@wildbloodydragon You are full of lies. All you have done is abuse the theory not disprove it. When will atheists LEARN that derogatory rhetoric is NOT classed as a valid argument. It is just mindless venom.
I have proven that the default position for God can quite easily be referred to as positive. You on the other hand have come up with disrespectful premeditated hatred towards the idea but absolutely no evidence.
Anyway. Unwin's theory makes the basic premise of God probable: proven
@hdregmore How about I counter that statement with a statement from someone MUCH more reputable.
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
This is a man well-known for his logic, and unmatched intelligence. I agree with him. The only problem is, his (and my) definition of God is so far from yours that it may as well be called something else. Like, "mother nature".
@wildbloodydragon So you are quoting Einstein who believed in God. Big deal. His idea of God is a million miles away from atheism. He accepts that there is a force or entity that is "God".
Anyway I thought you were going to "flag" my video and go away? Why don't you just do that and make it easier for yourself. You are simply looking foolish at the moment and clutching at straws. And the straws that you are clutching contains no needle of any kind of a coherent argument.
@megabeaver23 Your original question was "I don't get get."
Now what the hell that means is anyone's guess. If you are attempting to say that you do not understand the punchline of the video then I feel sad for you. I cannot dumb it down any further for atheists.
@hdregmore and your reply is "You got got" atleast you can understand mine as a jist because it is a joke that people are constantly pressing dislike and that the phrase "I don't get it" is commonlly used and just has an extra get. Your reply is 4 words long with a word repeted, done so purposfuly. I have a neurological dissability, whats your excuse, to nice and warm up your ass that you dont want to properly explain something in a rational way?
@megabeaver23 What nonsense. You were unable to write a coherent statement while attempting to be smug and presenting a question. I pulled you up on the error and your ego is so grand that you have to invent fictional stories about disabilities. That is the saddest thing I have ever read. It is a simple cartoon, and if you do not get it then bad luck. move on and get over it. I do not explain my videos in details to arrogant atheists.
Strange? Your last comment and all the others were perfect.
@hdregmore how am I the arrogant one? You who wont even explain something based on the fact that I am different than you. Aspergers is a real mental condition feel free to look it up, all that has change is that I have been making sure to proof read what I write. All that your video is about is a man betting on famine and saying their hungry at the end that is hardly a joke, people get hungry no matter the condition. Now deflate your your ego and explain how this is comical so that we can stop.
@megabeaver23 Well now you have fallen on your own sword boyo. Aspergers is not a "neurological dissability". It is a form of autism which is classified as a psychological condition. In any case it is hardly a condition that "makes" people write silly typos. Quite the opposite actually. I am fully aware of the condition and have friends and relatives with it. I do not yield to arrogant requests for explanations of my funny cartoons. I rarely explain them at all. Dissecting art simply destroys it
@hdregmore There needs to be someone to judge the art; It cannot simply ride on the assumption that it is great?
If the art is self explanatory that is different but the fact that someone is asking for an explanations means that either you did no display the meaning adequately or the person requesting the explanation failed to understand the point.
Attempting to explain art is a a normal part of admiring art.
@nanaforiod Attempting to explain art for a viewer may be common practice, however for the artist it is merely irrelevant and inconsequential dissection. Most people do not understand the nuances of fine art and I am afraid that youtube tends to attract people who usually have no mind or eye for such things.
The fact that someone does not understand this video speaks more of the arrogance of atheists than it does for their lack of comprehension. It's meaning is virtually crystalline.
@hdregmore Like I said there can never be an assumption that just because the creator thinks a certain way he has properly conveyed his opinion or motivation in the art itself.
If art is not understood then it ceases to be art; on some level there has to be an understanding from the audience other wise it might as well be gibberish.
The fact that he did not understand your video does not necessarily speak to the "arrogance of atheists", it likely just implies that he couldn't understand it.
@nanaforiod Wrote: "If art is not understood then it ceases to be art"
Incorrect. It is simply not understood. There are thousands of cases of this happening, from Bach to van Gough and Kafka. The art is unchanged but the perception finally and eventually hits home. Atheists are the only ones who post comments on my videos. They take great delight in deliberately ignoring the direct and obvious messages in their content. It has something to do with a predisposition of denial.
@hdregmore Summary (attempt): atheist picks famine to win a race of the proverbial four horsemen of the apocalypse then he presumably starves to death. What I don't understand is what his death signifies. Is this his punishment for being an atheist?
Lastly art that is universally not understood cannot be considered art by any one but it's creator (assuming the creator gave it meaning)... The merit of the artwork cannot be based on the merit of the artist.
@nanaforiod Wrote; "art that is universally not understood cannot be considered art "
Incorrect. My examples have suggested that. Furthermore contemporary art that is considered "good" by a handful of eminent critics is often not understood or liked by the mass public. It is still however regarded as artistically important.
You brief summation of the video may be close to it's overall meaning. However the other factor you have forgotten is comedy, which does not need a meaning to be funny.
@hdregmore Okay, so who is your independent judge?
Have you heard the term beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
All it means here is that when you put something out other people get to judge it's worth. Now if a critic were to find something in this video that most people couldn't that might give you that validity but they would have to convince the casual viewer somehow. If they had an adequate explanation then maybe viewers would trust their opinions and classify the art as art themselves.
Have you heard the term "don't knock what you don't understand"?
I don't care how other people judge my work. I am secure with my own abilities and have been for many years. I have already explained how critics are extremely subjective in their views. The "casual viewers" have already expressed that they understand and like my work (albeit in less of a proportion than those who do not).
@hdregmore You write "classify the art as art " in the form of a misnomer which demonstrates that you have accepted it as art anyway. If you fo not like it then feel free to give me a thumbs down.
Your behaviour is becoming troll like. Please move along.
@hdregmore I do not mean to troll, but you seem to be under the impression that all art is good art. Art is just a product of the creative process; your video is art, the new YouTube layout is art and the McDonald's Big Mac is art.
I only said that the quality of art is judged by the masses not by the individual. If someone feels the art is incoherent confusing or misguided then they need an explanation or they cannot deem it good art. Dissecting art is how you gauge it's significance/worth.
@nanaforiod Incorrect. The quality of art is indeed judged by individuals.They are called art critics. It is from them that art is deemed to be meaningful or rubbish. Everything that you have been taught about art has been deemed so by individuals intellectualizing it.
You can't say critic unless you add professional or something to differentiate them from everyone else and even then you're wrong.
Anyone can judge art, "Everyone's a critic". There is no special group who decides what we like. For example: though some critics love Ke$ha I find her irritating for some of the same reasons they like her. There are even disagreements within the community of so called art critics so obviously there is no consensus on rubbish vs meaningful.
Whether you like it or not the images you view and the media you watch has been classified and selectively manipulated into categories that you believe to be "rubbish or meaningful". It has been that way for as long as there have been art critics, buyers and artists. It is incredibly naive of you to think otherwise. The whole process is subjective and governed by people so few in number that you could throw a rug over them.
@nanaforiod Now I know that you are an atheist who has got a bee up his butt about a video that you do not understand and that I refuse to fully describe.
I do not like the last comment you posted. It was small minded, arrogant and deliberately belittling. You are a sad person who obviously knows nothing about art or hove to behave properly on a public forum.
@hdregmore Trust me I will "move along" post haste...
Last thing when I said "art as art" I really meant the artists perception vs the masses. Like when you see Jackson Pollack you either see a bunch of lines and splotches of paint or you see the genius behind a unique art form. If you see the emotional motives (the explanation) behind the art you gain a new appreciation.
@nanaforiod You have had your say, now move along. The fact is that great art and comedy in this world DOES NOT require explanation. In fact dissecting it often simply destroys it's relevance. The mystery and value of these creations are what we all talk about without knowing for sure what the artist had in mind.
@hdregmore Why put your artwork on a median like YouTube allow comments then refuse to respond to queries, delete comments liberally, go into discussion with random YouTubers' then end them abruptly without answering question?
You kind of dodge questions and criticism by repeating rhetoric and quoting out of context...
Conversation is a two way street, if you don't want a conversation don't respond to the comment.
@nanaforiod I think you mean "medium". WTF are you referring to anyway? So far you have merely persistently insisted that your opinion on the meaning of art is the only one that matters. Why would me telling you exactly what I had in mind when putting my video together make you life complete?
Your criticisms are unfounded and very childish.
The only time I delete a comment is when it is disrespectful to religion.
this is weird...
highlanderdurp 7 months ago
@highlanderdurp It is meant to be...........
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore lol dont know why it got so many dislikes its actually kinda amusing :D
highlanderdurp 7 months ago
@highlanderdurp Thank you. Everybody hates me because they think I am a "creationist". Whatever that is.
Did you give me a thumbs up?
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore yeh i dont really get your view? are u making fun of doomsday prophecies or are u religious?
highlanderdurp 7 months ago
@highlanderdurp I am making fun of doomsday prophecies. Dudley is just an insecure atheist .
Thanks for the thumbs up.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore you should make one about door to door mormons =O or the fact that people think the world is 5k years old.
highlanderdurp 7 months ago
@highlanderdurp Or maybe about the scientific estimates of the age of the earth which have changed so many times. That's pretty funny. Or perhaps the guesses from science as to how the universe began. Hilarious.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore The estimates are in the billions not the thousands smart one. And just because science hasnt figured out all the answers does NOT mean that religion has.
highlanderdurp 7 months ago
@highlanderdurp The only answers that religion needs to supply are those regarding God and humanity.
The rest is material, changing and irrelevant.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@mmbah543 I am not even going to bother with that one. Just delete it.
Wake Up Atheism.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon Wrote disrespectful and disgusting nonsense.
Deleted
I've had enough of you and your gutter mind. Go study for your kindergarten test.
hdregmore 7 months ago
hdregmore 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon Wrote "Whatever he proved, doesn't apply to your God."
What a load of bullshit. You do not even know my religion you arrogant assuming little shit.
The rest is deleted because it is disrespectful to Unwin and religion.
Will you ever learn. Now piss off.
hdregmore 7 months ago
Conquest? What happened to Pestilence?
LARiots1992 7 months ago
@LARiots1992 Thank you for making the most intelligent comment so far. The inclusion of Pestilence in the four horsemen is apocryphal However it is commonly used in popular culture. Maybe people liked the name and and sent him in off the bench. Why not?
hdregmore 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon Wrote disrespectful nonsense regarding God, Unwin's theory and religious texts.
You may not agree with his calculation but that does not give you the right to personally berate him or religion.
Deleted
Wake Up Atheism.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon Wrote disrespectful nonsense regarding God, Unwin's theory and religious texts.
You may not agree with his calculation but that does not give you the right to personally berate him or religion.
Deleted
Wake Up Atheism.
hdregmore 7 months ago
Probably no God, huh.
Hey I have a Ferrari.
You don't believe me? Disprove it!
wildbloodydragon 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon Trivializing the probability of God by portraying it in comparison to having an expensive car does not work. In fact in the history of mankind there is no item that can adequately used to compare with God. Except perhaps on a lower level, yourself. So if you write "I am alive. disprove it" your comment might make some sense.
So unfortunately your suggestion is equivalent to aerated flatulence from a naive and unrefined mind.
Wake Up Atheism.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore You're right, they don't compare. I'm not just assuming Ferraris exist. I can see, hear, touch, sit in and drive a Ferrari.
I don't have any of these verifications for existence of your mythical God. Only your words, nothing else. You're the one making this enormous claim, then ask me to either disprove it or take your word for it.
Perhaps this is more equivalent: I claim your God does not exist. Disprove that.
wildbloodydragon 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon Why such aggression? Are you shaky in your disbelief? Please do not refer to God as "mythical".That is disrespectful.
Since the probability of God's existence according to Unwin's calculations is 67%, this MUST make the default position that God does exist. This is further validated by the fact that throughout the history of mankind there has NEVER been a period where the basic premise was not present. This makes it evolutionary inherent
Therefore God exists. Disprove that.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@nanaforiod Wrote disrespectful nonsense about religion.
Deleted.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore It's like I'm back in Iran again. Anything slightly against religion and God is immediately censored and deleted, and whoever says anything against religion is prosecuted, and accused of being offensive.
You can delete the comment, but you can't delete the idea. I now know about Unwin's calculation, and know that it can't be used to support the Christian God.
You do too, and it discomforts you. Otherwise why would you delete my comment.
wildbloodydragon 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon You are just another disingenuous atheist who has another account ready to answer people when you get blocked for abusive behaviour.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Iran or censorship. It was because you acted like a foul mouthed idiot and I blocked you and deleted your obscenities.
You do you or your brethren no justice by acting so foolish and disrespectfully.
Now go away and consider your grievances.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore No, I'm not an atheist. I do believe in a God. Spinoza's God to be specific. Albert Einstein believed in the same God.
You made this idiotic, very offensive video about atheism and expect me to treat you with respect? I've showed you far more respect than you could possibly deserve, despite having absolutely no respect whatsoever for you.
But I pity you, I honestly do. You are miserable.
Also I'm flagging your video, anyone can see how pointless and insulting this is.
wildbloodydragon 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon Do as you like. It is a harmless video offending no-one. That will be clearly decided.
The rest of your little rant is emotive rubbish which stems from the fact that your feeling have been hurt because I removed your comments that were disrespectful toward religion.
Save your pity for yourself. Your need is greater.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore lol Offending no one huh? Is that why your rating bar is almost entirely red? lmfao
Of course I pity you, why shouldn't I. You so proudly started giving me this moronic probability formula with such high hopes and even dared me to disprove it. Which I did, then you got so mad you deleted my comment. since you can't use your brain and support your point. It's so pathetic it's both sad and funny at the same time.
Anyway. Unwin's theory makes christian God probable: disproved.
Next!
wildbloodydragon 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon You are full of lies. All you have done is abuse the theory not disprove it. When will atheists LEARN that derogatory rhetoric is NOT classed as a valid argument. It is just mindless venom.
I have proven that the default position for God can quite easily be referred to as positive. You on the other hand have come up with disrespectful premeditated hatred towards the idea but absolutely no evidence.
Anyway. Unwin's theory makes the basic premise of God probable: proven
Next!
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore How about I counter that statement with a statement from someone MUCH more reputable.
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
This is a man well-known for his logic, and unmatched intelligence. I agree with him. The only problem is, his (and my) definition of God is so far from yours that it may as well be called something else. Like, "mother nature".
wildbloodydragon 7 months ago
@wildbloodydragon So you are quoting Einstein who believed in God. Big deal. His idea of God is a million miles away from atheism. He accepts that there is a force or entity that is "God".
Anyway I thought you were going to "flag" my video and go away? Why don't you just do that and make it easier for yourself. You are simply looking foolish at the moment and clutching at straws. And the straws that you are clutching contains no needle of any kind of a coherent argument.
hdregmore 7 months ago
I don't get get.
megabeaver23 9 months ago
@megabeaver23 Because you got got.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore how does saying "got" twice going to make anything clear?
megabeaver23 9 months ago
@megabeaver23 How does saying "get" twice ask any clear question?
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore I was questioning, how your lowsy grammar made your terrible joke understandable.
megabeaver23 9 months ago
@megabeaver23 I was questioning why you insist that your illiteracy could possible offer a coherent question of any kind.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore That is because you made a joke with a punch line that was not understandable which is what the topic is of my origional question.
megabeaver23 9 months ago
@megabeaver23 Your original question was "I don't get get."
Now what the hell that means is anyone's guess. If you are attempting to say that you do not understand the punchline of the video then I feel sad for you. I cannot dumb it down any further for atheists.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore and your reply is "You got got" atleast you can understand mine as a jist because it is a joke that people are constantly pressing dislike and that the phrase "I don't get it" is commonlly used and just has an extra get. Your reply is 4 words long with a word repeted, done so purposfuly. I have a neurological dissability, whats your excuse, to nice and warm up your ass that you dont want to properly explain something in a rational way?
megabeaver23 9 months ago
@megabeaver23 What nonsense. You were unable to write a coherent statement while attempting to be smug and presenting a question. I pulled you up on the error and your ego is so grand that you have to invent fictional stories about disabilities. That is the saddest thing I have ever read. It is a simple cartoon, and if you do not get it then bad luck. move on and get over it. I do not explain my videos in details to arrogant atheists.
Strange? Your last comment and all the others were perfect.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore how am I the arrogant one? You who wont even explain something based on the fact that I am different than you. Aspergers is a real mental condition feel free to look it up, all that has change is that I have been making sure to proof read what I write. All that your video is about is a man betting on famine and saying their hungry at the end that is hardly a joke, people get hungry no matter the condition. Now deflate your your ego and explain how this is comical so that we can stop.
megabeaver23 9 months ago
@megabeaver23 Well now you have fallen on your own sword boyo. Aspergers is not a "neurological dissability". It is a form of autism which is classified as a psychological condition. In any case it is hardly a condition that "makes" people write silly typos. Quite the opposite actually. I am fully aware of the condition and have friends and relatives with it. I do not yield to arrogant requests for explanations of my funny cartoons. I rarely explain them at all. Dissecting art simply destroys it
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore There needs to be someone to judge the art; It cannot simply ride on the assumption that it is great?
If the art is self explanatory that is different but the fact that someone is asking for an explanations means that either you did no display the meaning adequately or the person requesting the explanation failed to understand the point.
Attempting to explain art is a a normal part of admiring art.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Attempting to explain art for a viewer may be common practice, however for the artist it is merely irrelevant and inconsequential dissection. Most people do not understand the nuances of fine art and I am afraid that youtube tends to attract people who usually have no mind or eye for such things.
The fact that someone does not understand this video speaks more of the arrogance of atheists than it does for their lack of comprehension. It's meaning is virtually crystalline.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Like I said there can never be an assumption that just because the creator thinks a certain way he has properly conveyed his opinion or motivation in the art itself.
If art is not understood then it ceases to be art; on some level there has to be an understanding from the audience other wise it might as well be gibberish.
The fact that he did not understand your video does not necessarily speak to the "arrogance of atheists", it likely just implies that he couldn't understand it.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Wrote: "If art is not understood then it ceases to be art"
Incorrect. It is simply not understood. There are thousands of cases of this happening, from Bach to van Gough and Kafka. The art is unchanged but the perception finally and eventually hits home. Atheists are the only ones who post comments on my videos. They take great delight in deliberately ignoring the direct and obvious messages in their content. It has something to do with a predisposition of denial.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Summary (attempt): atheist picks famine to win a race of the proverbial four horsemen of the apocalypse then he presumably starves to death. What I don't understand is what his death signifies. Is this his punishment for being an atheist?
Lastly art that is universally not understood cannot be considered art by any one but it's creator (assuming the creator gave it meaning)... The merit of the artwork cannot be based on the merit of the artist.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Wrote; "art that is universally not understood cannot be considered art "
Incorrect. My examples have suggested that. Furthermore contemporary art that is considered "good" by a handful of eminent critics is often not understood or liked by the mass public. It is still however regarded as artistically important.
You brief summation of the video may be close to it's overall meaning. However the other factor you have forgotten is comedy, which does not need a meaning to be funny.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Okay, so who is your independent judge?
Have you heard the term beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
All it means here is that when you put something out other people get to judge it's worth. Now if a critic were to find something in this video that most people couldn't that might give you that validity but they would have to convince the casual viewer somehow. If they had an adequate explanation then maybe viewers would trust their opinions and classify the art as art themselves.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Why would I need one?
Have you heard the term "don't knock what you don't understand"?
I don't care how other people judge my work. I am secure with my own abilities and have been for many years. I have already explained how critics are extremely subjective in their views. The "casual viewers" have already expressed that they understand and like my work (albeit in less of a proportion than those who do not).
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore You write "classify the art as art " in the form of a misnomer which demonstrates that you have accepted it as art anyway. If you fo not like it then feel free to give me a thumbs down.
Your behaviour is becoming troll like. Please move along.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore I do not mean to troll, but you seem to be under the impression that all art is good art. Art is just a product of the creative process; your video is art, the new YouTube layout is art and the McDonald's Big Mac is art.
I only said that the quality of art is judged by the masses not by the individual. If someone feels the art is incoherent confusing or misguided then they need an explanation or they cannot deem it good art. Dissecting art is how you gauge it's significance/worth.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Incorrect. The quality of art is indeed judged by individuals.They are called art critics. It is from them that art is deemed to be meaningful or rubbish. Everything that you have been taught about art has been deemed so by individuals intellectualizing it.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Incorrect?
You can't say critic unless you add professional or something to differentiate them from everyone else and even then you're wrong.
Anyone can judge art, "Everyone's a critic". There is no special group who decides what we like. For example: though some critics love Ke$ha I find her irritating for some of the same reasons they like her. There are even disagreements within the community of so called art critics so obviously there is no consensus on rubbish vs meaningful.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Incorrect
Whether you like it or not the images you view and the media you watch has been classified and selectively manipulated into categories that you believe to be "rubbish or meaningful". It has been that way for as long as there have been art critics, buyers and artists. It is incredibly naive of you to think otherwise. The whole process is subjective and governed by people so few in number that you could throw a rug over them.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Now I know that you are an atheist who has got a bee up his butt about a video that you do not understand and that I refuse to fully describe.
I do not like the last comment you posted. It was small minded, arrogant and deliberately belittling. You are a sad person who obviously knows nothing about art or hove to behave properly on a public forum.
You have had your say unfettered. NOW PISS OFF.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@nanaforiod If an individual does not understand what a work of art is attempting to convey then that is for two reasons
1 The person does not comprehend what the art is about
2 The work is art is aesthetic in value and does not contain a "purpose"
Dissecting art for the artist is often a useless process that destroys it's intended effect.
You fail to accept that art can be quite meaningless and not contrived in any way. That is often why it is incredibly interesting.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Trust me I will "move along" post haste...
Last thing when I said "art as art" I really meant the artists perception vs the masses. Like when you see Jackson Pollack you either see a bunch of lines and splotches of paint or you see the genius behind a unique art form. If you see the emotional motives (the explanation) behind the art you gain a new appreciation.
That is all.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod You have had your say, now move along. The fact is that great art and comedy in this world DOES NOT require explanation. In fact dissecting it often simply destroys it's relevance. The mystery and value of these creations are what we all talk about without knowing for sure what the artist had in mind.
That is all.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Why put your artwork on a median like YouTube allow comments then refuse to respond to queries, delete comments liberally, go into discussion with random YouTubers' then end them abruptly without answering question?
You kind of dodge questions and criticism by repeating rhetoric and quoting out of context...
Conversation is a two way street, if you don't want a conversation don't respond to the comment.
I haven't trolled you at all simply stated facts.
Feel free to block if otherwise.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod I think you mean "medium". WTF are you referring to anyway? So far you have merely persistently insisted that your opinion on the meaning of art is the only one that matters. Why would me telling you exactly what I had in mind when putting my video together make you life complete?
Your criticisms are unfounded and very childish.
The only time I delete a comment is when it is disrespectful to religion.
I respond to all civil questions.
I NEVER "quote out of context"
hdregmore 8 months ago