CGA

Okay, and the Mona Lisa is not art because there are fancy T-shirts with it, as a by-product

[quote name='kainscalia' timestamp='1283706855' Si seguimos así, a donde vas a parar? Bajo estas definiciones tremendamente sueltas- sueltas porque estás tratando de estirarlas para poder encajar tu predilección- hasta la macateta resulta ser arte! ¡Venga ya! Sobre si los videojuegos son o no arte, hay un post por aqui, asi que supongo que genera cierto debate. ¿Que para ser arte no tiene que tener valor ludico?. La musica entonces, ¿no tiene valor ludico? o ¿resulta que no es un arte?. Mirate esto, anda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_arts

As a matter on fact not only light but ALL so called particles and waves have particle and wave properties. Te problem is not with the law of identity, it is a problem of physics epistemolegy (sorry for my spelling if it is not right). Physics objects were supposed to fall in one of the two categories and now we know that "particle" and "wave" are non contradictory concepts, and that an object does have both properties* *although following the uncertainly principle

... And even then you still don't get it. Nobody feels any pleasure from the bull's suffering, and bullfighting is not about that. But you have stated your postion also a number of times, although in just one languaje, without any explanation but your misunderstandig of bullfighting, and I don't agree with it either, so I guess we should stop at some point.

Yo no veo argumentos en tu comentario por ningun lado. El toreo es un arte porque: A) es una recreacion de la realidad en la que ponen de manifiesto valores metafiicos, como el que la consciencia esta antes que la materia, que el hombre debe utilizar su mente para dirigir la naturaleza y vivir Lo que si no me equivoco con los dos requisitos necesarios para que algo se pueda llamar arte segun la Sra. Rand

Well, It does not seem that humane is the most fortunate adjective to be used in this context: hu·mane   [hyoo-meyn or, often, yoo-] –adjective 1. characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.

I am not an expert, but I will try to do my best to give you some practical explanations: A bull can only be "bullfighted" once, so even if it were not killed in the arena it would have to be killed later on. Besides, a bull can''t be bullfighted without hurting it badly: there would be no way that the bullfighter would get really close to the bull. But from a phylosophical point of view, I would like to know what the problem is.

De paso mira a ver si puedes añadir algun argumento a tu comentario. Yo he empezado por dar la definicion objetivista de arte y he tratado de argumentar que los toros lo son.

Well, of course I'm not saying that everyone should enjoy or understand or find interesting bullfighting, as I don't enjoy, or understand or find interesting most of modern art, but I won't claim it is not art. I think that most animals killed for foof or leather are not humanely killed (most of them are really tortured and stressed in the process, which is something that I think should be improved), as a matter on fact bulls get treated very well all their life untill they get to the arena, and there they get what not long time ago would be called a soldier's death, a death with honor. It does seem very human in fact, doesn't it?

I don´t know if there are more art forms where the killing is necessary but, what if it is?. I think that your point is that something that involves killing an animal is not art, which is something a little bit risky to say, because most of our living involves killing animals, and as a matter of fact many of the tools used by artists are made from animals (the painters pen, for example)

Well, these bulls are not regular bulls (stud bulls), they are a subspecie raised especifically for bullfighting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Fighting_Bull

The killing, although necessary, is not the essence. You may like or dislike it but I think is clear that: a) it is a recreation of reality (the struggle of man and his realtionship with nature) there are metaphysical values involved, mainly mind over matter, man having the right & necessity to command nature Thus is an art form. Although objetivisim won´t validate the killing of a living being for the sake of it, it does validate it if a (right) value is achieved, like food or art (mind´s food)

My reasons are that bullfighting has been banned in one region of Spain recently. Banning is a topyc by itself, but I was curious about objetivism validating bullfighting

I am not joking. You don't see a wild cows around here, I don't know why we would see wild (dangerous) bulls. Bulls are raised in big rancho-like places called "dehesas" and only for this purpose. And, excuse me, where did I drop the context to Ellison argument? He compares bullfighting to painting and I am making an argument on bullfighting being more alike to singing rather than painting.

So, according to you every performance of your favorite song after the first one by whoever singer (not an artist by your standard) is a pointless repetition.