Art as Proof

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 47
Is a painting itself proof of the existence of a painter?
Calling something a painting presumes the existence of a painter.
--> @drafterman
Then your answer is yes.
--> @ethang5
No. If my answer was "yes" then I would have said "yes." I'd appreciate it if you did not answer on my behalf.

To say that one thing is proof of another (to me) is to say you can deduce the existence of the latter from the former.

I do not believe this is the case with the painter and the painting. To me, a painting, definitively requires a painter (or otherwise it isn't a painting). It's like asking: "Does a bachelor itself proof he isn't married?" It's a bit of a weird question. To call him a bachelor is to declare him as unmarried at the same time. Likewise, to call something a painting is to declare the existence of a painter at the same time, rather than using the existence of a painting to then separately conclude there must be a painter.

I don't think this is a trivial thing, either. To say a painting proofs the existence of a painter permits the following syllogism:

1. Paintings proof the existence of painters.
2. This is a painting.
3. Ergo there is a painter.

To mean, the existence of a painter is bound in the definition of what a painting is, which would make the entire thing a tautology, rather than some novel argument.
--> @ethang5
but you can go to pompeii and see statues that have no sculptor.

--> @ethang5
No. An animal could possibly knock a can of paint on a canvas. Unless one is willing to say that an unwitting animal is a painter, there are scenarios that can be conceived of where the answer is no. You might also need to more clearly define the word "painting".
--> @drafterman
No. If my answer was "yes" then I would have said "yes." I'd appreciate it if you did not answer on my behalf.
I was not answering on your behalf, I was interpreting your answer. And your answer is yes.

To say that one thing is proof of another (to me) is to say you can deduce the existence of the latter from the former.
Exactly.

I do not believe this is the case with the painter and the painting. To me, a painting, definitively requires a painter (or otherwise it isn't a painting).
Exactly. Again, your answer is yes.

It's like asking: "Does a bachelor itself proof he isn't married?" It's a bit of a weird question.
It may be an unusual question, but it is logically valid. It isn't a perfect example because a bachelor and not married are not two independant things like a painting and a painter.

Likewise, to call something a painting is to declare the existence of a painter at the same time, rather than using the existence of a painting to then separately conclude there must be a painter.
It's the same thing.

I don't think this is a trivial thing, either. To say a painting proofs the existence of a painter permits the following syllogism:
1. Paintings proof the existence of painters.
2. This is a painting.
3. Ergo there is a painter.
To mean, the existence of a painter is bound in the definition of what a painting is, which would make the entire thing a tautology, rather than some novel argument.
I disagree. It isn't tautology. Its one thing implying the existence of something else. Perhaps you don't know the definition of tautology?
--> @keithprosser
Why do you have to go to pompeii to see statues that have no sculptor?

Pompeii has had a moratorium on sculptors?

--> @ethang5
I see a distinction, even if you don't. And again, I'd appreciate it if you didn't "interpret" my answers for me, especially when you interpret them to mean the opposite of what I claimed.

If you think I'm saying yes when I am explicitly saying no, then I am going to bow out of this conversation.

--> @TwoMan
No. An animal could possibly knock a can of paint on a canvas.

This is true. I once saw an elephant paint.

Unless one is willing to say that an unwitting animal is a painter, there are scenarios that can be conceived of where the answer is no.

OK.

You might also need to more clearly define the word "painting".
You are right. OK, something most would agree that only a human could do. Like the Mona Lisa.
--> @ethang5
Using the strict definition of "painting" as something that only a human could have intentionally created, then I would say that yes, a painting implies the existence of a painter. It is implicit in that definition of the word "painting".
--> @drafterman
Is a painting itself proof of the existence of a painter?

Calling something a painting presumes the existence of a painter.
Dude, if calling something a painting presumes the existence of a painter, then a painting is itself proof of the existence of a painter.

This is logic 101.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't "interpret" my answers for me
I didn't do it for you.

If you think I'm saying yes when I am explicitly saying no, then I am going to bow out of this conversation.
You are free to do as you wish, but I will go by your words. If you meant no, perhaps you should have said no. As it is, you said yes.
--> @TwoMan
Thank you kind sir.

Now, do you think it is tautology?

--> @ethang5
Well, in response to your question I said "I do not believe this is the case" which you "interpreted" as "yes."

All I'm asking is that you stop doing this. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. I believe the painter/painting relationship to be tautological. You disagree. Fine. But that's my stance on the issue.

As such, to use the existence of a painting to "proof" the existence of a painter is circular, in my opinion.

--> @ethang5
No, a painting and a painter are two different things and one could not exist without the other. A tautological statement might be something like "a painting made with a canvas and paint".
--> @drafterman

Well, in response to your question I said "I do not believe this is the case" which you "interpreted" as "yes."
No sir. I interpreted your observation that calling something a painting presumes the existence of a painter. That is a yes.

If calling something a painting presumes the existence of a painter, then a painting is itself proof of the existence of a painter. You are the one choosing your words. I will take the words you use.

All I'm asking is that you stop doing this. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. 
It is highly unreasonable. I will not stop taking your words for what they are. Words have meaning. If you mean something else, choose different words.

I believe the painter/painting relationship to be tautological.
OK, but that doesn't stop a painting from being evidence of a painter. And this is the result of believing illogical things. A painting is NOT  to a painter, the way 'not married' is to a 'bachelor.'

Sorry, but Ethan sides with logic every time.

i'd be happy to say that because the Mona Lisa exists a painter of the Mona Lisa must have existed at some point in time, because Mona Lisa's do not appear spontaneously.

But i think - or hope - that is just the starting point for something more interesting, not the end-point!





I read this thread expecting the OP to go down the usual "therefore a creation requires a creator" but its actually ethang just insisting that paintings require painters. You gotta give that one to him folks lol.
--> @Smithereens
I read this thread expecting the OP to go down the usual "therefore a creation requires a creator"

And I bet your knee-jerk bone was cocked and ready.

but its actually ethang just insisting that paintings require painters. You gotta give that one to him folks lol.
An atheist disappointed that the topic didn't allow him to once again turn this thread into a "God does not exist" diatribe.

I'll do better next time smith. Keep your knees jerked.
--> @ethang5
A painting is NOT  to a painter, the way 'not married' is to a 'bachelor.'
Except i believe it is. Are you asking me a question to solicit my thoughts on the manner or just using it as an excuse to dictate to me your thoughts on the manner?
--> @drafterman
Except i believe it is.
Tell me why. It cannot be.

A painting is created by a painter. 

Not married is not created by a bachelor.

A woman or a platypus can be unmarried.

You have far too much faith in what you believe. Things are not true simply because you believe them.

If A, then B
A, therefore B
Logical no?



--> @ethang5
Tell me why.
I've been trying to but you seem more interesting in telling me that I am actually agreeing with you when I say I am not. Perhaps I am not explaining myself well, but I that doesn't mean I'm agreeing with you. You seem to fail to recognize the fact that people can have different beliefs and assumptions than you. At this point, I don't have much faith in your willingness to listen to what I'm saying in the manner that I mean.

It cannot be.
Things are not false simply because you disbelieve them.

If A, then B
A, therefore B
Logical no?
No doubt, for example:

If a person is a bachelor, then that person is unmarried.
That person is a bachelor, therefore they are unmarried.

I agree there is a level of logical implication here that you can apply to the painting -> painter relationship (inb4 "Then your answer is yes") but I think it is trivial and tautological. To declare something a painting is to declare it as having a painter in the same breath. To then separately deduce it has a painter is the equivalent of saying "it has a painter, therefore it has a painter."

To state more firmly:

I believe "has a painter" is a necessary attribute of something being a painting. That is, you cannot declare that something is a painting without establishing that it has that attribute. It is bound up in the definition of what a painting is ("the act, art, or work of a person who paints").

My answer is not "yes" but rather "yes, but..." and you seem intent on chopping off the ", but..." To do so is to mischaracterize my beliefs on the matter.

Now, if you are simply interested in collecting affirmative answers in the manner someone would add notches to their belt, sure. But if you're interested in my full thoughts on the matter, then I'm going to ask again that you stop truncating my answers to make them conform to your wishes.

--> @ethang5
"Is a painting (of Mona Lisa quality) itself proof of the existence of a painter?"

Yes.

It surprised me to find out that painting was a footnote in art history until 1911.
--> @Castin
Is a painting (of Mona Lisa quality) itself proof of the existence of a painter?"

Yes. 
Take note of when an atheist is honest and need not play the "block god just in case this is a ploy to argue him" game. Fear makes people do strange things.

Thank you Castin.

It surprised me to find out that painting was a footnote in art history until 1911
I've never thought it was that great of a painting. I used it because it is famous to the layman too. They say it's fame is due to the subtle smile on her face. Eh.
--> @ethang5
I think it's everyone's go-to famous artwork in conversations like this. And I too was sold that business about her enigmatic smile being what captivates the world. I do find it has an interesting quality about it, but not enough to be so much more famous than any other paintings with interesting qualities. That took getting stolen. Pro tip to other paintings: get stolen. Great for your career.

Where are her eyebrows? Did the paint erode? Did a bird carry them away? Did the thief who stole the painting just never give them back?