There’s your error. A cat is not a kind of a dog; a doberman is a kind of a dog. A cat may be RELATED (in a vague sense) to a dog, but it’s not a kind of a dog.
Um, yeah, you did:
The most specific definition of art I could accept is “that what is made by humans and aesthetically appealing”, the underlined part is the new part I have considered adding. Then again, the feeling of aesthetic appreciation for me doesn’t depend at all on whether something is made by humans or not, and it wouldn’t make sense to me to call a pile of shit art and a beautiful landscape not art just because the pile of shit was made by a human. What I’m trying to say is that I don’t aesthetically appreciate something just because it is made by humans and I do aesthetically appreciate things which aren’t human-made, and since it doesn’t make sense to me to not call something aesthetically appealing (a landscape f.e.) art and to call something aesthetically unappealing (pile of shit) not art I dropped the “that what is made by humans” part.
I’m not a solipsist, I’m a truth seeker and honest enough to admit that some things we simply can’t measure objectively.
That’s a rant, not an argument. I asked you to propose a standard for objectively determining what is art and measuring the quality of it. And I’ll get back to scatophilia later.
If you want to attempt to put people in categories there are things like statistical averages which show what kind of people prefer what kind of music on average, f.e. I remember reading one about music and IQ correlation. That however doesn’t in any way refute my position and it’s a pretty uncertain and fallible way to make judgments about an individual in most cases.
Your definition is vague. “That which appears to be something that it is not.” can also refer to other things, not exclusively simulation.
My position is that there is no objectively valid position when it comes to the question of “What is good art?” because when it comes to aesthetic appeal the term “good” itself is subjective and means different things to different people. Most art theory I know however merely describes art as opposed to prescribing what is good and should be listened to and what is bad and should be avoided. That decision is left for the individual to make.
Hey, I agree that we can do that to a pretty certain extent when it comes to some other things, just not art.
Right and wrong imply objectivity, so I don’t use them at all (or at least try to avoid using them) when discussing art.
If neuronal processes are objective (occur in everybody the same way) as opposed to subjective (occurring different in different people), how come people have different artistic tastes?
If your and scatophiliac’s brain have same neural processes happening inside how come the scatophiliac can consider shit art and you can’t? How come people’s views of what constitutes art are different in the slightest if the neuronal processes are objective?