You have a funny way of showing it. In other words: what tdn said.
They’re just reciprocating your “worthless fraud” attitude. You reap what you sow.
Anybody else get the feeling we’re being whooshed? Given the reasonably articulate sentences, the only way his stubborn ignorance makes any sense is if he’s legally blind.
Dude. Take a class. When come back, bring pie.
Ah, I see. Being that inflection is hard to read on a message board, you might want to consider adding the phrase “In my opinion” to your vocabulary. It could have saved the hamster a lot of work.
One!
Damn that’s an overworked rodent.
Well, considering I’ve said it several times … learn to read.
Nah, there’s a difference between forceful, and arrogant. Big one. Besides, lissener’s always like that. 
Fortunately, it now takes vitamins.
Unnecessary in this case. Sometimes I might anyway, if I’m dealing with someone who seems … hmm, oversensitive? That’s why I’ve been trying to make it clearer and clearer lately in the thread.
Even at this point, there are many who refuse to acknowledge that I have a legitimate opinion on this matter, like fessie. Or maybe I’m being whooshed - I mean she’d have to be retarded to not get it at this point.
I also have a penchant for responding in kind, you see.
What we have here is failure to communicate. 
You started it!
This is a fallacy. At least the way you’re using it.
“In my opinion, you are all liars. In my opinion, the sky is not blue.” The only thing not falsifiable is THAT it is your opinion that we are all liars. The hypothesis expressed in your opinion is indeed falsifiable.
People think calling a ludicrous statement an opinion gets them a get-out-of-jail-free card. That’s fine, if your opinion is along the lines of “blue is my favorite color.” But if it’s your opinion that the earth is flat because that’s what you see and you refuse to believe the word of a scientist, that “opinion” is completely falsifiable.
A hypothesis is an opinion that has not yet been falsified or proven. Your hypothesis that there is nothing in abstract art is verifiably false. And to continue to believe that this opinion is true, you continue to call everyone else a liar.
The fact that I’m reading this on the 11th page of the thread brings the word “huh?” to mind. 
I think that at this point CG’s not gonna give any ground on the corner he’s painted himself into. He’s retreating from his earlier statements but maintaining deniablity by refusing to retreat explicitly. Instead, he seems to be implying a kind of tree-falls-in-a-forest defense: there’s no one in his forest, so he’s coming down on the “thus there is no sound” side of the fence. It’s in this sense that he feels justified in refusing to say “I just don’t hear the sound.” By insisting, rather, that there IS no sound because he doesn’t hear it, he’s remaining faithful to his earlier pronouncements; revealing his overweening solipcism; and betraying his fear of admitting that it is either his CHOICE not to acquire the tools that would conjure an auditor in his forest, or that–and this is worse–he suffers from some kind of artistic or emotional retardation that renders him UNABLE to acquire such tools. To admit the first would paint him as unsufferably arrogant; to admit the second would paint him (in his view) as a lesser person.
I’d say it’s time for the fork ceremony: CG’s never going to admit to either one of those final two options. He is, in effect, standing in a forest with his fingers in his ears, ululating “lalalalalalala” while trees crash and thunder all around him.
Yes, music is probably the most abstract of all the arts. Except to CandidGamera, cuz it’s got structure, donchaknow?
Yeah, I’m about ready to give up too. Here’s one more go.
CG, it comes down to two propositions:
1.) Abstract art has an underlying aesthetic structure, but some people aren’t able to see it.
2.) Abstract art doesn’t have an underlying aesthetic structure, and the people who claim to be seeing one are deluded.
There’s plenty of evidence to indicate #1 is correct. Art schools teach composition for example, which establishes that there are aesthetic principles at work in all paintings that are independent of the particular subject matter.
There are preliminary sketches for many abstract works, indicating that the artist was planning his painting and not just splashing paint around.
There are even quantitative measurements (such analyzing Jackson Pollock’s paintings in the frequency domain) that indicate that there’s a mathematical structure to some abstract works.
Plus, there are a number of people standing here right in front of you saying that they’ve seen this structure with their own eyes.
What evidence do you have that #2 is correct?
Yes, there are. Here’s a hint: you used two of them in the portion of your post I’m responding to. And they’re not the only ones! To find out more, get some fucking culture.
By this logic, Rorschach ink blots have something too? I mean, everybody can see something in them - doesn’t mean there’s anything there, objectively speaking. Objectively, there’s nothing there but what people subjectively read into it. Period. Subjectively, there’s nothing there.
Heh. Again, we’re speaking from my perspective. It was clear to me that it was opinion - so the additional disclaimer was unnecessary.
Wow. How do you get your head all the way up there?
Do I really need to link one of the posts where I explain the way I’m using the term, because I don’t have a better word at my disposal to encapsulate what I mean?
Because if I do, you’re gonna have to wait.
This isn’t quite what I’m asserting. The ‘deluded’ notion was mutated from something I said - which was originally that people paying large amounts of money for abstract works were, for the most part, being fooled by the art critics.
I can look at a cloud and see a Pony. I might convince all my friends it looks like a Pony. Does that mean there’s a Pony in there? Does the cloud’s form really have anything to do with being a Pony?
Mmmmkay - but you would interpret the cloud as a pony because it had pony-like characteristics, no? A set of visual cues, in cloud form, similar to the visual cues associated with a 3D Shetland? You’re responding to a structure. A set of characteristics that represents “pony”. No, the clouds aren’t a pony - but neither is a photograph of a pony, or a painting, or a story about a pony. They’re all representations. And there’s a consistency to them.
You can argue that there are some artists who point to a pile of ponyshit and say “pony” and that’s too oblique for you. It is a representation, but not the kind you like. Okay, not your taste, fine. And you could even say that you saw an artist who set out a fire hydrant and called it “pony” and you thought that was silly. Know what? I might possibly agree. I’d have to see the work in question - I’m certainly not asserting that everything every artist does is brilliant.
The fact that you don’t understand that there are real differences between Richard Avedon’s work and your Aunt Millie’s photo album is silly. What on earth do you think people are learning in art school? Why do you think there are graphic designers, cinematographers, photojournalists? Because telling a visual story takes a lot of learnable skills.
You also made a derogatory remark about visual communication being impractical and therefore inferior to words and not worth bothering to learn. You might like to consider that studies have shown that people who watch debates (such as the Presidential debates) with the sound turned off score the outcome the same as people who heard what was said.
People have already written several posts explaining abstract art - you ought to try reading them.