It's kinda' a bum deal that Alpha was Banned though, seeing as how an intelligent conversation and discussion was turned, at the later portion, into a quasi-hate thread against someone who posed an interesting idea.

Credentials: I don't know a thing about Geishas. At all.

I do however, know a bit about art. The problem I've seen so far in the discussion is a rather biased view and definition of art, coming from whoever decides to post their definition of it. Art seems to be a universal, or a term that's hard to pin down to a singular definition due to the nature of what the word trys to explain. Therefore, what first needs to be done in order to determine if Geishas really are artists, or if the idea of a Geisha is art, is to define what art is, to some degree.

A first, loosly based definition that you'll find in most dictionaries is that art, or an art, is something that appeals to the aesthetic senses. This idea travels all the way back to Aristotle and his wrestle with the beautiful and what it is. Art appeals to the aesthetics because there is something inherently aesthetic about it. From here, we define, for ourselves, what is beautiful and what isn't, which translates to our appriciation for art and it's respective artists. Plumbers, as earlier mentioned, wouldn't be considered artists, noting that their profession deals more so with efficiency than it does with aesthetic value. Architects also fall into this category, but unlike plumbers or other professions concerned cheifly with efficiency, the arcitect has more creative liscence in the layout of a building, even if it's only the outer appearance of it. It's safe to say, or at least assume to only a slight degree, that art has more relevance to aesthetic value than it does to efficient value, and any profession that focuses primarily on efficiency may not be considered an artist, nor their art form considered art.

However, art is also something that is defined to be learned; a craft that one can study, learn, and eventually master. In this case, by this definition, keeping in mind the definition above as well, anything that can be learned and put to use, here meaning a sort of trade or profession, can be considered art or an art, even if the product produced is not art itself, meaning the product carries with it no aesthetic value. If we use the above example, a plumber may be an artist or a practictioner of the art of plumbing, even if his product produces no aesthetic value. If that and other similar examples are true, then it's possible for an artist to produce no art, a product with no aesthetic value. This does not mean that an artist can necessarily produce bad art, as this implies one's personal definition of beauty, which we're not concerned with here.

Therefore, going only off of the information about Geishas I could understand from the precursing conversation, a Gehisa could be considered an artist (a practitioner of the art of dance, the art of conversation, the art of social interaction, etc.) even if some of what she does or produces produces no aesthetic value intrinsic to themselves. From here, the intrinsic aesthetic value of dance, conversation, etc. tangents away to even further discussion, but for now, art seems to be defined, albeit loosly, until someone either amends this definition or adds to it.

The part of the guys just getting the females time isnt art. But the make up and Kimono are art. It takes time and patience and practice to be a true Geisha.

I'll miss him. Good times back then :cool:

I hate to bring up a dead thread but this guy really ruffles my ass-feathers.


Seriously, people come here to practice their arguing skills-- thank god he was banned


LET THIS BE A WARNING TO ALL YOU HETHANS

you are confusing art the generic and utilitarian word to Art a highly specialized and demanding field. perhaps your upsidedown skateboard is still a skateboard, but did you bother to ask simple questions about its performance, balance and durability...?

lol! your funny:D

I think it is art because they have to study and practice a lot to become a geisha :) and they are very good at making people happy :mtongue:

I can't be certain of it, I'm not him but share a similar though less abrasive opinion and agrument style, but I think most of you missed what AlphaDuck was arguing. It also is unfortunate that those who finally got to the point he was arguing posted after he was banned.

His argument was that because the Geisha's actions, makeup, kimono, and other details are all decided by someone else, she is not the artist but the art. I also seem to pick up that he felt the Geisha might only becomes an artist when she trains a maiko and that her performance isn't her art but the performance of her apprentice is. There is also the element that when the purspose of something is to entertain and not to express a feeling, emotion, idea, etc. it is not art.

This is not an unusual point of view. This argument wouldn't have occured in the 60's because if someone asked whether or not a Geisha was an artist the answer would have been an unequivocal "NO!" for the very reasons AlphaDuck laid out. The idea that something who's primary purpose is to entertain can be considered art is a late 20th century idea. The idea of a "sellout" is an extension of this. How can something being done for money, fame, etc. be considered art?

I don't want to restart this thread. I just thought this might close it up in a good way and bring a little more understanding to what AlphaDuck was saying.

And I do think it is a bit of a shame he was banned. His ideas and points of view fell far away from most on this forum and although he was abrasive his different outlook was a good thing.

I'm not sure that's what Alphaduck was saying at all... but I'll say this in response to what you said.

Whether something is defined as art or not is all about intent of the artist/performer.

We can say Geisha is art in the same way we can say ballet or Karate is.

PS- It was good Alpha was banned. The only perspective he offered was his ignorant one.

His ideas were never fresh or interesting. Furthermore he never presented his ideas as ideas. Rather as absolute truths.