tweeks

I agree. the only thing that we can say scientifically is that someone has a specific amount of traits we have associated with the social label 'woman'. These traits are biologically speaking primarily related to reproduction and which role one would be able to fulfill the most effectively. Which does leave room for being able to fulfill both reproductive roles in some way or another.

Our social needs to mark ourselves and others as one of the two is deeply ingrained, but as it's such a grey area under the hood it would make sense to have a more fluid relationship with the topic.

Plus a footrub.. is quite something as a first. I mean, what happened to asking someone out for a drink for starters.

For this exact purpose. To impress your ex? Sounds fair enough.

The hobbits, the hobbits, the hobbits, the hobbits

text without punctuation

Maybe the girl at the party will get jealous.

I wanted to pedantically correct you about the a / an.. but then realised you got me.

Value of art is always in the eye of the beholder. If many people see the value, then it receives that from the public.

I would not say AI generated art has the same value as the Mona Lisa per se, quite the contrary. I'm only declaring both as a form of art.

Yes, in the same way a field of corn on a farm can be seen as art. We do not have full control over how it actually looks in the end, but it's an expression by natural phenomena (sometimes guided or initiated by humans).

You could argue about the amount of free will required to create art. But in that case one could philosophically raise the question if humans even have free will, and if anything may be called art then at all.

I think if something is observed as art, it is by definition art. And perhaps everything that exists and is created could fit that description. But personally one of the more interesting types of art to me are where living beings are involved in the creation, while they're actually thinking of creating art; and I think most discussions are about that concrete level.

I'd say that open for discussion. Even taking a dump can be seen from the perspective of art, although I agree for us humans it's quite far out there.

Perhaps to smallen the gap, think of a dung beetle rolling a ball of poo.

I'm not saying you have to like it or even that it's noteworthy, but art in my opinion as definition can be anything that is created by something. As long as an observer looks at it as if it were art.

You've convinced me, your comment is objectively bad art.

I'd say everything is art, just on different levels to different people. Or nothing is art.