Sign In To Proceed 435v5c

Don't have an ? 473g1v

osu! to create your own !
forum

List of mapping drama 5e1y3g

posted
Total Posts
1,382
show more

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

This argument again. Top tier players are forced to their own niche communities as we see with Stepmania because this community tries to appeal to all. This is hindering progression. osu!mania will never see enough maps which push the limits and it will never appeal to top tier players. There needs to be a rule a allowing players who know what they are doing to map higher level stuff while not worrying about anything else.
The higher level maps all fall under "graveyard". You yourself say that ranked status does not matter:

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

No need to rank it. It's just a number after all.
What is your point? Ranked maps require a full spread because that's the first thing new players see when they click on the "Beatmaps" button on the top of the page. If you want to skip making a full spread, that's fine, no one is judging you on that.
Topic Starter

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

What is your point?
I think I kinda made my point in this post. Get people to like your map for what it is. Anything more than that is just pointless bashing at ranking criteria.

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

Get people to like your map for what it is.
Sounds good to me.

:)

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

Blitzfrog wrote: 2a3s

By making it so that people are allowed to make single high diff maps, means that there will be less easy maps available for new comers. And obviously there are more new comers than people who are good at the game.
This argument again. Top tier players are forced to their own niche communities as we see with Stepmania because this community tries to appeal to all. This is hindering progression. osu!mania will never see enough maps which push the limits and it will never appeal to top tier players. There needs to be a rule a allowing players who know what they are doing to map higher level stuff while not worrying about anything else.
If you appeal to new players though, there will be a larger player base. The larger the player base, the more mappers, therefore higher chance of mapping higher level stuff. Also I proposed something for a reason
non mappers arguing about mappers ahahahha

winber1 wrote: 4i6h5j

non mappers arguing about mappers ahahahha
is there a term for both, like inactive but active

idk where the fuck i fit in this world

oh wait, im gay
You mean to tell me somebody actually cares about editor stuff?

Bakari wrote: 5g405f

You mean to tell me somebody actually cares about editor stuff?
My crippling depression tells me yes
We don't need any more diffs for bad players because there are enough already. Thousands. And if we stopped making it a requirement, people would still map them because they are easy to map and mappers naturally map what the community plays. Easy diffs don't fit in with a lot of songs and have to be extremely undermapped, and make mapping and ranking a lot more tedious. So does this idea of 'difficulty spread' in which maps have to cater to every imaginable skill level for unknown reasons. Rather than having a philosophy of "every player deserves to play every song regardless of skill level"' (which is undermined by the fact that when you go over 5 minutes you don't need to do this anymore), having a skill barrier for certain songs might actually encourage people to get better. The game is not sustained by casual players, and making everything easy for casual players is not how you encourage them to play more.
haha i love new mappers they think they asre good lol. they like " omg my map thsio tthe FUCKING best FUCK e shiowaoifAWHOEPawehiop awehiopfhaweiopphioawefhiopawehopiawefhiopawefhioawefhioawefwe"
MAPPING DRAMA NATION NOW ALMOST AT 6K VIEWS

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

We don't need any more diffs for bad players because there are enough already. Thousands. And if we stopped making it a requirement, people would still map them because they are easy to map and mappers naturally map what the community plays. Easy diffs don't fit in with a lot of songs and have to be extremely undermapped, and make mapping and ranking a lot more tedious. So does this idea of 'difficulty spread' in which maps have to cater to every imaginable skill level for unknown reasons. Rather than having a philosophy of "every player deserves to play every song regardless of skill level"' (which is undermined by the fact that when you go over 5 minutes you don't need to do this anymore), having a skill barrier for certain songs might actually encourage people to get better. The game is not sustained by casual players, and making everything easy for casual players is not how you encourage them to play more.


yeah man let me make my fuckign 6* non-marathon diffs and rank them in peace god fuck


the problems tands when that becomes the new norm and then you're left with the only "easy" maps being the ones made on purpose 5-10% of the time, tops, and if you're a new player you have like 5-10% of the choice as you would now


hell maybe some hybrid system of "after 3 minutes of drain time, an Easy/Normal is no longer needed, after 4 minutes, a Normal/Hard is no longer needed" would work but fuck that


nothing will change around here anyway



prove me wrong ephemeral pls i'd love to be proven wrong, as it is fuck mapping, insane amounts of effort for literally next to no benefit other than getting potential fanboi circlejerking
I see lazy people are still crying over not wanting to cater to a wider audience with their maps. People never change.
That's not really a problem. There will always be maps for beginners to play, and these maps will continue to be mapped. We have to take into how easy easy and normals actually are. It would take what, a couple of days for someone who is playing seriously to sur them and move on to hards? I that I basically played easy and normals on Charles's beatmap Liquid, and since then I have pretty much never played easies or normals again. I can confidently say that 90%+ of plays on easies are done by SS farmers and the like, rather than people whose skill level is appropriately matched to those difficulties. So what is the necessity? Is it essential to have every single song available for beginners of a week or two to play? I don't think so.

I'm not saying that there should be a drop in quality in ranked beatmaps. But I don't think enforcing the arbitrary standards of the beatmap spreads make for quality mapsets. I.e, you map is 2 seconds too short, therefore you need to make 2 more difficulties. Or 'omg, your mapset has a gap of 0.2* too high, into the graveyard your mapset goes'. I view maps as something like works of art, and you don't get great works of art by excessive standardisation or forcing an artist to churn out a lot of uninspired work. If a mapper creates an amazing map at a certain star rating, is it a good thing to make him shoehorn in a bunch more difficulties just to get the one map he wants ranked? You can claim that these sort of regulations create higher quality, but the quality you're talking about is more akin to the quality of a factory product, rather than of great and unique creations.

So what I would suggest is have more of a loose fitting set of guidelines regarding difficulty spreads. Because blanket rules like this are rarely a good idea, maps can always be judged on a case-by-case basis. For example, a tv size anime map wouldn't be able to get away without a full spread. But something like the Big Black for example, really doesn't need one.

Garven wrote: 2k1v16

I see lazy people are still crying over not wanting to cater to a wider audience with their maps. People never change.
Cater to a wider audience, also known as dumb down. It's good that certain niches can be filled by certain maps, not everything has to be for everyone.
Well making Easies and Normals isn't even that hard. The only real hard part is rhythm since there's not really that much freedom elsewhere. If you can make a 6 star map you should probably be able to spend an hour making the Easy and Normal too.

I do agree that some songs really suck to make E/N's for because of the severe undermapping required, but I don't really know the solution to that or if there even really has to be one.

Hobbes2 wrote: 28485y

Well making Easies and Normals isn't even that hard. The only real hard part is rhythm since there's not really that much freedom elsewhere. If you can make a 6 star map you should probably be able to spend an hour making the Easy and Normal too.

I do agree that some songs really suck to make E/N's for because of the severe undermapping required, but I don't really know the solution to that or if there even really has to be one.
there doesn't have to be a solution. Undermapping is good for easy maps, actually.

The sort of songs that warrant a 6* difficulty often have more complex rhythms and when you map those in a normal difficulty, new players probably couldn't keep up with that. More complicated rhythms shouldn't be used too much in very easy maps, they should be introduced later after the lew player mastered the very basics of the game. Playing easy and normal difficulties is basically like playing and extended tutorial of the game anyway, until you move on to hard maps.



Mapping drama is always hilarious to see. Looking at some of Shiirn's beatmap-threads, people were fighting over things that were basically a matter of taste. Thinking back, at some point it was like you saw one side scream ''i like red!!'' and the other side screaming ''i like blue!!!'', at the top of their lungs. Good times. Please, more of that!!
Easies and normals are all the same pretty much, players can get the same experience by playing any of them. Play one and you've played them all. And just like I wouldn't like a 6* difficulty being forced on Dango Daikazoku, I don't think it's necessary to force a map that doesn't fit the song at all on more intense songs. It's not the biggest issue about mapping, but still no reason to force people to make easies on every map even if it doesn't fit.

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

The sort of songs that warrant a 6* difficulty often have more complex rhythms and when you map those in a normal difficulty, new players probably couldn't keep up with that. More complicated rhythms shouldn't be used too much in very easy maps, they should be introduced later after the new player mastered the very basics of the game. Playing easy and normal difficulties is basically like playing and extended tutorial of the game anyway, until you move on to hard maps
not everyone plays at the same pace, hence why i like making easy difficulties easier than 1.3* some people aren't going to get good within 9 hours, or 8 days, or 10 weeks, others just have the skill/experience almost right away
there doesn't have to be a solution. Undermapping is good for easy maps, actually.
Yeah, I know, my point was the same as yours; some songs have rhythms that are pretty challlenging to make Easies and Normals out of, and requiring maps to have those diffs can be frustrating. But my personal opinion is that mappers are just gonna have to suck it up and make em.
new maps suck
Topic Starter

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

The sort of songs that warrant a 6* difficulty often have more complex rhythms and when you map those in a normal difficulty, new players probably couldn't keep up with that. More complicated rhythms shouldn't be used too much in very easy maps, they should be introduced later after the lew player mastered the very basics of the game. Playing easy and normal difficulties is basically like playing and extended tutorial of the game anyway, until you move on to hard maps!
The main reason I am against under mapping is it breaks me to see something like this severely under mapped to the point it barely creates that feel the music give off. Energy! Power! Excitement! Being ET as fuck! All that lost when you have slow sliders at AR 5. Create E/N difficulties for reasonable songs like vocals or calming piano songs, not high BPM *core.

Hobbes2 wrote: 28485y

But my personal opinion is that mappers are just gonna have to suck it up and make em.
<insert more bashing at the ranking criteria>

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Easies and normals are all the same pretty much... Play one and you've played them all
*cough* monstrata*cough*

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

We don't need any more diffs for bad players because there are enough already. Thousands. And if we stopped making it a requirement, people would still map them because they are easy to map and mappers naturally map what the community plays. Easy diffs don't fit in with a lot of songs and have to be extremely undermapped, and make mapping and ranking a lot more tedious. So does this idea of 'difficulty spread' in which maps have to cater to every imaginable skill level for unknown reasons. Rather than having a philosophy of "every player deserves to play every song regardless of skill level"' (which is undermined by the fact that when you go over 5 minutes you don't need to do this anymore), having a skill barrier for certain songs might actually encourage people to get better. The game is not sustained by casual players, and making everything easy for casual players is not how you encourage them to play more.
Quality-wise, this is what I expect to read from Off-Topic. Thanks for the good laugh.
why do you have an here

Stefan wrote: 5nd6l

Quality-wise, this is what I expect to read from Off-Topic. Thanks for the good laugh.
He is somewhat right though. I when Talent Shredder came out and one of my goal was ing it, giving me motivation to play.

Only popular stuff need potato difficulties, since the majority of potatoes will only play popular potato songs. For someone who isn't a potato, even hards are manageable if not instantly, but within a few days, but those kinds of players do not care much about potato stuff anyway and potatoes do not really care much about non-potato stuff, such as non-popular, non-potato songs. Potatoes want One Potato Man and Potato Art Online songs, maybe some Potato City and Fainted Potato, so that Normiepotatoes won't complain about all the 2d underage girls we have here.
I understand nothing what you're trying to explain me but potatoes.
he's low-key calling you an incapable potato of a
Ah, thanks for translating.

winber1 wrote: 4i6h5j

he's low-key calling you an incapable potato of a
That is wrong. Stefan is a cool mod, don't bully! how many times have you silenced me though?

On the other hand, I clearly expressed the needs of >very< casual players, that being popular songs and how they do not care much about anything else. For that reason, not all maps need bottom tier difficulties, especially not two of them, as even literal potatoes can play easy difficulties. With these points, I tried to defend B1rd's post. Is everything clear now? I hope I won't be accused of calling Ephemeral a poopy birdie butt this time around. That would be awkward and just not true.
B1rd you're arguing for the sake of arguing

Oh wait that's what mapping drama is supposed to be my bad

N0thingSpecial wrote: 3t6c4t

B1rd you're arguing for the sake of arguing
it's a real honor to meet you sherlock, i loved ur books

N0thingSpecial wrote: 3t6c4t

B1rd you're arguing for the sake of arguing

Oh wait that's what mapping drama is supposed to be my bad
No.

I just try and convey my point about things I have thought for years.

Ephemeral wrote: 4k296t

N0thingSpecial wrote: 3t6c4t

B1rd you're arguing for the sake of arguing
it's a real honor to meet you sherlock, i loved ur books
Dafuq u just say u lil bitch, just because you have your fancy yellow name u think u can talk shit to me, fite me and my katana collection
:^)-type is no match for my impeccable candour

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Garven wrote: 2k1v16

I see lazy people are still crying over not wanting to cater to a wider audience with their maps. People never change.
Cater to a wider audience, also known as dumb down. It's good that certain niches can be filled by certain maps, not everything has to be for everyone.
Adding easier difficulties isn't dumbing down a mapset. Also this is a game, so the ranked section isn't really made for art projects and the ranking criteria was designed around that.

So if you want your mapset to the ranked group, meet the established criteria. If you want to show off your art project, it's fine to leave it in the other map sections. People can still and experience it.
Topic Starter

Garven wrote: 2k1v16

If you want to show off your art project
"art project" is so demeaning compared to "work of art". It's almost offensive
Art is just an analogy. What I'm really talking about is maps that are good for a variety of reasons, not just how 'artistic' they are. What you are doing is making a distinguishment between good mapsets, and mapsets that are 'acceptable' to be ranked. Like I was saying, you seem to prefer mapsets that seem to come off of a factory line. It's not that mappers are being 'lazy', it's the simple fact that resources aren't infinite, and heaping a bunch of unnecessary work that mappers have to do to get their mapset ranked will inevitably reduce the amount of truly good mapsets.

So in the end, you are dumbing down the game by forcing the redistribution of time and effort onto making easy difficulties. You have yet to justify why every single mapset needs to have low difficulties. And I have already at length explained why this is unnecessary. And in my mind, tacking on easy difficulties reduces the appeal of naturally hard songs and mapsets. Yes this is a game, but what games allow you to fight super easy versions of the final boss at stage one? You can play games on easy mode or hard mode, and in osu! there are mods that emulate this by increasing or decreasing difficulty. In games there are easy stages and hard stages, and is osu! there are easy and slow songs, and fast intense songs. Slow songs don't need to be hard, and hard songs don't need to be easy.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be easy maps, or that mappers should be able to get away with ranking a mapset with one or two 6* diffs in a tv-size anime map. I'm saying that hard mapsets should be able to stay hard, and easy ones can stay easy. We don't need to tack on undermapped maps that don't follow the music and aren't very good. Instead, mapsets should be ranked based on their own quality, as judged by humans, rather than following a rigid and uncompromising set of rules that are more detrimental than not.

Also, concerning unranked maps: if we're being real, one of the biggest driving forces for mappers to map is to have their maps get attention and be played. For the most part, they don't get this in the unranked section. It'd be like an artist having to keep their pictures in a dark basement instead of being previewed at an art gallery. And don't get on to me about the loved section, the loved section is more of challenge maps, gimmicky maps etc., rather than maps that deserve to be ranked.

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Art is just an analogy. What I'm really talking about is maps that are good for a variety of reasons, not just how 'artistic' they are. What you are doing is making a distinguishment between good mapsets, and mapsets that are 'acceptable' to be ranked. Like I was saying, You seem to prefer mapsets that seem to come off of a factory line. It's not that mappers are being 'lazy', it's the simple fact that resources aren't infinite, and heaping a bunch of unnecessary work that mappers have to do to get their mapset ranked will inevitably reduce the amount of truly good mapsets.

So in the end, you are dumbing down the game by forcing the redistribution of time and effort onto making easy difficulties. You have yet to justify why every single mapset Needs to have low difficulties. And I have already at length explained why this is unnecessary. And in my mind, tacking on easy difficulties reduces the appeal of naturally hard songs and mapsets. Yes this is a game, but what games allow you to fight super easy versions of the final boss at stage one? You can play games on easy mode or hard mode, and in osu! there are mods that emulate this by increasing or decreasing difficulty. In games there are easy stages and hard stages, and is osu! there are easy and slow songs, and fast intense songs. Slow songs don't need to be hard, and hard songs don't need to be easy.

So, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be easy maps, or that mappers should be able to get away with ranking a mapset with one or two 6* diffs in a tv-size anime map. I'm saying that hard mapsets should be ableTo stay hard, and easy ones can stay easy. We don't need to tack on undermapped maps that don't follow the music and aren't very good. Instead, mapsets should be ranked based on their own quality, as judged by humans, rather than following a rigid and uncompromising set of rules that do more harm than good.

Also, Concerning unranked maps: if we're being real, one of the biggest driving forces for mappers to map is to have their maps get attention and be played. For tHe most part, they don't get this in the unranked section. It'd be like an artIst having to keep their pictures in a dark basement instead of being previewed at an art gaLLery. And don't get on to me about the loved section, the loved section is more of challenge maps, gimmicky maps etc., rather than maps that deserve to be ranked.
This is OT, not Parliament,Flap your wings and just cchhhiiilllll
If you don't have anything of value to say, don't say anything at all. I don't need you commenting every time I say something serious.

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

If you don't have anything of value to say, don't say anything at all. I don't need you commenting every time I say something serious.
Ahh ok

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Yes this is a game, but what games allow you to fight super easy versions of the final boss at stage one?
Virtually every single rhythm game ever.



The full spread emulates other rhythm games to appeal to people coming in from other games.

EDIT: Here's the Challenge chart for comparison.

B1rd if every mapper has your mindset I think we won't have as many great mapsets ranked. The mapper's intention is give the song exposure and give the community their interpretation of a song in the form of circles and sliders, presumably we would want to give our best for rank, so why only map one difficulty that would only fit a certain people at a certain skill level? Why can't we just do it for the song? Why can't we just do it for the community? Like I don't know if you've experienced this, but when I started playing osu! I tried to find an easier map to a song that has only one difficulty, and there was non cause of the marathon thing, and no one bothered to map a hard diff for it, so I had to forget about this one song which I really like, improve as a player then enjoy the song and the map for what it is later. the process itself was satisfying but why can't the process be me finding out this 5 minutes long song has a full spread, and as I improve I get to enjoy and more accurate interpretation of the song?

not trying to justify the current ranking criteria for mapping spread (tagent but seriously song length for ranking as marathon maps should vary with BPM as higher bpm has more objects it's just common sense), but from a perspective of a mapper that actually gives a shit about the community this spread thing wouldn't be an actual problem. I personally think of it like this "I like this song very much and I think the community should enjoy this, I will map this to cater to as much people as possible while staying true to the song"

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

For the most part, they don't get this in the unranked section.
??

Good maps do get attention, see the number of favorites or being in the Loved section
Bad maps do not get attention and stays unknown.


I am unsure where did you pull that off.

Garven wrote: 2k1v16

If you want to show off your art project, it's fine to leave it in the other map sections. People can still and experience it.
So what you're saying is to leave your art projects in another map, like so p/3575250 xD.

But yeah, find the target niche for your art project and just the map to them. They're probably the ones who will give you the praise you want (In short, I bother Garven about my art projects). Ranking rarely gives you much more than a public scoreboard, and an easier way to your map.
are you really creating mapping drama in the thread that's supposed to list out mapping dramas

hello i think you're missing the point

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

If you don't have anything of value to say, don't say anything at all.
If only you practiced what you preach
Topic Starter

Okorin wrote: 351eu

are you really creating mapping drama in the thread that's supposed to list out mapping dramas

hello i think you're missing the point
No,no this is perfect. It's what OT is truly about

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

Okorin wrote: 351eu

are you really creating mapping drama in the thread that's supposed to list out mapping dramas

hello i think you're missing the point
No,no this is perfect. It's what OT is truly about
it's so perfect i even stump people

wait..

alright forgot that ot has no point, carry on
So even QAT browse this sick forum at times
sometimes it's fun to get dirty


also b1rd is fucking nuts, i personally feel having lower diffs is great as a requirement but can get weird when you have to significantly change what the music is doing to cater to a weaker playerbase (but this is a problem mostly unique to the weird-ass shit you occasionally see like neurofunk and breakcore)

Shiirn wrote: 234850

sometimes it's fun to get dirty
Especially with kids ;) ;)
mud fights yeah
Get in the van and I'll show you real fun
report: N0thingSpecial

reason: HES NOTHING SPECIAL
Topic Starter
I am hoping moddingV2 will be interesting enough for me to get on the modding train for a longer time. I did a modding queue before, but I started to care less and less. It's not that it was too much work. Not that it was too time consuming; I could knock off 3 maps of the queue in an hour. It's just that it became to repeatative. It was starting to be a chore. Go into the thread, pick a map, a map, play the map, judge the map, go into editor, fix the map, post the fix on the forums, rinse, and repeat. This is why I accept mod requests by chat only now. At least I can shake it up by talking to people this way, hopefully more than just about modding, and not just receive a kudoso, "thanks", reasons they are not applying my mod, and/or nothing at all.

Also a lot less people are willing to do modding via chat, which takes the load off me, but unfortunately it's far less than I thought.

Anxient wrote: 44g60

report: N0thingSpecial

reason: HES NOTHING SPECIAL
I LITERALLY DIED

Okorin wrote: 351eu

are you really creating mapping drama in the thread that's supposed to list out mapping dramas

hello i think you're missing the point
time to link this thread in the opening post.

Mapping dramaception
not really a follower of osu drama but im surprised this one's not on the list or is it? i that one had like a meteor-like impact back then
Topic Starter
it is now
on topic, close to it

t/475012/start=0

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

on topic, close to it

t/475012/start=0
translation of him being angry over this dq

"waaaa i wanted this rank, oh it got dq'd, fuck you all im quitting, cya next xmas haha"

when it literally is just a simple fix of maybe a difficulty added between hard and normal and the last two diffs are overmapped

i rated that map a 0

ColdTooth wrote: 1g2nr

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

on topic, close to it

t/475012/start=0
translation of him being angry over this dq

"waaaa i wanted this rank, oh it got dq'd, fuck you all im quitting, cya next xmas haha"

when it literally is just a simple fix of maybe a difficulty added between hard and normal and the last two diffs are overmapped

i rated that map a 0
very true

I hate that kind of "mapper" who can't even make a proper diff spread but whines about DQ and pretend that it's not his fault, attentionwhoring every possible "fanboy" to spam *aww poor you hope it gets requalified soon* on their map thread
Topic Starter

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

on topic, close to it

t/475012/start=0
8 difficulties... each 4 minutes long... complaints about spread...

I know we need maps for novices, like said before, but mapping out 32 minutes total and having said to go add another 4 minutes that is between normal and hard would be like beating a that person's legs with a hammer because that person was 2 inches out of single file.

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

on topic, close to it

t/475012/start=0
8 difficulties... each 4 minutes long... complaints about spread...

I know we need maps for novices, like said before, but mapping out 32 minutes total and having said to go add another 4 minutes that is between normal and hard would be like beating a that person's legs with a hammer because that person was 2 inches out of single file.
Tfw you had to run 5000 cus your clothes were sticking out slightly

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

on topic, close to it

t/475012/start=0
8 difficulties... each 4 minutes long... complaints about spread...

I know we need maps for novices, like said before, but mapping out 32 minutes total and having said to go add another 4 minutes that is between normal and hard would be like beating a that person's legs with a hammer because that person was 2 inches out of single file.
They're free to remove at least two difficulties, up to five. We don't need dozen of Expert Difficulties either, where only a small number of s can play them properly. typical mapper shit

Stefan wrote: 5nd6l

They're free to remove at least two difficulties, up to five. We don't need dozen of Expert Difficulties either, where only a small number of s can play them properly. typical mapper shit
The only agreeable statement so far related to the recent link.

Also
effort to make shithard map =/= effort to make evenly distributed map

But
effort to make shithard map < effort to make evenly distributed map

I appreciate one who make ENHIX mapset rather than NHIXXXXXX
this is why we have more drama every year

Which feels soooooooo goooood

Stefan wrote: 5nd6l

Tell me, genius, how does having a lot of extra diffs negatively impact a mapset? Are you worried your precious casual players won't be able to find the easy diffs if there are too many?
I Mr. Color saying that mapsets should only have one map of each difficulty. Typical mod behaviour, they love enforcing completely pointless rules, probably just to be an annoyance.
Topic Starter

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

I appreciate one who make ENHIX mapset rather than NHIXXXXXX
this is why we have more drama every year
Actually I second this motion. I would have not done more diffs than required to avoid the pointless work if I needed to remove a diff or shift the spread around. If I wanted to make a specific diff and rank it, I would need to make a spread up until that diff and be done with it.

Though personally I would care more about the quality of that single diff I want to make than the rest of the mapset, but that's just me.


Uhhh ehhh what I meant to say... it's the mapper's mapset. The mapper wants to cater towards more pro players. So let be it. Jeez, it's not like the extra X diffs make them magically worse, right?
Topic Starter
p/5794052

Was wondering when somebody will attempt to rank plagiarism

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

https://osu-ppy-sh.jeuxcrack.net/forum/p/5794052

Was wondering when somebody will attempt to rank plagiarism
I'm starting to think about quitting from this game again because the community isn't what I thought it was anymore. Everyone isn't being nice to one another, and they're all bashing at each other, either because of "competition" or their rudeness.

There's a reason why I stopped playing back in early 2015, mapping and playing jumped in difficulty, and school hitting me on one end of the perspective wasn't really helping me either. I've been having extreme difficulties trying to rank a map after my last map, which was back in late 2014. Sure, I've had a few gds in between that and today, like Gero's last christmas a few months ago, but I want to try and rank a map myself. Is it maybe I'm not finding the right people or does noone like my mapping style. I don't know this.

But enough of that small rant, this has nothing to do about me.

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

Stefan wrote: 5nd6l

They're free to remove at least two difficulties, up to five. We don't need dozen of Expert Difficulties either, where only a small number of s can play them properly. typical mapper shit
The only agreeable statement so far related to the recent link.

Also
effort to make shithard map =/= effort to make evenly distributed map

But
effort to make shithard map < effort to make evenly distributed map

I appreciate one who make ENHIX mapset rather than NHIXXXXXX
this is why we have more drama every year

Which feels soooooooo goooood
Yeah right here. I third this motion, as it is so fucking annoying to see a normal difficulty at 1.94*, a hard around 3*, an insane around 4.7* and then millions of expert difficulties over 6* that not a lot of people can play. That's cool that people love to map these, but you have to have fucking diversity. And I've been seeing so many shitmaps in the past 2 years that it's starting to make me think more about our community. We can't just forgot quality.

Saturnalize wrote: u3757

ColdTooth wrote: 1g2nr

translation of him being angry over this dq

"waaaa i wanted this rank, oh it got dq'd, fuck you all im quitting, cya next xmas haha"

when it literally is just a simple fix of maybe a difficulty added between hard and normal and the last two diffs are overmapped

i rated that map a 0
very true

I hate that kind of "mapper" who can't even make a proper diff spread but whines about DQ and pretend that it's not his fault, attentionwhoring every possible "fanboy" to spam *aww poor you hope it gets requalified soon* on their map thread
I don't know anything about fanboys because out of 3 maps and a few gds, I have none lol. I just map and play for fun. But yeah, it's like everyone has their favorite mapper, and whenever they see the map dq'd, they're all like "please requalify this! this is the best map!" on every one of their maps. If this is how people rank their maps, then I guess I'm not getting any map ranked in the future.

I went a little too serious in off-topic, but this thread is ok for that.

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

I Mr. Color saying that mapsets should only have one map of each difficulty. Typical mod behaviour, they love enforcing completely pointless rules, probably just to be an annoyance.
Especially because s have impact on the ranking system.
I never said they did. Though there are probably people who do have an impact that are like that. And on the other side, there are probably bad mappers who try and get undeserving mapsets ranked. There is always going to be drama in mapping. And that is probably necessary, as there will always be conflict between the mappers and the QAT, as one side seeks to tighten standards on mapping and the other side seeks to change or loosen them. I am more sympathetic to the mappers' side, as I think there are a lot of restrictions on mapping that are unnecessary and detrimental.

Anyway, about mapping drama: are the memes legit and did Monstrata actually accuse Kroytz of copying his map? Now that would be funny if that were the case.
Guys I think it's time to

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

as one side seeks to tighten standards on mapping and the other side seeks to change or loosen them.
lol what where are you pulling that from
Topic Starter

Blitzfrog wrote: 2a3s

Guys I think it's time to

What? This thread is not a degenerate waste of shit yet. Hold your bullshit.

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Anyway, about mapping drama: are the memes legit and did Monstrata actually accuse Kroytz of copying his map? Now that would be funny if that were the case.
Depends on what your definition of accusation is. Is listing the similarities between two maps an accusation? Or is it the declaration to stop mapping due to the similarity between the two? If neither, then no accusations were made yet iirc.


Something different:

I really want the ranking criteria to allow one map per mapset regardless of difficulty. It will take the strain off spending so much time mapping an entire spread. However people would only map extremes in that case. So implement a system that requires to make a certain number of easy and normal difficulties for every harder difficulty ranked. The harder the difficulty of the map ranked, the more easy/normal difficulties you are required to make. No need to force yourself to map an easy difficulty for a song going at 300 bpm. You can pick a calm piano song instead to fulfill the requirement. This system would also allow to allow individual maps to be ranked into an existing mapset if the metadata matches (same mapper, same song, artist, tags, etc).

But ofc this is so different than what we are used to, mappers will loose their shit and laugh. In fact I believe I suggested it before and got laughed at.

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

Blitzfrog wrote: 2a3s

Guys I think it's time to

What? This thread is not a degenerate waste of shit yet. Hold your bullshit.
But the poster is

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Anyway, about mapping drama: are the memes legit and did Monstrata actually accuse Kroytz of copying his map? Now that would be funny if that were the case.
fortunately
1. it is legit
2. monstrata did

now enjoy your popcorn

(I also happen to "map with 0019's style" stream, now it's time to literally change it...)

on topic, I guess the flaw of the current rule is the openness (is that a word) to new meta while not making another restriction and instead weaken the existing restriction (unless that wiggle, drama ahem).

(shit my grammar)

but that's it. C'est le jeu.

off topic, we should hold an event with the reward of "drama king/queen" banner (the one under profile's profile picture) anually
who cares about mapping drama when you can have OT drama

Endaris wrote: 6j5f7

who cares about mapping drama when you can have OT drama
why not both
Drama on Osu? Now that's what I call-

.

Im sorry that was such a bad joke
Topic Starter
Why can't players enjoy the art in the beatmap? There should be a contest for visualization maps.
centipede
Transform

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

centipede

abraker wrote: 6cx2d

Why can't players enjoy the art in the beatmap? There should be a contest for visualization maps.
visualization often violates gimmick (is it even gimmick when it is unplayable) way too much. After all, the gimmick that aspire want has a criteria which is still fcable (I guess?)

pls don't point out eighto i have no fucking clue on what's happening in love state either.
calling mapping art is a bit like calling a podcast that you really like art.

Sure there might be a lot of effort put into it and it may exhibit some of the features that you can see with traditional works of art, it just doesn't sit right with me.


What traditional works of art have in common is that they were made with the explicit motive to create a work of art: The artist's primary motive was (most of the time) to create art.
The same can not be said about maps.


Seems like art is now a word for everything that people find appealing in one way or another. When you stretch the definition of a word so much that you can apply it to almost anything, it becomes useless. This also applies to phrases like ''the art in the beatmap''.

Maybe this thread is art too?

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

calling mapping art is a bit like calling...
Sometimes dictionary helps...

dictionary wrote: 4uf5d

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
So art is subjective. If you find something beautiful or emotionally moving then it's art.

Which means deez nuts on your chin is art for me

Blitzfrog wrote: 2a3s

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

calling mapping art is a bit like calling...
Sometimes dictionary helps...

dictionary wrote: 4uf5d

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
So art is subjective. If you find something beautiful or emotionally moving then it's art.

Which means deez nuts on your chin is art for me
Sometimes, a dictionary doesn't help because a word can be much more complicated and nuanced than it appears on the surface!


SPOILER
The Definition of Art
First published Tue Oct 23, 2007; substantive revision Tue Oct 9, 2012

The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.

Contemporary definitions are of two main sorts. One distinctively modern, conventionalist, sort of definition focuses on art’s institutional features, emphasizing the way art changes over time, modern works that appear to break radically with all traditional art, and the relational properties of artworks that depend on works’ relations to art history, art genres, etc. The less conventionalist sort of contemporary definition makes use of a broader, more traditional concept of aesthetic properties that includes more than art-relational ones, and focuses on art’s pan-cultural and trans-historical characteristics.

1. Constraints on Definitions of Art
2. Traditional Definitions
3. Skepticism about Definitions
3.1 Some descendants
4. Contemporary Definitions
4.1 Conventionalist Definitions: Institutional and Historical
4.2 Institutional Definitions
4.3 Historical Definitions
4.4 Functional (mainly aesthetic) definitions
5. Conclusion
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries

1. Constraints on Definitions of Art

Any definition of art has to square with the following uncontroversial facts: (i) entities (artifacts or performances) intentionally endowed by their makers with a significant degree of aesthetic interest, often suring that of most everyday objects, exist in virtually every known human culture; (ii) such entities, and traditions devoted to them, might be produced by non-human species, and might exist in other possible worlds; (iii) such entities sometimes have non-aesthetic—ceremonial or religious or propagandistic—functions, and sometimes do not; (iv) traditionally, artworks are intentionally endowed by their makers with properties, usually perceptual, having a significant degree of aesthetic interest, often suring that of most everyday objects; (v) art, so understood, has a complicated history: new genres and art-forms develop, standards of taste evolve, understandings of aesthetic properties and aesthetic experience change; (vi) there are institutions in some but not all cultures which involve a focus on artifacts and performances having a high degree of aesthetic interest and lacking any practical, ceremonial, or religious use; (vii) such institutions sometimes classify entities apparently lacking aesthetic interest with entities having a high degree of aesthetic interest; (viii) many things other than artworks—for example, natural entities (sunsets, landscapes, flowers, shadows), human beings, and abstract entities (theories, proofs) are routinely described as having aesthetic properties.

Of these facts, those having to do with art’s cultural and historical features are emphasized by some definitions of art. Other definitions of art give priority to explaining those facts that reflect art’s universality and continuity with other aesthetic phenomena.

There are also two more general constraints on definitions of art. First, given that accepting that something is inexplicable is generally a philosophical last resort, and granting the importance of extensional adequacy, list-like or enumerative definitions are if possible to be avoided. Enumerative definitions, lacking principles that explain why what is on the list is on the list, don’t, notoriously, apply to definienda that evolve, and provide no clue to the next or general case (Tarski’s definition of truth, for example, is standardly criticized as unenlightening because it rests on a list-like definition of primitive denotation; see Devitt 2001; Davidson 2005). Second, given that most classes outside of mathematics are vague, and that the existence of borderline cases is characteristic of vague classes, definitions that take the class of artworks to have borderline cases are preferable to definitions that don’t (Davies 1991 and 2006; Stecker 2005).

Whether any definition of art does for these facts and satisfy these constraints, or could for these facts and satisfy these constraints, are key questions for the philosophy of art.
2. Traditional Definitions

Traditional definitions, at least as commonly portrayed in contemporary discussions of the definition of art, take artworks to be characterized by a single type of property. The standard candidates are representational properties, expressive properties, and formal properties. So there are representational or mimetic definitions, expressive definitions, and formalist definitions, which hold that artworks are characterized by their possession of, respectively, representational, expressive, and formal properties. It is not difficult to find fault with these simple definitions. For example, possessing representational, expressive, and formal properties cannot be sufficient conditions, since, obviously, instructional manuals are representations, but not typically artworks, human faces and gestures have expressive properties without being works of art, and both natural objects and artifacts produced for the homeliest utilitarian purposes have formal properties but are not artworks.

But the ease of these dismissals serves as a reminder of the fact that traditional definitions of art are not self-contained. Each traditional definition stands in (different) close and complicated relationships to its system’s other complexly interwoven parts—epistemology, ontology, value theory, philosophy of mind, etc. For this reason, it is both difficult and somewhat misleading to extract them and consider them in isolation. Two examples of historically influential definitions of art offered by great philosophers will suffice to illustrate. First, Plato holds in the Republic and elsewhere that the arts are representational, or mimetic (sometimes translated “imitative”). Artworks are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, ordinary physical objects, which in turn are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, what is most real, the non-physical Forms. Grasped perceptually, artworks present only an appearance of an appearance of what is really real. Consequently, artistic experience cannot yield knowledge. Nor do the makers of artworks work from knowledge. Because artworks engage an unstable, lower part of the soul, art should be subservient to moral realities, which, along with truth, are more metaphysically fundamental and hence more humanly important than beauty. Beauty is not, for Plato, the distinctive province of the arts, and in fact his conception of beauty is extremely wide and metaphysical: there is a Form of Beauty, of which we can have non-perceptual knowledge, but it is more closely related to the erotic than to the arts. (See Janaway 1998, and the entry on Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry.) Second, although Kant has a definition of art, he is for systematic reasons far less concerned with it than with aesthetic judgment. Kant defines art as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication” (Kant, Critique of Judgment, Guyer translation, section 44).) The definition, when fully unpacked, has representational, formalist and expressivist elements. Located conceptually in a much broader discussion of aesthetic judgment and teleology, the definition is one relatively small piece of a hugely ambitious philosophical structure that attempts, famously, to for, and work out the relationships between, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious faith. (See the entry on Kant’s Aesthetics and Teleology.) For treatments of influential definitions of art, inseparable from the complex philosophical systems in which they occur, see, for example, the entries on 18th Century German Aesthetics, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Dewey’s Aesthetics.
3. Skepticism about Definitions

Skepticism about the possibility and value of a definition of art has been an important part of the discussion in aesthetics since the 1950s on, and though its influence has subsided, uneasiness about the definitional project persists. (See section 4, below, and also Kivy 1997, and Walton 2007).

A common family of arguments, inspired by Wittgenstein’s famous remarks about games (Wittgenstein 1953), has it that the phenomena of art are, by their nature, too diverse to it of the unification that a satisfactory definition strives for, or that a definition of art, were there to be such a thing, would exert a stifling influence on artistic creativity. One expression of this impulse is Weitz’s Open Concept Argument: any concept is open if a case can be imagined which would call for some sort of decision on our part to extend the use of the concept to cover it, or to close the concept and invent a new one to deal with the new case; all open concepts are indefinable; and there are cases calling for a decision about whether to extend or close the concept of art. Hence art is indefinable (Weitz 1956). Against this it is claimed that change does not, in general, rule out the preservation of identity over time, that decisions about concept-expansion may be principled rather than capricious, and that nothing bars a definition of art from incorporating a novelty requirement.

A second sort of argument, less common today than in the heyday of a certain form of extreme Wittgensteinianism, urges that the concepts that make up the stuff of most definitions of art (expressiveness, form) are embedded in general philosophical theories which incorporate traditional metaphysics and epistemology. But since traditional metaphysics and epistemology are prime instances of language gone on conceptually confused holiday, definitions of art share in the conceptual confusions of traditional philosophy (Tilghman 1984).

A third sort of argument, more historically inflected than the first, takes off from an influential study by the historian of philosophy Paul Kristeller, in which he argued that the modern system of the five major arts [painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music] which underlies all modern aesthetics … is of comparatively recent origin and did not assume definite shape before the eighteenth century, although it had many ingredients which go back to classical, mediaeval, and Renaissance thought. Since that list of five arts is somewhat arbitrary, and since even those five do not share a single common nature, but rather are united, at best, only by several overlapping features, and since the number of art forms has increased since the eighteenth century, Kristeller’s work may be taken to suggest that our concept of art differs from that of the eighteenth century. As a matter of historical fact, there simply is no stable definiendum for a definition of art to capture.

A fourth sort of argument suggests that a definition of art stating individually necessary and tly sufficient conditions for a thing to be an artwork, is likely to be discoverable only if cognitive science makes it plausible to think that humans categorize things in of necessary and sufficient conditions. But, the argument continues, cognitive science actually s the view that the structure of concepts mirrors the way humans categorize things—which is with respect to their similarity to prototypes (or exemplars), and not in of necessary and sufficient conditions. So the quest for a definition of art that states individually necessary and tly sufficient conditions is misguided and not likely to succeed (Dean 2003). Against this it has been urged that psychological theories of concepts like the prototype theory and its relatives can provide at best an of how people in fact classify things, but not an of correct classifications of extra-psychological phenomena, and that, even if relevant, prototype theory and other psychological theories of concepts are at present too controversial to draw substantive philosophical morals from (Rey 1983; Adajian 2005).

A fifth sort of argument concludes that defining art is philosophically unnecessary, on the grounds that the problem of defining art reduces to a pair of easier sorts of problems: the problem of giving an of each individual artform, and the problem of defining what it is to be an artform. That is, given definitions of the individual artforms, and a definition of what it is to be an artform, and given, crucially, that every artwork belongs to some artform, a definition of art falls out: x is a work of art if and only if x is a work in activity P, and P is one of the artforms (Lopes 2008). Every artwork belongs to an artform, on this view, because every artwork either belongs to an existing artwork or else pioneers a new artform. The key claim that every work of art belonging to no extant artform pioneers a new one may be defended on the grounds that any reason to say that a work belonging to no extant artform is an artwork is a reason to say that it pioneers a new artform. In response, it is noted that an activity might be ruled out as an artform on the grounds that no artworks belong to it, and that the question of whether or not a thing belongs to an artform arises only because there is a prior reason for thinking that the thing is an artwork. So determining whether a practice is an artform requires determining that its elements are artworks. Art, therefore, seems conceptually prior to artforms. An of the complex analysandum artform seems to require an analysis of each component—an analysis of what it is to be an artform no less than an analysis of what it is to be an artform (Adajian 2012).

A sixth sort of objection rejects the project of defining art as an unwitting (and confused) expression of a harmful ideology. On this view, the search for a definition of art presupposes, wrongly, that the concept of the aesthetic is a creditable one. But since the concept of the aesthetic necessarily involves the equally bankrupt concept of disinterestedness, its deployment advances the illusion that what is most real about things can and should be grasped or contemplated without attending to the social and economic conditions of their production. Definitions of art, consequently, spuriously confer ontological dignity and respectability on social phenomena that probably in fact call more properly for rigorous social criticism and change. Their real function is ideological, not philosophical (Eagleton 1990).

A seventh argument against defining art, with a normative tinge that is psychologistic rather than sociopolitical, takes the fact that there is no philosophical consensus about the definition of art as reason to hold that no unitary concept of art exists. Concepts of art, like all concepts, after all, should be used for the purpose(s) they best serve. But not all concepts of art serve all purposes equally well. So not all art concepts should be used for the same purposes. Art should be defined only if there is a unitary concept of art that serves all of art’s various purposes—historical, conventional, aesthetic, appreciative, communicative, and so on. So, since there is no purpose-independent use of the concept of art, art should not be defined (Mag Uidhir and Magnus 2011; cf. Meskin 2008). In response, it is noted that an of what makes various concepts of art concepts of art is still required, which leaves open the possibility of important commonalities. The fact (if it is one) that different concepts of art are used for different purposes does not itself imply that they are not connected in systematic, ordered ways. The relation between (say) the historical concept of art and the appreciative concept of art is not an accidental, unsystematic relation, like that between river banks and savings banks, but is something like the relation between Socrates’ healthiness and the healthiness of Socrates’ diet. That is, it is not evident that there exist a multiplicity of art concepts, constituting an unsystematic patchwork. Perhaps there is a single concept of art with different facets that interlock in an ordered way, or else a multiplicity of concepts that constitute a unity because one is at the core, and the others depend on it, but not conversely. (The last is an instance of core-dependent homonymy; see the entry on Aristotle, section on Essentialism and Homonymy.) Multiplicity alone doesn’t entail pluralism.
3.1 Some descendants

Philosophers influenced by the moderate Wittgensteinian strictures discussed above have offered family resemblance s of art, which, as they purport to be non-definitions, may be usefully considered at this point. Two species of family resemblance views will be considered: the resemblance-to-a-paradigm version, and the cluster version.

On the resemblance-to-a-paradigm version, something is, or is identifiable as, an artwork if it resembles, in the right way, certain paradigm artworks, which possess most although not necessarily all of art’s typical features. (The “is identifiable” qualification is intended to make the family resemblance view something more epistemological than a definition, although it is unclear that this really avoids a commitment to constitutive claims about art’s nature.) Against this view: since things do not resemble each other simpliciter, but only in at least one respect or other, the is either far too inclusive, since everything resembles everything else in some respect or other, or, if the variety of resemblance is specified, tantamount to a definition, since resemblance in that respect will be either a necessary or sufficient condition for being an artwork. The family resemblance view raises questions, moreover, about the hip and unity of the class of paradigm artworks. If the lacks an explanation of why some items and not others go on the list of paradigm works, it seems explanatorily deficient. But if it includes a principle that governs hip on the list, or if expertise is required to constitute the list, then the principle, or whatever properties the experts’ judgments track, seem to be doing the philosophical work.

The cluster version of the family resemblance view has been defended by a number of philosophers (Gaut 2000, Dissanayake 1990, Dutton 2006). The view typically provides a list of properties, no one of which is a necessary condition for being a work of art, but which are tly sufficient for being a work of art, and which is such that at least one proper subset thereof is sufficient for being a work of art. Lists offered vary, but overlap considerably. Here is one: (1) possessing positive aesthetic properties; (2) being expressive of emotion; (3) being intellectually challenging; (4) being formally complex and coherent; (5) having the capacity to convey complex meanings; (6) exhibiting an individual point of view; (7) being original; (8) being an artifact or performance which is the product of a high degree of skill; (9) belonging to an established artistic form; (10) being the product of an intention to make a work of art (Gaut 2000). The cluster has been criticized on several grounds. First, given its logical structure, it is in fact equivalent to a long, complicated, but finite, disjunction, which makes it difficult to see why it isn’t a definition (Davies 2006). Second, if the list of properties is incomplete, as some cluster theorists hold, then some justification or principle would be needed for extending it. Third, the inclusion of the ninth property on the list, belonging to an established art form, seems to invite, rather than answer, the definitional question. Finally, it is worth noting that, although cluster theorists stress what they take to be the motley nature of the class of artworks, they tend with surprising regularity to appeal tacitly to a unifying principle that unites the properties they put forward as non-definitional. One cluster theorist, for example, gives a list very similar to the one discussed above (it includes representational properties, expressiveness, creativity, exhibiting a high degree of skill, belonging to an established artform), but omits aesthetic properties on the grounds that it is the combination of the other items on the list which, combined in the experience of the work of art, are precisely the aesthetic qualities of the work (Dutton 2006). Gaut, whose list is cited above, includes aesthetic properties as a separate item on the list, but construes them very narrowly; the difference between these ways of formulating the cluster view appears to be mainly nominal. And an earlier cluster theorist defines artworks as all and only those things that belong to any instantiation of an artform, offers a list of seven properties all of which together are intended to capture the core of what it is to be an artform, though none is either necessary or sufficient, and then claims that having aesthetic value (of the same sort as mountains, sunsets, mathematical theorems) is “what art is for” (Bond 1975).
4. Contemporary Definitions

Definitions of art attempt to make sense of two different sorts of facts: art has important historically contingent cultural features, and it also, arguably, has trans-historical, trans-cultural characteristics that point in the direction of a relatively stable aesthetic core. (Theorists who regard art as an invention of eighteenth-century Europe will, of course, regard this way of putting the matter as tendentious, on the grounds that entities produced outside that culturally distinctive institution do not fall under the extension of “art” and hence are irrelevant to the art-defining project (Shiner 2001). Whether the concept of art is precise enough to justify this much confidence about what falls under its extension claim is unclear.) Conventionalist definitions take art’s cultural features to be explanatorily fundamental, and attempt to capture the phenomena—revolutionary modern art, the traditional close connection of art with the aesthetic, the possibility of autonomous art traditions, etc.—in social/historical . Non-conventionalist or “functionalist” definitions reverse this explanatory order, taking a concept like the aesthetic (or some allied concept like the formal, or the expressive) as basic, and aim to for the phenomena by working that concept harder, perhaps extending it to non-perceptual properties.
4.1 Conventionalist Definitions: Institutional and Historical

Conventionalist definitions deny that art has essential connection to aesthetic properties, or to formal properties, or to expressive properties, or to any type of property taken by traditional definitions to be essential to art. Conventionalist definitions have been strongly influenced by the emergence, in the twentieth century, of artworks that seem to differ radically from all previous artworks. Avante-garde works like Marcel Duchamp’s “ready-mades”—ordinary unaltered objects like snow-shovels (In Advance of the Broken Arm) and bottle-racks—conceptual works like Robert Barry’s All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking—1:36 PM; June 15, 1969, and John Cage’s 4′33″, have seemed to many philosophers to lack or even, somehow, repudiate, the traditional properties of art: intended aesthetic interest, artifactuality, even perceivability. Conventionalist definitions have also been strongly influenced by the work of a number of historically-minded philosophers, who have documented the rise and development of modern ideas of the fine arts, the individual arts, the work of art, and the aesthetic (Kristeller, Shiner, Carroll, Goehr, Kivy).

Conventionalist definitions come in two varieties, institutional and historical. Institutionalist conventionalism, or institutionalism, a synchronic view, typically hold that to be a work of art is to be an artifact of a kind created, by an artist, to be presented to an artworld public (Dickie 1984). Historical conventionalism, a diachronic view, holds that artworks necessarily stand in an art-historical relation to some set of earlier artworks.
4.2 Institutional Definitions

The groundwork for institutional definitions was laid by Arthur Danto, better known to non-philosophers as the long-time influential art critic for the Nation. Danto coined the term “artworld”, by which he meant “an atmosphere of art theory.” Danto’s definition has been glossed as follows: something is a work of art if and only if (i) it has a subject (ii) about which it projects some attitude or point of view (has a style) (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis (usually metaphorical) which ellipsis engages audience participation in filling in what is missing, and (iv) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof require an art historical context (Danto, Carroll). Clause (iv) is what makes the definition institutionalist. The view has been criticized for entailing that art criticism written in a highly rhetorical style is art, lacking but requiring an independent of what makes a context art historical, and for not applying to music.

The most prominent and influential institutionalism is that of George Dickie. Dickie’s institutionalism has evolved over time. According to an early version, a work of art is an artifact upon which some person(s) acting on behalf of the artworld has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation (Dickie 1974). The most recent version consists of an interlocking set of five definitions: (1) An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art. (2) A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public. (3) A public is a set of persons the of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them. (4) The artworld is the totality of all artworld systems. (5) An artworld system is a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an artworld public (Dickie 1984). Both versions have been widely criticized. Philosophers have objected that art created outside any institution seems possible, although the definition rules it out, and that the artworld, like any institution, seems capable of error. It has also been urged that the definition’s obvious circularity is vicious, and that, given the inter-definition of the key concepts (artwork, artworld system, artist, artworld public) it lacks any informative way of distinguishing art institutions systems from other, structurally similar, social institutions (D. Davies 2004, pp. 248–249, mentions the “commerceworld”). Early on, Dickie claimed that anyone who sees herself as a member of the artworld is a member of the artworld: if this is true, then unless there are constraints on the kinds of things the artworld can put forward as artworks or candidate artworks, any entity can be an artwork (though not all are). Finally, Matravers has helpfully distinguished strong and weak institutionalism. Strong institutionalism holds that there is some reason that is always the reason the art institution has for saying that something is a work of art. Weak institutionalism holds that, for every work of art, there is some reason or other that the institution has for saying that it is a work of art (Matravers 2000). Weak institutionalism, in particular, raises questions about art’s unity: if nothing unifies the reasons that the artworld gives for designating entities as artworks, the unity of the class of artworks is vanishingly small.
4.3 Historical Definitions

Historical definitions hold that what characterizes artworks is standing in some specified art-historical relation to some specified earlier artworks, and disavow any commitment to a trans-historical concept of art, or the “artish.” Historical definitions come in several varieties. All of them are, or resemble, inductive definitions: they claim that certain entities belong unconditionally to the class of artworks, while others do so because they stand in the appropriate relations thereto. According to the best known version, Levinson’s intentional-historical definition, an artwork is a thing that has been seriously intended for regard in any way preexisting or prior artworks are or were correctly regarded (Levinson 1990). A second version, historical functionalism says that an item is an artwork at time t, where t is not earlier than the time at which the item is made, if and only if it is in one of the central art forms at t and is made with the intention of fulfilling a function art has at t or it is an artifact that achieves excellence in achieving such a function (Stecker 2005). A third version, historical narrativism, comes in several varieties. On one, a sufficient but not necessary condition for the identification of a candidate as a work of art is the construction of a true historical narrative according to which the candidate was created by an artist in an artistic context with a recognized and live artistic motivation, and as a result of being so created, it resembles at least one acknowledged artwork (Carroll 1993). On another, more ambitious and overtly nominalistic version of historical narrativism, something is an artwork if and only if (1) there are internal historical relations between it and already established artworks; (2) these relations are correctly identified in a narrative; and (3) that narrative is accepted by the relevant experts. The experts do not detect that certain entities are artworks; rather, the fact that the experts assert that certain properties are significant in particular cases is constitutive of art (Stock 2003).

The similarity of these views to institutionalism is obvious, and the criticisms offered parallel those urged against institutionalism. First, historical definitions appear to require, but lack, any informative characterization of art traditions (art functions, artistic contexts, etc.) and hence any way of informatively distinguishing them (and likewise art functions, or artistic predecessors) from non-art traditions (non-art functions, non-artistic predecessors). Correlatively, non-Western art, or alien, autonomous art of any kind appears to pose a problem for historical views: any autonomous art tradition or artworks—terrestrial, extra-terrestrial, or merely possible—causally isolated from our art tradition, is either ruled out by the definition, which seems to be a reductio, or included, which concedes the existence of a supra-historical concept of art. So, too, there could be entities that for adventitious reasons are not correctly identified in historical narratives, although in actual fact they stand in relations to established artworks that make them correctly describable in narratives of the appropriate sort. Historical definitions entail that such entities aren’t artworks, but it seems more plausible to say that they are artworks that are unidentified as such. Second, historical definitions also require, but do not provide a satisfactory, informative of the basis case—the first artworks, or ur-artworks, in the case of the intentional-historical definitions, or the first or central art-forms, in the case of historical functionalism. Third, nominalistic historical definitions seem to face a version of the Euthyphro dilemma. For either such definitions include substantive characterizations of what it is to be an expert, or they don’t. If, on one hand, they include no characterization of what it is to be an expert, and hence no explanation as to why the list of experts contains the people it does, then they imply that what makes things artworks is inexplicable. On the other hand, suppose that the status of experts is substantively grounded, so that to be an expert is to possess some ability lacked by non-experts (taste, say) in virtue of the possession of which they are able to discern historical connections between established artworks and candidate artworks. Then the definition’s claim to be interestingly historical is questionable, because it makes art status a function of whatever ability it is that permits experts to discern the art-making properties.

Defenders of historical definitions have replies. First, as regards autonomous art traditions, it can be held that anything we would recognize as an art tradition or an artistic practice would display aesthetic concerns, because aesthetic concerns have been central from the start, and persisted centrally for thousands of years, in the Western art tradition. Hence it is an historical, not a conceptual truth that anything we recognize as an art practice will centrally involve the aesthetic; it is just that aesthetic concerns that have always dominated our art tradition (Levinson 2002). The idea here is that if the reason that anything we’d take to be a Φ-tradition would have Ψ-concerns is that our Φ-tradition has focused on Ψ-concerns since its inception, then it is not essential to Φ-traditions that they have Ψ-concerns, and Φ is a purely historical concept. But this principle entails, implausibly, that every concept is purely historical. Suppose that we discovered a new civilization whose inhabitants could predict how the physical world works with great precision, on the basis of a substantial body of empirically acquired knowledge that they had accumulated over centuries. The reason we would credit them with having a scientific tradition might well be that our own scientific tradition has since its inception focused on explaining things. It does not seem to follow that science is a purely historical concept with no essential connection to explanatory aims. (Other theorists hold that it is historically necessary that art begins with the aesthetic, but deny that art’s nature is to be defined in of its historical unfolding (Davies 1997).) Second, as to the first artworks, or the central art-forms or functions, some theorists hold that an of them can only take the form of an enumeration. Stecker takes this approach: he says that the of what makes something a central art form at a given time is, at its core, institutional, and that the central artforms can only be listed (Stecker 1997 and 2005). Whether relocating the list at a different, albeit deeper, level in the definition renders the definition sufficiently perspicuous is an open question. Third, as to the Euthyphro-style dilemma, it might be held that the categorial distinction between artworks and “mere real things” (Danto 1981) explains the distinction between experts and non-experts. Experts are able, it is said, to create new categories of art. When created, new categories bring with them new universes of discourse. New universes of discourse in turn make reasons available that otherwise would not be available. Hence, on this view, it is both the case that the experts’ say-so alone suffices to make mere real things into artworks, and also true that experts’ conferrals of art-status have reasons (McFee 2011).
4.4 Functional (mainly aesthetic) definitions

Functional definitions take some function(s) or intended function(s) to be definitive of artworks. Here only aesthetic definitions, which connect art essentially with the aesthetic—aesthetic judgments, experience, or properties—will be considered. Different aesthetic definitions incorporate different views of aesthetic properties and judgments. See the entry on aesthetic judgment.

As noted above, some philosophers lean heavily on a distinction between aesthetic properties and artistic properties, taking the former to be perceptually striking qualities that can be directly perceived in works, without knowledge of their origin and purpose, and the latter to be relational properties that works possess in virtue of their relations to art history, art genres, etc. It is also, of course, possible to hold a less restrictive view of aesthetic properties, on which aesthetic properties need not be perceptual; on this broader view, it is unnecessary to deny that abstracta like mathematical entities and scientific laws possess aesthetic properties.)

Monroe Beardsley’s definition holds that an artwork: “either an arrangement of conditions intended to be capable of affording an experience with marked aesthetic character or (incidentally) an arrangement belonging to a class or type of arrangements that is typically intended to have this capacity” (Beardsley 1982, p. 299). For more on Beardsley, see SEP, Beardsley’s Aesthetics)Beardsley’s conception of aesthetic experience is Deweyan: aesthetic experiences are experiences that are complete, unified, intense experiences of the way things appear to us, and are, moreover, experiences which are controlled by the things experienced (see the entry on Dewey’s aesthetics). Zangwill’s aesthetic definition of art says that something is a work of art if and only if someone had an insight that certain aesthetic properties would be determined by certain nonaesthetic properties, and for this reason the thing was intentionally endowed with the aesthetic properties in virtue of the nonaesthetic properties as envisaged in the insight (Zangwill 1995a,b). Aesthetic properties for Zangwill are those judgments that are the subject of “verdictive aesthetic judgments” (judgements of beauty and ugliness) and “substantive aesthetic judgements” (e.g., of daintiness, elegance, delicacy, etc.). The latter are ways of being beautiful or ugly; aesthetic in virtue of a special close relation to verdictive judgments, which are subjectively universal. Other aesthetic definitions are easily obtained, by grafting on a different of the aesthetic. For example, one might define aesthetic properties as those having an evaluative component, whose perception involves the perception of certain formal base properties, such as shape and color (De Clercq 2002).

Views which combine features of institutional and aesthetic definitions also exist. Iseminger, for example, builds a definition on an of appreciation, on which to appreciate a thing’s being F is to find experiencing its being F to be valuable in itself, and an of aesthetic communication (which it is the function of the artworld to promote) (Iseminger 2004). Another definition that combines features of institutional and aesthetic definitions is David Davies’. Davies adopts Nelson Goodman’s of symbolic functions that are aesthetic (a symbol functions aesthetically when it is syntactically dense, semantically dense, syntactically replete, and characterized by multiple and complex reference, which he takes to clarify the conditions under which a practice of making is a practice of artistic making (Davies 2004; Goodman 1968).

Aesthetic definitions have been criticized for being both too narrow and too broad. They are held to be too narrow because they are unable to cover influential modern works like Duchamp’s ready-mades and conceptual works like Robert Barry’s All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking—1:36 PM; June 15, 1969, which appear to lack aesthetic properties. (Duchamp famously asserted that his urinal, Fountain, was selected for its lack of aesthetic features.) Aesthetic definitions are held to be too broad because beautifully designed automobiles, neatly manicured lawns, and products of commercial design are often created with the intention of being objects of aesthetic appreciation, but are not artworks. Moreover, aesthetic views have been held to have trouble making sense of bad art. (see Dickie 2001, and S. Davies 2006, p. 37) Finally, more radical doubts about aesthetic definitions center on the intelligibility and usefulness of the aesthetic. Beardsley’s view, for example, has been criticized by Dickie, who has also offered influential criticisms of the idea of an aesthetic attitude (Dickie 1965, Cohen 1973, Kivy 1975).

To these criticisms several responses have been offered. First, the less restrictive conception of aesthetic properties mentioned above, on which they may be based on non-perceptual formal properties, can be deployed. On this view, conceptual works would have aesthetic features, much the same way that mathematical entities are often claimed to (Shelley 2003, Carroll 2004). Second, a distinction may be drawn between time-sensitive properties, whose standard observation conditions include an essential reference to temporal location of the observer, and non-time-sensitive properties, which do not. Higher-order aesthetic properties like drama, humor, and irony, which for a significant part of the appeal of Duchamp’s and Cage’s works, on this view, would derive from time-sensitive properties (Zemach 1997). Third, it might be held that it is the creative act of presenting something that is in the relevant sense unfamiliar, into a new context, the artworld, which has aesthetic properties. Or, fourth, it might be held that (Zangwill’s “second-order” strategy) works like ready-mades lack aesthetic functions, but are parasitic upon, because meant to be considered in the context of, works that do have aesthetic functions, and therefore constitute mere borderline cases. Finally, it can be flatly denied that the ready-mades were works of art (Beardsley 1982).

As to the over-inclusiveness of aesthetic definitions, a distinction might be drawn between primary and secondary functions. Or it may be maintained that some cars, lawns, and products of industrial design are on the art/non-art borderline, and so don’t constitute clear and decisive counter-examples. Or, if the claim that aesthetic theories fail to for bad art depends on holding that some works have absolutely no aesthetic value whatsoever, as opposed to some non-zero amount, however infinitesimal, it may be wondered what justifies that assumption.
5. Conclusion

Conventionalist definitions well for modern art, but have difficulty ing for art’s universality—especially the fact that there can be art disconnected from “our” (Western) institutions and traditions, and our species. They also struggle to for the fact that the same aesthetic are routinely applied to artworks, natural objects, humans, and abstracta. Aesthetic definitions do better ing for art’s traditional, universal features, but less well, at least according to their critics, with revolutionary modern art; their further defense requires an of the aesthetic which can be extended in a principled way to conceptual and other radical art. (An aesthetic definition and a conventionalist one could simply be coned. But that would merely raise, without answering, the fundamental question of the unity or disunity of the class of artworks.) Which defect is the more serious one depends on which explananda are the more important. Arguments at this level are hard to come by, because positions are hard to motivate in ways that do not depend on prior conventionalist and functionalist sympathies. If list-like definitions are flawed because uninformative, then so are conventionalist definitions, whether institutional or historical. Of course, if the class of artworks is a mere chaotic heap, lacking any genuine unity, then enumerative definitions cannot be faulted for being uninformative: they do all the explaining that it is possible to do, because they capture all the unity that there is to capture. In that case the worry articulated by one prominent aesthetician, who wrote earlier of the “bloated, unwieldy” concept of art which institutional definitions aim to capture, needs to be taken seriously, even if it turns out to be ungrounded: “It is not at all clear that these words—‘What is art?’—express anything like a single question, to which competing answers are given, or whether philosophers proposing answers are even engaged in the same debate…. The sheer variety of proposed definitions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether there is any sense in which they are attempts to … clarify the same cultural practices, or address the same issue.” (Walton 1977, 2007)
Bibliography

Adajian, Thomas, 2005, “On the Prototype Theory of Concepts and the Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63: 231–236.
–––, 2012, “Defining Art,” in A. Ribeiro (ed.) 2012, pp. 39–56.
Beardsley, Monroe, 1982, The Aesthetic Point of View, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Bond, E. J., 1975, “The Essential Nature of Art.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 12: 177–183.
Carroll, Noel, 1993, “Historical Narratives and the Philosophy of Art”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51(3):313–26.
–––, 2001, Beyond Aesthetics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2004, “Non-Perceptual Aesthetic Properties.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 44: 413–423.
Carroll, Noel (ed.), 2000, Theories of Art Today, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Cohen, Ted, 1973, “Aesthetic/Non-aesthetic and the concept of taste: a critique of Sibley’s position”, Theoria, 39(1–3): 113–152.
Danto, Arthur, 1981, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Davidson, Donald, 2005, Truth and Predication, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davies, David, 2004, Art as Performance, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Davies, Stephen, 1991, Definitions of Art, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1997, “First Art and Art’s Definition,” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 35: 19–34
–––, 2000, “Non-Western Art and Art’s Definition,” in Carroll (ed.), Theories of Art Today, pp. 199–217 .
–––, 2006, The Philosophy of Art, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Davies, Stephen, and Sukla, Ananta, 2003, Art and Essence, Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dean, Jeffery, 2003, “The Nature of Concepts and the Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61: 29–35.
Devitt, Michael, 2001, “The Metaphysics of Truth,” in Michael Lynch (ed.), The Nature of Truth. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 579–611.
DeClerq, Rafael, 2002, “The Concept of an Aesthetic Property,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60: 167–172.
Dickie, George, 1965, “Beardsley’s Phantom Aesthetic Experience”, Journal of Philosophy, 62(5): 129–136.
–––, 1974, Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1984, The Art Circle, New York: Haven.
–––, 2001, Art and Value, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Dissanayake, Ellen, 1990, What is Art For?, Bellingham: University of Washington Press.
Dutton, Denis, 2006, “A Naturalist Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 64: 367–377.
–––, 2008, The Art Instinct, New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Eagleton, Terry, 1990,The Ideology of the Aesthetic, London: Basil Blackwell.
Gaut, Berys, 2000, “The Cluster of Art,” in Carroll 2000, pp. 25–45.
Goehr, Lydia, 1994, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldman, Alan, 1995, Aesthetic Value, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Goodman, Nelson, 1968, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Iseminger, Gary, 2004, The Aesthetic Function of Art, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Janaway, Christopher, 1998, Images of Excellence: Plato’s Critique of the Arts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 2000, Critique of the Power of Judgment, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kivy, Peter, 1975, “What Makes ‘Aesthetic’ Aesthetic?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 36(2): 197–211.
–––, 1997, Philosophies of the Arts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kristeller, Paul, 1951, “The Modern System of the Arts,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 12: 496–527.
Levinson, Jerrold, 1990, Music, Art, and Metaphysics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2002, “The Irreducible Historicality of the Concept of Art”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 42(4): 367–379.
–––, 2005, “What Are Aesthetic Properties?” Proceedings of the Arisotelian Society, 79: 191–210.
Lopes, D.M., 2008,“Nobody Needs a Theory of Art” Journal of Philosophy, 105: 109–127.
McFee, Graham, 2011, Artistic Judgment: A Framework for Philosophical Aesthetics, London: Springer.
Mag Uidhir, C. and Magnus, P. D., 2011, “Art Concept Pluralism” Metaphilosophy, 42: 183–97.
Matravers, Derek, 2000, “The Institutional Theory: A Protean Creature,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 40: 242–250.
Meskin, Aaron, 2008,“From Defining Art to Defining the Individual Arts: The Role of Theory in the Philosophies of Arts” in Stock and Thomson-Jones (eds.), New Waves in Aesthetics, pp. 125–150.
Plato, 1997, Complete Works, John M. Cooper (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
Rey, Georges, 1983, “Concepts and Stereotypes,” Cognition, 15: 237–262.
Ribeiro, Anna Christina (ed.), 2012, Continuum Companion to Aesthetics, London: Continuum.
Shelley, James, 2003, “The Problem of Non-Perceptual Art.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 43: 363–378.
Sibley, Frank, 1959, “Aesthetic Concepts,” Philosophical Review, 74: 135–159.
Shiner, Larry, 2001, The Invention of Art, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 2003, “Western and Non-Western Concepts of Art: Universality and Authenticity” in Davies and Sukla (eds.), Art and Essence, pp. 143–157.
Stecker, Robert, 1997, Artworks: Definition, Meaning, Value, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
–––, 2005, Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Stock, Kathleen, and Thomson-Jones, Katherine, 2008, New Waves in Aesthetics, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tilghman, Benjamin, 1984, But Is It Art?, Oxford: Blackwell.
Walton, Kendall, 1997, “Review of Art and the Aesthetic,” Philosophical Review, 86: 97–101.
–––, 2007, “Aesthetics—What?, Why?, and Wherefore?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65: 147–162.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1953, Philosophical Investigations, G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 1968, Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell.
Weitz, Morris, 1956, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15: 27–35.
Zangwill, Nick, 1995a, “Groundrules in the Philosophy of Art,” Philosophy, 70: 533–544.
–––, 1995b, “The Creative Theory of Art,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 32: 315–332
–––, 2001, The Metaphysics of Beauty, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Zemach, Eddy, 1997, Real Beauty, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
TIL dictionary not correct
, nothing beneficial ever came of arguing semantics.

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

, nothing beneficial ever came of arguing semantics.
language came out of people arguing semantics
How can you argue semantics without language?
Seems like a circular argument.

Dawnsday wrote: 366838

TIL dictionary not correct
i faintly reading the article and writing a sort of summary on this very forum, a couple years ago. My english was slightly more broken back then, so maybe i'll revisit the topic and rewrite the post, because its actually sort of interesting.

i can barely what the article said anymore ..

Endaris wrote: 6j5f7

How can you argue semantics without language?
Seems like a circular argument.
how did people invent language without language? And yet here we are.

:v

gonna sleep gn
by not using it to argue about semantics i suppose.
I mean for simple and basic communication it's pretty good without semantics...

good night
oh wait you were making a serious argument? i'll reply properly tomorrow then if you care to spell it out some more, i was joking around instead of giving a proper reply.

if you like. But seriously not, gn Endaris cya around
wow, what happened while i was gone
railey doesn't jump at opportunities for discussions anymore
maybe the corruption finally kicked in

Endaris wrote: 6j5f7

wow, what happened while i was gone
railey doesn't jump at opportunities for discussions anymore
maybe the corruption finally kicked in
The corruption Ohn dah loose

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

Maybe this thread is art too?

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

Maybe this thread is art too?
Maybe if camera was taking the picture upwards
blitzfrog you filthy
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply 1b384i