[StangGuy]

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

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

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

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

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