 | | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) So what you are saying is that everything is art? Would you call child pornography art? How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- or a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider art. Why is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Art is whatever you can convince people is art. Yeah, I know, a provocative and somewhat cynical statement designed to drive art historians nuts (it helps to be familiar with the French Academie and the Impressionist movement). There isn't a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) This is so weird for me! Now I'll have to start taking those pins out of my Scott Sanburn voodoo doll... 8^) Dave! (whimsical followups to off-topic.fun) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It happens, really! :) (...) Hmmm...I think so. I will have to check on that. (...) That's for sure, but I would rather have the states have any money targeted to arts come their way instead, even to local areas, if possible. (...) Correct. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Scott: Wow! We're agreeing (mostly)! How did that happen? Wasn't part of Guiliani's problem that the state-funded museum was also charging admission? I seem to remember that, but I could easily be wrong. I don't think the NEA should be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote: Dave & All, (...) I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yes. Look them up in a dictionary -- you'll find all sorts of words like "perception", "taste", "regarded". (...) "likely" "considered" "majority of people" "social group" "in this case". (...) Smartness doesn't come into it. Anyway, insulting (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I agree that the term beauty is nebulous, but I wonder if beauty is so subjective as to be *only* in the eyes of the beholder. Is there something (can there be something) that is beautiful outside of what is thought of it? I like to think of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes, in response to my questions: (...) Interesting. Without reducing this debate to equivocation, I'm still concerned that "beauty" is too nebulous a term to use as a benchmark for definitions of obscenity. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I am working on a definition of art that enlightens through beauty. Obscene "art" which tries to offend or elicit certain thoughts I would say is a form of political speech. I am trying to distinguish the two. (...) Exactly. When art is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: NELUG Castle Display at TCS Brainstorm...
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure Al's long lost ancestor was a blacksmith (in the 2-part episode where they go to England and two towns try to kill them to alleviate an ancient curse). Wasn't he? eric (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yikes! Well, I won't flame you because I expect that neither of us is qualified to define "art." However, you've mounted some ad hominem attacks against prospective artists, and, in the end, these can weaken your own credibility and do nothing (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Ah, one of my favorite debate topics - what is art, or more specifically, where is the line between pornography and art? Your examples of "art" IMHO aren't really art, but are (very intentionally) vulgar, obscene attempts to offend particular (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal and others write: (...) One thing that's always bothered me about the dying-on-the-cross thing is the question of how could He have done otherwise? I mean, if He knew, as I suspect He must have known, that His (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lucky Americans
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:3870F1E0.8D1B0D...ger.net... (...) Peh..:-) Slightly less then 1000$ (after tax) per month is just my income, and yes I'm not a blue collar, actually a relatively well earning white..:-) (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but any history account from those times isn't error free. Historians back then were not objective reporters like the press is today.........Okay, I'm back, I just laughed myself silly;-) (...) The Bible is not a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Two words: Turkey Baster. No, seriously, you're right - what might be known as Extremely Heavy Petting has resulted in the occasional (but rather rare) virgin pregnancy. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) A post of yours chastised me for my line lengths, I believe. I chose to respond to one and only one of your chastisements, and it was whim that made me respond to this one rather than that one. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Reading for comprehension isn't your best subject, I see? Neither is proper snipping when replying, apparently. (...) Nice try. I will not be baited this time. Jasper (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Larry's hasn't been wrong yet, but the post I was responding to, John Neal's (URL) , apeared for example the following lines: (...) Which are 90 characters long, slightly over 80. This is as I mentioned a known bug with Communicator -- (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
