 | | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Because art has a much wider scope than that. Would you say that Picasso's Guernica is not art? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Why not? (...) By whom? (...) What you missed was that I was specifically referring to those "artists" who created the works described by Christopher Lannan: "A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine or a Madonna with feces for (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
My capitalist running dog lackey Frank Filz answered most of this append faster and better than I could. However a few points remain... (...) You can do that if you wish. Coke did, seems to work for them. However if someone else susses it out, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Something which sums up all of this is, and a definition I use, is: "art is expression which communicates at an emotional level". (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Welcome! The more opinions, the better, IMO (...) Ahh. I was an art major in college. (...) Interesting. Although I think that a lot of beautiful things have been created since the end of the abstract expressionists, perhaps the concept of (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Some people are smart enough to realize that they (and their children) can't be hurt by occasional naughty words. But Matthew's comments below apply to mine as well as yours... (...) Chris (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-) (...) ??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere! (...) It would qualify under many people's definition. 1. Art is subjective....check 2. Art is thought (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
Hi all, (...) I spent six years and 30 college credits taking art classes and spent a fair amount of time thinking about this issue. To my mind, some, but possibly not all, of the criteria are: 1. It must be intentional. (a beautiful sunset is not (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) ok, you guys have drawn me in... as an artist and drawing teacher, i do feel somewhat qualified to define some terms here. ;-) my favorite definition of art (which is like trying to define "love", or "god", anyway) comes from my art teacher (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) the (...) be (...) What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not. Would you call child (...) That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might have a whole different definition of what constitutes "child (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
