 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Yes, Van Gogh was such a bad artist. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yes. But it won't be a useful definition. Picasso was not considered art in his time. Van Gogh wasn't. (let alone _good_ art, of course). Now will you argue that a definition of art that changes continually with time can be a useful one? The (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) I don't see how you can support ideas as property at all. Remember that this means that if a person happens to have the exact same idea, independently of the other guy (and this has happened before - see Gutenberg and the others as a canonical (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P (...) have (...) I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Here's my definition of pornography-(in jest, a little) pornography- the word a prude uses to describe media which portrays folks who are having more fun than he is. I guess my point here is that words like "obscene" "pornography" and "decent" (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Possibly. "Makes people think" isn't the sole definition of art, though. (See my earlier post.) Part of the issue is that "what art is good art" (good for people, good for society, good as art for its own sake, whatever) should be seperated (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yikes! We risk lumping The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa in with Larry Flynt's latest offerings if we hide behind the "make people think" shield with no other back-up. Dave! (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) "Pornography!" is a useful label if you're a reactionary who is frightened by art that might make people think. (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) That's pretty good, but I think a real Minimalist would've called it "Cherry on Crap #7" or something similar. 8^) (...) Oh no! You've opened a whole new lithographed soupcan of worms with this one! If the artist has to stand beside the work (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) they (...) is "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", (...) that a (...) jar (...) IMHO (...) to (...) minded (...) OK fasten your seatbelts, this subject is one which is of tantamount importance to me..... This is the brilliant thing about art, what (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Just to put my oar in here, I too oppose the NEA precisely because it is not the place of government to decide what sort of art to foster (which it, having limited funds, must inevitably do). It is sheer hubris for a government drone to think that (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Lindsay: Thanks for some great insights on the topic, in the following quotes and elsewhere: (...) Just to dispel some of my own ignorance here, how "Christian" is the artist in question? And what kind of ties to Catholicism does he have? I mean, my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) to (...) Perhaps there's a miscommunication in progress here; obviously there's no "inherent" definition of art, if only because the term is itself a human construct. However, it is falacious to suggest that, as a construct, art cannot be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Does that really capture the difference between the two? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ You're making unwarranted leaps in your logic. (...) That they're illegal - and rightly so - doesn't prohibit them from being art. BTW, what's your definition of child pornography? Anything with a naked person under (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: NELUG Castle Display at TCS Brainstorm...
|
|
(...) I thought they were the lords of the manor, actually. But it's been a long long time since I saw it, and that show never rises above mindless unmemorable timekiller anyway. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Now, if the NEA is funding the Virgin-Mary-statue thieves in Texas (if they're ever caught!), then I'll have a real problem. ;) But as far as a fund that doesn't cover artistic endeavours, but rather local libraries and other fora, what are (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) <crassness> Incidentally, I had some bird dung on a brick once (don't ask, I left it out overnight in the yard accidentally). Does that make it art? :) </crassness> I'll say the same thing about the "shock art" displays that I said about the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art. (...) Well, one is expressed in writing and the other is expressed in a painting. (...) How about Guernica is a painting that expresses a political statement? -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
