 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Van Gogh *was* bankrolled by his brother Theo. It just took a little time for the market to appreciate Vincent as well;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) The US Constitution and Bill of Rights, coined by the founding fathers, all rights are God given. As in the "rights" of health care, etc., in theory, all are good ideas, in utopia. In reality, there is a difference. What does the market do? (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Many rights are things we as a society make up. (As opposed to being somehow natural or god-given.) That doesn't mean that they're not good ideas! Why isn't it good to say that all people deserve be taken care of when they're sick? (...) Oh (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Oh my, I have not seen this in awhile. Horrid. As an example: Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his Family, including food, clothing, housing and medical (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I am not really interested in how the NEA, NEH, etc. work. I don't think they should be there, period. Any funding to the arts should be through private organizations. Artists have somehow survived and thrived before the advent of socialistic (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) there are nude chidren in brian froud's work. ( the stunning "fairies", "lady cottington's pressed fairie book", good fairies; bad fairies", etc.) anyone who would consider these paintings child pornography is themselves morally decayed. julia (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) ITYM "It's Modern Art". Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Does a photograph of ~ count? (...) How many is "some"? (...) Mona Lisa. Why is she smiling? (...) And of a naked 14 year old? And 13? And 12? And 11? And photographs of ~? Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) A nude _child_. Duh. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Define "people". For any given piece, there will be at least one person who thinks it is art[1]. Jasper [1] The artist is usually the first. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
